Our wonderful media SURE DON’T KNOW HOW TO REPORT THE NEWS(Please read and forward):
Subject: FRANCE
Once again, the real news in France is conveniently not
being reported as it should.
To give you an idea of what’s going on in that country where there are now between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews, here is an E-mail that came from a Jew
living in France.
Please read! “Will the world say nothing – again – as it did in Hitler’s time?” He writes: “I AM A JEW — therefore I am forwarding this to everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back and do nothing.
Nowhere have the flames of anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France …
1. In Lyon , a car was rammed into a synagogue and set on fire.
2. In Montpellier , the Jewish religious center was firebombed.
3. so were synagogues in Strasbourg and Marseilles ;
4. so was a Jewish school in Creteil – all recently.
5. A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with Molotov cocktails
6. and on the statue of Alfred Dreyfus, in Paris , the words ‘Dirty Jew’ were painted.
7. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars.
8. The bus that takes Jewish children to school in Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.
9. According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past 30 days.
10. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been defaced with slogans proclaiming ‘Jews to the gas chambers’ and ‘Death to the Jews.’
11. A gunman opened fire on a kosher butcher’s shop (and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse, France
12. A Jewish couple in their 20’s were beaten up by five men in Villeurbanne -France (the woman was pregnant).
13. A Jewish school was broken into and vandalized in Sarcelles , France .. This was just in the past week
So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a friend, or merely a person with the capacity and desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do – at least – these three simple things:
First, care enough to stay informed. Don’t ever let yourself become deluded into thinking that this is not your fight.
I remind you of what Pastor Neimollersaid in World War II:
‘First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.’
Second, boycott France and French products. Only the Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and, unlike them, France exports more than just oil and hatred.
So boycott their wines and their perfumes
Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs.
Boycott their movies.
Definitely boycott their shores.
If we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and, whatever else we may know about the French, we most certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a hurricane in the face of well-directed pressure.
Third, send this along to your family, your friends, and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of good conscience that you know and let them know that you – and the people that you care – about need their help.
The number one bestselling book in France is…. ‘September 11: The Frightening Fraud’ which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon!
PLEASE PASS THIS ON. LETS NOT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF! THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIM
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Know Your Military Colonists
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 0 Comments
“Military Colonist” is a term that has gone out of fashion in this brave new world of “No Human Being is Illegal” and “Every Refugee Deserves to be Resettled.”
But if you are going to take land or seize power, you will need military colonists to hold it. The military colonist may be an ex-soldier, but he’s more likely to be someone the empire, present or future, doesn’t particularly need or have a use for. The Czars used serfs. The present day military colonist who shows up at JFK or LAX may also be a peasant with even less value to his culture.
Mexico’s military colonists are not military. Often they aren’t even Mexican. But they have managed to take back California without firing a shot. Unless you count the occasional drive by shooting.
While the United States sent tens of thousands of soldiers to try and hold Iraq and Afghanistan only to fail; Mexico took California with a small army of underpaid handymen who claim entire cities and send back some 20 billion dollars a year. As conquests go, it’s not hard to see who did more with less.
In 2009, 417 Mexican migrants died trying to reach America, and 317 American soldiers died in Afghanistan. But Mexico has more to show for it than America does. Every Mexican who settles across the border is a net gain who sends back money and spreads political influence. Meanwhile America is spending trillions on a much smaller army in a country whose land no one actually wants.
In 2009, the year Obama approved a 30,000 man troop surge, 3,195 Afghans received permanent legal status in the United States.
In the decade since the US invaded Afghanistan, 24,710 Afghans successfully invaded the United States and received permanent legal status. That is an occupying force larger than US troop numbers were at any point in time in Afghanistan until the very end of the George W. Bush’s second term.
During this same period there were also 19,000 Afghan non-immigrant admissions. As invasions go, the Afghan invasion of America was far more successful than the American invasion of Afghanistan.
That is even more true when you consider birth rates. Military colonists are not a mere invading army. They are generational footholds.
The American birth rate was at 13.5. The Afghan birth rate was at 37.3 at the time. American soldiers go home when their time is up. Sometimes they come home with a Muslim wife after converting to marry her. Afghan immigrants come with a birth rate that is nearly three times that of the country they are invading.
Across the ocean, the Algerian War is still going strong and France is losing badly. There are fewer bombs and bullets. Only men and women showing up and expecting to be taken care of. An army of millions could not have landed in France and begun pillaging the countryside. Not unless they came as immigrants. If you are going to invade a Socialist country, the best way to do it is as a charity case.
Unfortunately that holds true for us as well.
The military colonists flooding our shores are part of an unacknowledged partnership between their political leaders and ours. Their political leaders are fighting a war to redress the wrongs of centuries or millennia. Our political leaders are looking to shift the voting balances in a ward or a district for the next election. When they resettle the next shipment of Afghans in an otherwise conservative area with a view to tilting the electoral balance, they are using them as military colonists for the short term while their homelands use them as military colonists in the long term.
War is about controlling land, resources and populations. Land just sits there. It’s the populations that cause the trouble. The military colonist makes a more enduring occupation possible by settling the land and giving the conquering power a deeper foothold in the enemy territory.
There was a time when American settlers acted as military colonists holding down lands in Florida and Texas. Today America is being colonized by the settlers of other nations and ideologies. And we will find ourselves in the same position as the Spanish did in Florida and the Mexicans did in Texas.
Mexico invited American settlers to move in to Texas on the understanding that they would learn Spanish and otherwise fit in. Instead language and culture proved to be stronger than land and oaths of citizenship. Many of the Texas settlers might not have had much use for the United States at the time, but creed and culture made them American military colonists whether they knew it or not. The same holds true for the present state of affairs there today.
It’s more than just cultural or ethnic differences that make one a military colonist. It’s a cause. Whether it’s Manifest Destiny or the Reconquista or the Caliphate. Underlying it all is that sense of destiny. The power of an exceptionalism that makes it impossible for the settler to sink in and abandon his roots and beliefs to the tidal pull of a new culture when his grudge against it is more than the mere personal dissatisfaction of the new immigrant or his children caught between two worlds.
Integration is hopeless in the face of that sense of destiny. European nations struggling to defend some notion of secular space misunderstand the problem as one of extremism. Some of the more visible terror attacks may indeed be associated with what can be described as extremism in the sense that its participants are willing to push the envelope harder and further in more violent ways.
But Islamic terrorism is only the foam on the surface. It’s the bubbles at the edge of the pot. A minor symptom of a much bigger problem. Ir’s simply the most violent expression of a widely shared belief that Islamic law is superior to Western law. Most peoples feel that their ways and customs are best. It doesn’t become a problem until they become the majority and won’t take no for an answer.
American liberalism and European republicanism have no answers to Islamic terrorism. Their embrace of the Arab Spring was motivated by the need to believe that the Muslim world was ready to “advance” to the same postmodern level of existence eliminating the need to worry about women in Burkas or Al Qaeda. The same misreading of the power of tribe and religion that led to the foolish belief that Saudi Arabia’s military colonists could safely be turned into Labour voters led to the Arab Spring’s equally misplaced confidence that the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to be just like Europe.
It isn’t only a tiny minority of extremists who believe that Islamic values are superior to Western values and who would like the law to recognize that assumption. It’s a tiny minority of extremists who try to prove their devoutness by jumping the gun and killing people over it before the full demographic impact of the military colonists would make a Burka ban into the next Syrian Civil War.
Think of two armies maneuvering into position. The extremist is the one who fires before the enemy is fully in range ruining the strategic effect of the surprise attack. Trying to understand the extremist not only misses the point, it misses the whole chain of events in motion. The schemes for integrating the disgruntled youth and countering violent extremism is symptom control.
Terrorism is an early warning in the clash of civilizations and all our leaders can think to do is hold a meeting with the heads of the opposing army asking them to get their hotheads to stop shooting at us because it’s bringing our civilizations into conflict. Our civilizations are in conflict and have been as far back as they have both existed. The occasional plane hijacker is the first snowflake of a winter storm. Instead of preparing for a storm, we’re trying to figure out how to stop snowflakes.
The conflict is primal. It isn’t about American foreign policy or War X or Country Y or Cause Z. These are all “arguments” that explain the conflict once it’s already under way. It’s simpler than that. It’s about the incompatibility of cultures, religions, political and economic systems. And it’s about countries with a lot of oil and not much else trying to buy their way to an empire by using their own impoverished brethren as cannon fodder. And finally it’s about what happens when birth rates fall.
This unsuistainability is both economic and demographic as budgets and children are both lacking. Meanwhile the countries and cultures that have failed have achieved a perfectly sustainable state of misery. They may not have much income, but they also don’t have much to eat. They may have high infant mortality rates, but they have even higher childbirth rates.
America of 2013 cannot go on being this way indefinitely. It probably can’t even manage another two decades without major changes of some kind. Afghanistan 2013 however can go on being the way it is indefinitely. And that sustainability is what makes its people effective military colonists. Living the Afghan lifestyle in London or Los Angeles is even sustainable because food and housing are free.
That just leaves large packs of nomadic youths roaming the streets, selling drugs and rioting at the slightest provocation until it’s time for them to get married and make more nomadic youths of their own. It’s not that different from Afghanistan. It’s the tribal life transplanted to the West. It’s a culture with no real purpose except to produce young males eager to fight and expand tribal power and a religion with no real purpose except to affirm that as a religious duty.
Islam embodies expansionism. Its directives of male violence and female subjugation have no other end. They protect the tribal imperatives of endogamy and violence, of inbreeding and the feud. It has no ideas except to get bigger and that makes its followers into ideal military colonists.
[I said all of this back in 2007/8, both in the books and on the podcasts. This only possible solution from all of this, is secession, and soon, before all of King Barry’s Dreamers spread their terrorism, and their diseases, throughout the continent.]
Iraq jihadists blow up ‘Jonah’s tomb’ in Mosul: official
AFP
20 hours ago
Storyful
Islamic State destroys the Tomb of Jonah
Islamic State destroys the Tomb of Jonah
Storyful (OT)
Storyful (OT)
1
Islamic State destroys the Tomb of Jonah
Islamic State destroys the Tomb of Jonah
Palestinians Seek Refuge in Hospital
The new jihadist rulers of Iraq’s northern city of Mosul on Thursday completely levelled one its most well-known shrines, an official and witnesses told AFP.
Related Stories
Islamic State rounds up ex-Baathists to eliminate potential rivals in Iraq’s Mosul Reuters
[$$] Islamist Insurgents in Northern Iraq Threaten Christians The Wall Street Journal
UN says Iraq jihadists order female genital mutilation, experts doubtful AFP
Islamic State claims wave of Baghdad bombings Reuters
Christians flee jihadist ultimatum in Iraq’s Mosul AFP
The Nabi Yunus shrine was built on the reputed burial site of a prophet known in the Koran as Yunus and in the Bible as Jonah.
“Islamic State completely destroyed the shrine of Nabi Yunus after telling local families to stay away and closing the roads to a distance of 500 metres from the shrine,” said the official at the Sunni endowment, which manages Sunni religious affairs in Iraq.
The endowment official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, and Mosul residents told AFP it took the Sunni extremists an hour to rig the shrine with explosives.
“They first stopped people from praying in it, they fixed explosive charges around and inside it and then blew it up in front of a large gathering of people,” said a witness who did not wish to give his name.
The endowment official said the Islamic State jihadist group that overran large swathes of northern and western Iraq last month have now destroyed or damaged 30 shrines, as well as 15 husseiniyas and mosques in and around Mosul.
View gallery
Al-Qaida-inspired insurgents gaining ground in Ira …
This undated file image posted on a militant website on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2014, which has been verif …
Husseiniyas are Shiite places of worship that are also used as community centres.
The official listed the most notable losses to Muslim heritage as being the shrines of Imam Yahya Ibn al-Qassem, Aoun al-Din and Nabi Danial.
“But the worst destruction was of Nabi Yunus, which has been turned to dust,” he said.
The Islamic State late last month proclaimed a “caliphate” spanning parts of Iraq and Syria.
The group aims to create an approximation of society as it was in the early days of Islam, which was founded in the 7th century, and considers Muslims who do not adhere to its puritanical version of the religion heretics.
[After being elected, Obama said that the United States is a Muslim Country. Chapter 8 verses 12 – 15 are quite clear. Allah tells ALL believers to cut off the heads, hands, and feet of the non-believers. There has been and only is, one Jihad. It is on now, it is everlasting, and will continue to the end of days.
Israel just wants its own little piece of desert. Islam wants to destroy everything and everybody not of their particular sect. Sunni kills Shi’ia kills Wahhabee, kills whoever, and they all kill us.
AWE TV has a 3 part special on Jihad in the US. Its worth the time. OANN is doing ok, but not great.
Secession is the only way that we can get rid of the corrupt bureaucracy, corrupt courts, and corrupt & grossly incompetent congress.
Buy, Read, and Promote, “The Albany Plan Re-Visited.”]
By Bill Hoffmann
Share:
Get Short Link |
Email Article |
Comment |
Contact Us |
Print
| A A
Copy Shortlink
0
inShare
The mainstream media exhibit a disturbing malice for Jews that smacks of anti-Semitism, actor, economist and commentator Ben Stein tells Newsmax TV.
“There’s just a certain amount of Jew hatred in the media, especially in the elite media, that cannot be overcome or explained away,” Stein said Tuesday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”
Urgent: Do You Approve of Obama’s Handling of Foreign Policy? Vote Here
Story continues below video.
Note: Watch Newsmax TV now on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH Ch. 223
Get Newsmax TV on your cable system – Click Here Now
“The media in this country for a very long time has been contemptuous of Jews and contemptuous of Jewish life,” Stein said.
“This was true during the Holocaust, when the media was largely controlled by old, lying, wealthy, white Protestant males, and it’s true now when it’s controlled by mostly left-wingers.”
Stein, a former speechwriter for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and an actor in such films as “Ghostbusters II,” said media defenders try to “pretend it’s not anti-Semitism, it’s really anti-Israel, but it’s really anti-Semitism.”
Just as upsetting is the fact that Jews themselves have key positions in today’s media, he said.
“The media likes to portray Jews as bullies and murderers and . . . it’s kind of amazing to me, because so much of the media is Jewish,” he said.
“Some of that media is very, very good. I mean, I look at people like [The Weekly Standard founder] Bill Kristol, he’s absolutely fabulous. But there’s a deep-seated self-hatred, especially [among] the New York City elite media.
“They want to show they’re not Jewish by being anti-Israel, and it’s not going to work. We know they’re Jewish and we know that they’re not being fair to their own people, but they’ll keep doing it.”
Stein said the media has unfairly slammed Israel for its military strikes against Hamas, which last week fired rockets at key Israeli cities.
“We’re supposed to think there’s something wrong with them for defending their country,” said Stein, who is also a Newsmax contributor.
“Every story about the war in Gaza should begin with ‘Hamas started it, Hamas endlessly refuses to have a ceasefire.’
“Hamas could have an incredibly prosperous and happy, peaceful partnership with Israel, and they don’t, they prefer to fight, they prefer to kill.”
Stein lashed out at Secretary of State John Kerry for his sarcastic off-camera remark about Israel’s military strike against Hamas in Gaza as “a hell of a pinpoint operation.”
“Terrible, shocking, shocking. Kerry is a perfect example of everything we have talked about, because Kerry is Jewish – ethnically,” Stein said.
“Yet he is so eager to push an image as a WASP gentile and to look down his nose on Israel. He is sort of a perfect specimen of the kind of behavior we’re talking about.”
WalMart Pays High Wages, Not Low Wages
Comment Now
Follow Comments
It’s a fairly standard condemnation of the business practices of WalMart that it pays low wages to its associates, what in other companies we tend to call employees. It’s certainly true that WalMart pays low wages by the standards of, say, the computing industry, or the joys of government work. But that’s not actually how we should be measuring whether WalMart’s wages are high or low. The correct method would be, well, what would wages be in retail in the absence of WalMart? And there’s an intriguing little paper that looks at this question. Not exactly, as it’s not looking at WalMart as a specific company, rather it’s looking at the effect of big retail on wages in the retail sector. Given that WalMart is very definitely big retail we can take this paper as being a useful proxy for the effect of the firm. And the result is most interesting:
With malls, franchise strips and big-box retailers increasingly dotting the landscape, there is concern that middle-class jobs in manufacturing in the U.S. are being replaced by minimum wage jobs in retail. Retail jobs have spread, while manufacturing jobs have shrunk in number. In this paper, we characterize the wages that have accompanied the growth in retail. We show that wage rates in the retail sector rise markedly with firm size and with establishment size. These increases are halved when we control for worker fixed effects, suggesting that there is sorting of better workers into larger firms. Also, higher ability workers get promoted to the position of manager, which is associated with higher pay. We conclude that the growth in modern retail, characterized by larger chains of larger establishments with more levels of hierarchy, is raising wage rates relative to traditional mom-and-pop retail stores.
Don’t you think that’s an interesting result? That pay at Big Box and chain retail is higher than it is in the Mom and Pop stores that they largely replace?
Agreed, $8.50 an hour, $10 an hour, whatever it is that WalMart does pay in specific locations and at different levels of training, isn’t all that great an amount of money. However, it’s still rather better than the straight minimum wage that many in the smaller players in the retail industry get. Plus, as the authors not, it’s possible to get promoted inside a large corporation (something which WalMart is very proud of itself, they continually note how many store managers started out as hourly paid associates), to have a career path, which is something not generally available in a small store where there’s the workforce and then the owners as the only level of management.
So the workers appear to be better off as a result of the existence of WalMart. They get higher wages than they would have done in the absence of the company and with the older retail landscape of largely Mom and Pop stores. The Waltons have certainly done well out of the arrangement. And what about the consumers? Well, Jason Furman, currently Obama’s chair of the Council of Economic Advisers has had a look at this:
Productivity is the principal driver of economic progress. It is the only force that can
make everyone better off: workers, consumers, and owners of capital. Wal-Mart has
indisputably made a tremendous contribution to productivity. From its sophisticated inventory
systems to its pricing innovations, Wal-Mart has blazed a path that numerous other retailers are
now following, many of them vigorously competing with Wal-Mart. Today, Wal-Mart is the
largest private employer in the country, the largest grocery store in the country, and the third
largest pharmacy. Eight in ten Americans shop at Wal-Mart.
There is little dispute that Wal-Mart’s price reductions have benefited the 120 million
American workers employed outside of the retail sector. Plausible estimates of the magnitude of
the savings from Wal-Mart are enormous – a total of $263 billion in 2004, or $2,329 per
household.
So consumers benefit, and it is consumption that is supposed to be the starting point of any economic investigation according to M. Bastiat, workers benefit, the owners benefit, it all seems like a remarkably good idea really. Which leaves us with just the one final question. Why is there so much rage directed at the company? Why do we have people actively proposing public policy that would prevent these various good things from happening?
My thanks to Paul Walker for the pointer to the first paper.
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
So take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.
It’s time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin and the Fourth of July has much more to it than picnics, baseball games, and fireworks.
1. For the 2nd time in the last 2 weeks, scientists have measured and recorded the largest amount of Antarctic ice in history. And “yes”, you read correctly, the record has been achieved/broken 2 times in the last 2 weeks!
2. Last year NOAA, one of the “scientific” groups that expounds the “man made climate change” and “CO2” myths, went on record as saying July 2012 was the hottest July on record (if you recall MO was in a drought). This replaced July 1936 as the hottest July on record (July 1936 being smack dab in the middle if the dust bowl). Well over the last 2 weeks NOAA has very “quietly adjusted” the findings and surprise, July 1936 is once again the hottest July on record. Apparently NOAA’s pronouncement in 2013 that July 2012 was the hottest July was based completely on computer modeling and not real data. I gathered from the story that I heard that really the only reason they went back and “re-modeled” the data and “adjusted” the findings is due to a couple of very serious and vigilant watch dog groups. These groups are dedicated to ensuring there is accuracy and transparency w/ respect to the data, findings and stated causation impacts when it comes to the “man made climate change” debate. So they called NOAA out in several articles w/ respect to how they reached their conclusion and NOAA “quietly” “adjusted” the findings.
3. And, again, for those of us who watch “Deadliest Catch”, this is all true as confirmed by the men, and now woman (Mandy Hansen), who fish for crab in The Bering Sea.
U.S. Supreme Court Finds President Obama Lacked the Power to Make Three Recess Appointments to the National Labor Relations Board
This Hot Topic was prepared by the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law, Practice and Procedure Under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) Committee, with the assistance of Brian R. Garrison of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Indianapolis, Indiana, representing employers in labor and employment matters, and Lisa C. Demidovich of United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals in San Dimas, California, representing the Union and its represented employees.
On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided NLRB v. Noel Canning, holding that President Obama lacked the power to make three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Notably, this is the first time the Supreme Court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, Art. II, §2, cl. 3. See Slip Op. at 9.
Background
The NLRB is composed of five members and cannot issue decisions or take other actions in the absence of a valid three-member quorum. Over the course of 2011, President Obama nominated three people–Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin–to serve as members of the NLRB. Their nominations required Senate confirmation and remained pending through 2011. On December 17, 2011, the Senate adopted a resolution stating that it would take a series of brief recesses beginning the following day. Under that resolution, the Senate held pro forma sessions every Tuesday and Friday until it returned for ordinary business on January 23, 2012. During each pro forma session, the Senate would be gaveled to order and then immediately adjourned without conducting any actual business.
The Senate held one such pro forma session on January 3, 2012, which was the same day that NLRB Member Craig Becker’s term expired. This left the NLRB with only two confirmed members–Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and Member Brian Hayes. The next day, President Obama appointed Block, Griffin, and Flynn to the NLRB, using his authority under the Recess Appointments Clause in Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This clause provides that the President has the power “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” The President took the position that the Senate was in “recess” on January 4 within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause, so he had the authority to fill the three NLRB vacancies.
On February 8, 2012, after an administrative trial and an appeal to the NLRB, a three-member panel consisting of Members Hayes, Flynn, and Block found that Noel Canning–a bottler and distributor of Pepsi-Cola products based in Washington State–had violated the NLRA by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective-bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 760. The NLRB ordered Noel Canning to execute the agreement and make employees whole for any loss.
Noel Canning petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the NLRB’s decision. It argued that the NLRB’s order was invalid and unenforceable because the President’s January 4, 2012, appointments were unconstitutional, as they were made during a period when the Senate was not in recess. As a result, Noel Canning submitted that the NLRB did not have a valid quorum of three members when it issued its order. In response, the NLRB argued that the President’s recess appointment power is not so limited as to prevent him from making recess appointments during a recess that is a “break in the Senate’s business when it is otherwise in a continuing session.” Therefore, the NLRB argued that the President’s appointment of the NLRB members was constitutionally valid and the NLRB’s order should be enforced.
The D.C. Circuit’s Decision
On January 25, 2013, a three-member panel of the D.C. Circuit agreed with Noel Canning that the President’s recess appointments were unconstitutional. Writing for the court, Chief Judge David Sentelle found that the appointments fell outside the scope of the Recess Appointments Clause for two reasons. First, the D.C. Circuit unanimously found that the phrase “the Recess of the Senate” does not include “intra-session” recesses–those that occur within a formal session of Congress–and applies only to “inter-session” recesses–those that occur between such sessions when a return date is not set. Therefore, as the Senate was holding pro forma sessions at the time of the President’s January 4, 2012, NLRB appointments, they were not made during an inter-session recess. Second, the D.C. Circuit found, by a 2-1 vote, that the vacancies filled by the President’s recess appointments did not “happen” during “the Recess” as required by the Recess Appointments Clause. As the NLRB vacancies existed at the time the “recess” began and did not arise during the Senate’s recess, the majority concluded that they did not “happen” during the “recess” so could not be filled pursuant to the Recess Appointments Clause. Consequently, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the NLRB lacked a quorum of validly appointed members when it issued its order in the Noel Canning case, so that order was invalid and unenforceable.
Supreme Court Proceedings
On April 25, 2013, the NLRB petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Noel Canning did not oppose certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 24, 2013, and heard oral arguments on January 13, 2014.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
Justice Breyer delivered the Court’s decision unanimously affirming the D.C. Circuit’s decision that the Recess Appointments Clause does not give the President authority to make the three challenged appointments to the NLRB. NLRB v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, Slip Op. at 1 & 41 (U.S. June 26, 2014). The majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, rejected the reasoning of the lower court in its “first time in more than 200 years” call to interpret the Recess Appointments Clause. Id. at 9 & 41. With three of the five NLRB members’ appointments invalidated, the Court found the Board lacked a quorum and set aside its order. Id. at 2-5 & 41. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, filed a concurring opinion.
The Opinion, rich in historical references, recognized that the issue of first impression has been extensively considered by the Executive Branch as “Presidents have made recess appointments since the beginning of the Republic.” Id. at 8.
The first aspect of the Recess Appointments Clause the Court examined was whether it applied to intra-session recesses in addition to undisputed inter-session recesses and concluded–contrary to the D.C. Circuit–that the Clause applies to both kinds of recess so long as the intra-session recess was for more than ten days. Id. at 1 & 9-21. Historically, “Presidents have made thousands of intra-session recess appointments,” likely because “opinions of Presidential legal advisers . . . are nearly unanimous in determining that the Clause authorizes these [intra-session] appointments.” Id. at 12. While all Justices agreed the President may make recess appointments during any break–“no matter how short”–between sessions, compare id. at 19 with Concurrence Slip Op. at 15 n.4, the majority found that an intra-session recess “of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause,” except for “a national catastrophe,” preventing the Senate from reconvening to approve the President’s needed recess appointments to address the emergent situation. Slip Op. at 21.
The Court next examined whether the Clause covered “vacancies that arise prior to a recess but continue to exist during the recess” or whether the power was limited to “vacancies that first come into existence during a recess,” and concluded–again contrary to the D.C. Circuit–that the Clause applies to both kinds of vacancy. Id. at 1-2 & 21-33. Again, relying on history, the Court noted that Presidents, dating back to at least President James Madison and including “every President since James Buchanan,” have made recess appointments to pre-recess vacancies. Id. at 26-29. The Court noted Presidents would not likely abuse this power because of limitations on recess appointments, such as they serve “a limited term” and they may have more difficulty tackling controversial issues without the credibility commensurate with Senate approval. Id. at 25.
The Court’s final consideration was whether pro forma sessions where no business was transacted could be excluded when calculating the length of the recess. It concluded that the pro forma sessions could not be ignored and break up a recess where the Senate “retain[ed] the capacity to transact Senate business,” “received a message from the President,” and actually “passed a bill by unanimous consent during the second pro forma session after its [initial] adjournment.” Slip Op. at 2 & 33-40. Because of the pro forma session every Tuesday and Friday during the recess at issue here, the President’s three NLRB recess appointments occurred during a three-day recess, which is “too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause.” Id. at 2.
The Concurrence
Concurring in “judgment only,” Justice Scalia criticized the majority opinion for “transform[ing] the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates.” Concurring Op. at 2. Instead, Justice Scalia, just as the D.C. Circuit held, would have limited the Recess Appointments Clause to inter-session recesses and to “offices that become vacant during the intermission.” Id. at 1-2. Justice Scalia concludes his opinion by offering alternative speculations of the import of the majority’s opinion: Either the Senate may seek to “avoid triggering the President’s now-vast recess-appointment power by the odd contrivance of never adjourning for more than three days without holding a pro forma session at which it is understood that no business will be conducted” or “[m]embers of the President’s party in Congress may be able to prevent the senate from holding pro forma sessions with the necessary frequency, and if the House and Senate disagree, the President may be able to adjourn both ‘to such Time as he shall think proper.'” Id. at 62 (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, §3).
Implications
Management Perspective
The Noel Canning decision calls into question every official action taken by the NLRB during the terms of its unconstitutionally appointed Members. This means all the NLRB’s actions between January 4, 2012 and August 2, 2013–which includes issuing over 700 decisions and appointing several Regional Directors–are likely invalid. The NLRB now must revisit and reconsider all the invalid decisions that return to it. It is likely that the parties to many of these cases have already complied with the NLRB’s order or otherwise resolved their disputes, which may render the underlying issues moot. For those cases that have not been resolved and return to the NLRB, the NLRB will have to review each of these cases as new decisions and reissue decisions after this review, just as it did after the Supreme Court’s 2010 New Process Steel decision. As happened after New Process Steel, the NLRB will likely reconsider and reaffirm its decision in most, if not all, of these cases. But that may take substantial time, as many of the invalidated decisions were high-profile cases in which the decisions departed from NLRB precedent and had significant implications for employers. They are much different from the decisions invalidated by New Process Steel, which were issued in cases where a two-member NLRB, with one Democratic Member and one Republican Member, could find consensus. So, while it is unclear what will happen in the decisions invalidated by Noel Canning and in current cases the General Counsel’s office is prosecuting based on those decisions, employers are wise to take guidance from them. On the other hand, the likely invalidation of the NLRB’s Regional Director appointments poses a thornier issue, as its consequences may extend beyond the need to merely revisit cases and reissue decisions. Employers may challenge as invalid a variety of decisions made and actions taken by those Regional Directors since their appointments, such as those related to determining the appropriate bargaining unit, ruling on election objections, and certifying election results in union representation cases.
In conclusion, due to the time necessary for the NLRB to revisit the invalid decisions, Noel Canning will likely bog down the NLRB and inhibit its ability to proceed as planned on the other cases and issues currently before it. This means it will likely take some time before the NLRB takes action on two fronts of significant concern for employers: finalizing new rules to expedite representation election procedures and issuing decisions in cases in which the NLRB has invited amicus briefs (such as Purple Communications, Inc., which addresses employees’ right to use an employer’s email system for activity unrelated to the employee’s business purposes, and Browning-Ferris Industries, which addresses the NLRB’s joint employer standard). Due to Noel Canning and the NLRB’s obligation to continue addressing other pending cases, it may not get around to these two significant issues until after December 16, 2014, when Member Nancy Schiffer’s term ends. That would mean that instead of a Democratic majority, the NLRB would have two Democratic and two Republican members. While lawfully able to operate, the lack of Democratic control would mean uncertainty for the cases and issues pending before the NLRB at that time. And depending on the results of the November 2014 elections, a Republican-controlled Senate may significantly limit the President’s ability to make a recess appointment upon Member Schiffer’s departure. At bottom, during the period while the uncertainty caused by Noel Canning is resolved, employers should work closely with labor counsel when making strategic decisions on how to proceed before the NLRB.
Union Perspective
Subsequent events–namely the Senate rules change to allow for the President’s Executive Branch appointments to be confirmed by a Senate majority and the Senate’s confirmation of the NLRB General Counsel and five board members–have circumscribed the continuing impact and scope of the Court’s holding on NLRB decisions. The greatest effect of the Court’s ruling on labor will be the decisions that were decided by former Members Block, Flynn, and Griffin where the unsuccessful party sought review on the basis that their appointments were invalid, but unions are optimistic that the NLRB–having experience with reconsideration after the Court’s 2010 invalidation of the Agency’s delegation of power to a two-member board in New Process Steel v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010)–will handle those pending cases expeditiously and effectively to ensure the NLRA’s purposes are effectuated.
[This is from the ABA LEL section, of which I am a member. Read this carefully, noting the arbitrary 10 rule, and that there are several different opinions involved. Different opinions means that although they all agree on the outcome, they all DISAGREE on WHY. In future rulings, courts and lawyers will point to different opinions, claiming that they were unanimous, which they obviously are NOT. Everyone needs to read this carefully because of the potential impact this case will have in the future. Good outcome, very bad decision making.]
What you don’t know about Social Security—but should
A look at claiming strategies, tax angles and more to help you make sense of a complicated program.
The Wall Street Journal
By Glenn Ruffenach 22 hours ago
Questions
.
View gallery
.
.
Imagine that you’re about to accept a new job, and it’s time to talk salary. You sit down with your boss, who begins as follows:
Related Stories
Social Security closes offices as demand soars Associated Press
Social Security’s continuing assault on its own customer service Los Angeles Times
Social Security: 1 Simple Chart Shows How Working Before 66 Can Affect Your Benefits Motley Fool
Why you shouldn’t trust Social Security’s lowball estimate Forbes
Social Security Closes Offices As More Seniors Need Services The Fiscal Times
“Actually, our payroll system is impossibly complicated. You can pick from dozens of different ways to be paid and hundreds of different start dates, and each will produce a different salary. We offer some guidance, but we’re short-handed. As such, deciding when and how to collect a paycheck is essentially up to you.
“So…what would you like to do?”
Welcome to Social Security.
Each day, thousands of Americans apply for the first time for Social Security benefits. And each day—if questions from our readers and the stories we hear from financial advisers are any indication—many applicants have no idea what they’re getting into. They know little or nothing about the program’s complexity, the myriad ways to collect benefits and the Social Security Administration’s staffing and service problems.
As such, they’re putting their retirement—and, in many cases, their spouses’ future—at risk.
“People spend more time planning a vacation than they do planning for 20 or 30 years of Social Security benefits,” says Barry Kaplan, chief investment officer for Cambridge Wealth Counsel in Atlanta. Those benefits, he notes, are insurance against market downturns, hyperinflation and living longer than you anticipate. But would-be beneficiaries, he says, typically “go into this without a clue.”
If you and/or your spouse are weighing your options about Social Security, here’s a look at some of the biggest issues—involving both the agency and the benefits program—that could shape your retirement for better or worse.
The Social Security Administration isn’t your financial adviser.
A fair amount of the mail we receive from readers with questions or complaints about Social Security goes something like this: “My Social Security office never told me about….” About a particular strategy for claiming benefits. About a little-known rule. About the consequences of starting one’s payouts at a particular point in time.
No, the Social Security Administration isn’t perfect. (More about this in a moment.)
But its primary job is delivering a service, paying 59 million beneficiaries, and not financial planning. The agency provides loads of information about benefits on its website and does its best to answer the public’s questions in its field offices and by telephone. But a comprehensive talk about the nuances of Social Security and your financial future? That’s not going to happen.
Indeed, the Social Security Administration doesn’t know about—and it isn’t the agency’s job to know about—your household budget, your health, your savings, life insurance, plans you might have to work in retirement. In short, all the variables that should go into a decision about filing for benefits, says Mr. Kaplan in Atlanta.
So, the onus is on you to learn about, or find help in deciphering, the basics: how benefits work, claiming strategies, possible pitfalls. And if you’re hellbent, for instance, on grabbing a payout at age 62 (the earliest possible date for most people) and locking yourself—and perhaps your spouse—into a permanent reduction in benefits, the agency isn’t going to stop you.
The Social Security Administration is stretched increasingly thin at the worst possible time.
In March, Carolyn Colvin, the agency’s acting commissioner, didn’t mince words in a report tied to President Barack Obama’s request for additional funding for the Social Security Administration.
“Our service and stewardship efforts [have] deteriorated,” she said. “In fiscal year 2013, the public had to wait longer for a decision on their disability claim, to talk to a representative on our national 800 number, and to schedule an appointment in our field offices.”
View gallery
On Overload
WSJ
The agency, in short, is overextended. In the past three years, it has lost 11,000 employees, or about 12% of its workforce; by 2022, about 60% of its supervisors will be eligible to retire. Meanwhile, budget cuts have resulted in the consolidation of 44 field offices, the closing of 503 contact stations (mobile service facilities) and a delay in plans to open eight hearing offices (where appeals about agency decisions involving retirement and disability benefits are heard) and one call center.
And that 800 number? According to a report in December from the agency’s inspector general, wait times in 2013 exceeded 10 minutes, an increase of more than five minutes from 2012.
The point: The Social Security Administration is grappling with its own problems just as the baby-boom generation, with about 75 million members, is moving full speed into retirement. (The oldest boomers are turning 68 this year.) The demands on the agency mean that you might not be able to find, or find in a timely fashion, the information or help you need. That said…
More services outside Social Security are offering more help.
The Social Security Administration is the first to acknowledge that benefits are complicated. The opening paragraphs of the agency’s “Social Security Handbook,” a guide to the benefits program, state plainly: “The Social Security programs are so complex it is impossible to include information [in the handbook] about every topic.”
Fortunately, a growing number of tools and services—some free, others for a cost—are available to help people navigate these waters.
In recent years, AARP, the Washington-based advocacy group for older Americans, and T. Rowe Price Group Inc., the Baltimore-based mutual-fund company, have introduced sophisticated online calculators that help users determine how and when to claim benefits. Both are free. (The Social Security Administration has several calculators, also free, that can help determine the size of your benefits, but not necessarily when to claim them for maximum effect.)
Among the services that charge a fee: MaximizeMySocialSecurity.com, from Economic Security Planning Inc.; SocialSecurityChoices.com, from SocSec Analytics LLC; and SocialSecuritySolutions.com, all started by academics. Our review of several Social Security tools last fall singled out Social Security Solutions for its ease of use and Maximize My Social Security for its flexibility.
Finally, check out weekly columns at the Public Broadcasting Service website from Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University and the developer of Maximize My Social Security. The articles, published each Monday, address a wide range of issues about Social Security (including numerous “secrets” and “gotchas”) and answer questions about benefits. In short, invaluable reading.
The earnings test deters people from working in retirement—and shouldn’t.
Social Security’s earnings test, in which benefits are reduced if a person is collecting benefits and income at the same time, generates numerous questions and much confusion. But the apparent penalties aren’t what they seem.
If you are under your full retirement age when you first receive Social Security benefits and if you have earned income, $1 in benefits will be deducted for each $2 you earn above an annual limit. In 2014, that limit is $15,480. In the year you reach your full retirement age, the penalty shrinks; after you reach full retirement age, the deductions end completely.
The good news: Money lost to the earnings test isn’t really lost. Once you reach full retirement age, Social Security recalculates—and increases—your future benefits to account for any dollars withheld.
Most beneficiaries, though, aren’t aware of that; as such, they typically “work up to the [annual] limit—and stop,” says Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration.
The earnings test, Mr. Biggs says, “should not be a disincentive to work.” Rather, “think of the test as delaying benefits until later in retirement,” he says. “Over your lifetime, your total benefits will come out the same.”
Spouses, at a minimum, should be aware of three claiming strategies.
Overlooked Social Security Investment Strategies Play Video
Overlooked Social Security Investment Strategies
Couples have a tremendous amount of flexibility in how they can claim benefits.
But the options can quickly become overwhelming, which prompts many spouses to default to the easiest choice: grabbing a payout at age 62.
Before you do that, consider these three claiming strategies. Many couples aren’t aware of these options or don’t think they can benefit from them. Do yourself a favor: Run the numbers. (Fidelity Investments recently did a nice job of explaining these and other claiming strategies.)
Maximize survivor benefits: If you claim benefits before your full retirement age, you could be locking your spouse into a low survivor benefit when you die. The longer you wait to claim, the larger the survivor benefits.
Claim and suspend: Once you reach full retirement age, you can claim your benefit and then suspend it. (In other words, you stop payments before they begin.) This allows for two things: Your spouse, if he or she is 62 or older, can begin collecting spousal benefits from Social Security. (This assumes that the spousal benefit is larger than the spouse’s own retirement benefit. More on this in a moment.) Second, your own benefit, when you eventually claim it, will have increased in size. (Thanks to “delayed retirement credits.”)
Claim a spousal benefit, then later claim your own benefit: At full retirement age—if you are eligible for a spousal benefit and your own retirement benefit—you have the option of claiming just the spousal benefit. At a future point in time, you can then jump to your own benefit, which will have increased in size.
And speaking of spousal benefits…
“Deemed filing” can box you in.
It’s a frequent question: A husband who is already collecting Social Security (or weighing the claim-and-suspend strategy) asks if his wife can take just a spousal benefit at age 62—and then switch to a (presumably larger) benefit based on her earnings record in the future.
The answer: Nope.
If the wife, in this case, applies for benefits before her full retirement age, she is “deemed”—in the eyes of the Social Security Administration—to have filed for both benefits: the benefit based on her work record and a spousal benefit.
She will receive the higher of the two figures, but she will be locked into that reduced benefit going forward. (Reduced because she is claiming benefits before full retirement age.)
Again, as discussed above, if the wife waits until her full retirement age to file for benefits, she would have a choice: She could apply for just a spousal benefit. Then, a few years down the road, she could switch to a payout based on her earnings history.
William Meyer, founder of SocialSecuritySolutions.com, says the “deemed filing” rule trips up innumerable applicants. “We hear about it all the time,” he says.
The lesson is clear and critical: Claim benefits before full retirement age, and your options are limited; claim benefits after full retirement age, and you have more flexibility—and bigger payouts.
Divorced spouses and survivors don’t know what they don’t know.
Ask almost any financial adviser about Social Security slip-ups, and stories about ex-spouses, widows and widowers come tumbling out.
Mr. Kaplan in Atlanta recalls a woman—age 67, divorced and still working—who walked into his office and simply had no idea that she could have been collecting benefits for the previous five years based on her former husband’s earnings.
Prof. Kotlikoff at Boston University tells the story of a friend who had lost his wife and was convinced that he couldn’t claim Social Security checks as a survivor.
“He told me, ‘I made more [money] than she did,’ ” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “And based on that, he thought, incorrectly, that he wasn’t eligible for a survivor benefit. People just don’t know about this stuff.”
The point: Always err on the side of telling Social Security about your family circumstances and/or a change in those circumstances.
“Tell them about ex-spouses, tell them if you’ve lost a spouse, tell them if you have kids,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. (A surviving spouse with children could be eligible for additional benefits.)
“If you don’t tell them, they won’t know. It’s that simple.”
Delaying Social Security doesn’t just result in a bigger benefit; it also can make good tax sense.
You may have heard the advice countless times: Minimize (or avoid) withdrawals from your nest egg (401(k), individual retirement accounts, etc.) for as long as possible to take advantage of tax-deferred growth. Many investors who follow that advice grab Social Security benefits, typically at age 62, to help pay the bills.
But that advice ignores the possible tax benefits associated with following the opposite course: accelerating withdrawals from savings early in retirement so that you can hold off on claiming Social Security.
The thinking here is tied to the fact that Social Security benefits are taxable. As much as 85% of a married couple’s benefits are subject to tax when their income exceeds $44,000 ($34,000 for individuals); as much as 50% of benefits are taxable at lower income levels.
If you delay claiming Social Security and, as a result, end up with larger benefits, future withdrawals from savings will likely be smaller—a recipe for lower levels of taxable income. (For a detailed discussion of these tax issues, see “Innovative Strategies to Help Maximize Social Security Benefits,” from James Mahaney, vice president at Prudential Financial Inc.)
“Many retirees don’t consider the impact of their withdrawal strategy on how their Social Security is taxed,” says Mr. Meyer, the SocialSecuritySolutions.com founder. “Missteps in tapping the wrong account and investments to generate income can significantly increase your taxes.”
Mr. Ruffenach is a reporter and editor in The Wall Street Journal’s Atlanta bureau and the editor of Encore. He can be reached at encore@wsj.com.
[Other things that you should know about SS.
The first thing that you should know about SS is that there is no money in any of the trust funds. LBJ took it out to start Medicare. He replaced it, with congress’ approval, with non-transferable Congressional IOU’s. Literally, they cannot be sold or transferred, and can be defaulted on by a simple act of congress, not requiring bankruptcy. Second, it is not an entitlement, it is a benefit. This means that congress can alter it at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Third, it is a Ponzi Scheme. This means that its income is simply taking from those working and transferring it to those receiving it. It has no basis in any economy. It has no basis in any assets. It has no basis in any commercial venture at all. The value of the payouts is completely dependent upon Federal Reserve Monetary Policies.
It was originally created by Mussolini in the 1930’s as an Italian Socialist Pension Plan. FDR simply copied it over. At the original time of establishment, it was anticipated that those receiving SS would receive it for an average of 2.5 years, and then die.
See the earlier post about no allies in gov’t part 2.
AARP is worthless, go to AMAC if you want value.
And, to my mind, worst of all is that it is 100% unconstitutional. There is no provision in the constitution that allows the federal government to take money from one citizen simply to give it to another. None whatsoever!]
Lt. Col. Stephen Labate
Stephen’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Lt. Col. Labate is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col Allen Weh
Allen’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Col Weh is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States Senate
Congressman Thomas Cotton
Thomas’s Primary: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Cotton is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States Senate
Col Gary Lambert
Gary’s Primary: 11 weeks 4 days from now
Col Lambert is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Kerry Bentivolio
Kerry’s Primary: 6 weeks 4 days from now
Congressman Bentivolio is a combat veteran of the US Army National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Ron DeSantis
Ron’s Primary: 9 weeks 4 days from now
Congressman DeSantis is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Captain Joseph Miller
Joseph’s Primary: 8 weeks 4 days from now
Captain Miller is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States Senate
Congressman Michael Grimm
Michael’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Grimm is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Senator Mark Kirk
Mark’s Primary: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Senator Kirk is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States Senate
Congressman Duncan Hunter
Duncan’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Hunter is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Michael Coffman
Michael’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Coffman is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col Robert Maness
Robert’s Primary: 19 weeks 4 days from now
Col Maness is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States Senate
SSgt David Vogt, III
David’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
SSgt Vogt, III is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col Larry Kaifesh
Larry’s Primary: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Col Kaifesh is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Joe Heck
Joe’s Primary: 1 week 2 days ago
Congressman Heck is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Paul Cook
Paul’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Cook is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Lt. Col. Sean Seibert
Sean’s Primary: 15 weeks 2 days ago
Lt. Col. Seibert is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Brad Wenstrup
Brad’s Primary: 6 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Wenstrup is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Jeffrey Denham
Jeffrey’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Denham is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Colonel David Smith
David’s Primary: 9 weeks 4 days from now
Colonel Smith is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Jim Bridenstine
Jim’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Bridenstine is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman John Kline
Congressman John’s Primary: 7 weeks 4 days from now
Kline is a combat veteran of the US Marine Corps
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Paul Broun
Paul’s Primary: 3 weeks 4 days from now
Congressman Broun is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Adam Kinzinger
Adam ‘s Primary: 13 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Kinzinger is a combat veteran of the US Air National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Chris Gibson
Chris’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Congressman Gibson is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Col James Engstrand
James’s Primary: 15 weeks 2 days ago
Col Engstrand is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Steve Pearce
Steve’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Pearce is a combat veteran of the US Air Force
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Scott Perry
Scott’s Primary: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Perry is a combat veteran of the US Army National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Cdr Ryan Zinke
Ryan’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Cdr Zinke is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Command Master Chief Larry Wilske
Larry’s Primary: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Command Master Chief Wilske is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Lt. Col. Steve Russell
Steve’s Primary: 4 days 15 hours from now
Lt. Col. Russell is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Steve Stivers
Steve’s Primary: 6 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Stivers is a combat veteran of the US Army National Guard
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Congressman Tim Griffin
Tim’s Primary: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Congressman Griffin is a combat veteran of the US Army
He is running for United States House of Representatives
Senator John McCain
John’s Primary: 9 weeks 4 days from now
Senator McCain is a combat veteran of the US Navy
He is running for United States Senate
“That pause before Combat, similar to General Washington on bended knee at Valley Forge”
MISSION STATEMENT
The Combat Veterans For Congress Political Action Committee is dedicated to supporting the election of fiscally conservative Combat Veterans For Congress. We seek Combat Veterans For Congress who believe in limited government, will rein in the out of control spending of Congress, are committed to preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution, and will support the independence and freedom of the individual as outlined in the Bill of Rights. We support Combat Veterans For Congress who are dedicated to promoting The Free Enterprise System creating the greatest economic engine in the history of mankind, provide for a strong national defense, and will endorse the teaching of U.S. history and the Founding Fathers’ core values in educational institutions.
It lacks credibility to believe the Obama administration did not know that prematurely pulling out all US Military personnel from Iraq, before the US Generals in Iraq, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the US Ambassador in Iraq said it was safe to do so, and before the US military were allowed to structure a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Iraq is the only country in US history where the US military had been engaged in a military campaign, where no Status of Forces Agreement was negotiated before all US Military Forces were pulled out of the country. At that time, Iraq was willing to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the Obama administration, but it was an intentional decision by Obama to leave Iraq without negotiating such an agreement, that agreement would have allowed for leaving a small residual force of 10,000 military personnel to continue to train the Iraqi Army and to booster the confidence of Nouri Al Moakley’s government of Iraq.
Recent events reveal why Obama failed to provide a small US military residual force on the ground in Iraq that a Status of Forces Agreement would have provided for—the quick exit from Iraq was Obama’s first step in allowing Iran to have develop a stronger influence over the internal affairs of Iraq. In the below listed article, it is explained that Obama has just effectively improved Iran’s strong influence in Iraq by encouraging Iran to move its Republican Guard Quid Force into Iraq, while for the last week Obama has refused to strike Al Q’ieda’s concentration of forces and the long lines of exposed convoys with US airpower.
The United States should not work with Iran’s military to defend Iraq under any circumstances—-it would be like allowing the fox into the chicken coop to protect the chickens. The US should support the Iraqi government with supplies, ground air control personnel to coordinate air strikes against Al Q’ieda’s forces, by providing US air strikes to take out the Al Q’ieda convoys, provide Spec Ops Forces to conduct certain classified missions, and should encourage the Al Moakley Shiite government to work with the Sunnis that they were working with, when the US was in Iraq, the Sunnis have since been alienated by Al Moakley. If Iraq is taken over by Al Q’ieda the country would be used as a safe haven for attacks on the US like Afghanistan was used to launch the 9/11 on the US. The military stability of the entire Middle East, and stabilizing the cost of a barrel of oil, depends upon the occupant of the Oval Office, who should finally take specific action to shore up the government of Iraq.
The Republic and its American citizens deserve better leadership from the current occupant of the Oval Office. Unfortunately, Obama was too busy golfing and going to multiple fund raising events in California this weekend, while the most serious crisis facing the Republic since 9/11, was unfolding over the weekend. There are 20,000 Americans in Iraq that must be protected; if Obama doesn’t take action to protect them and protect the interests of the United States in the Middle East, it would be a repeat of his “Dereliction of Duty” witnessed by the US Armed Forces when Obama refused to give the US military “Cross Border Authority” so they could dispatch a rescue force to save the lives of the Americans who were murdered by 125 -150 Al Q’ieda terrorist during the Battle of Benghazi.
Advance of Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard stirs fears of Mideast proxy war
AARON KLEIN
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on Salem Talk Radio.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
TEL AVIV – The deployment of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to Iraq came after the Obama administration quietly gave its approval of the Shiite troop movement, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.
The Obama administration pressed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to allow battalions of the Quds Force to aid the Iraqi military in its fight against the Sunni Muslim Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
The Quds Force is special unit of the Revolutionary Guard responsible for international operations.
According to numerous press reports the Iranian forces were dispatched Thursday to fight in Tikrit, which was initially held by the ISIS but was subsequently liberated by the Iraqi army with help from Iran.
The Wall Street Journal reported two Guards’ units were further tasked with protecting Baghdad and the Shiite holy sites in the cities of Karbala and Najaf.
Obama’s actions give clarity to State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki’s statement on June 12 that Iran could play a “constructive” role in Iraq.
“Clearly, we’ve encouraged them in many cases to play a constructive role,” she said. “But I don’t have any other readouts or views from our end to portray here today.”
“The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn’t fall. We need to coordinate with the Iranians and the Turks need to get in the game and get the Sunni Arabs back into the game, form a new government without [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al] Maliki,” Graham added on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The direct military involvement of Iran, however, could trigger larger regional Shiite-Sunni clashes and may even represent the start of a proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Shiite leadership of Tehran.
WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.
The Jordanian regime sources told WND they fear the sectarian violence will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.
ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.
The Jordanian sources explained Obama’s reported initial reluctance to assist in airstrikes in Iraq. The sources claimed striking along the Iraq-Syria border would cut off the supply line to rebels fighting in Syria.
DOD Outlines Authority For Employing Military Force Against American Citizens
Obama, fresh off his Rose Garden triumph to free 5 of the most dangerous “international terrorists” in captivity, announced an effort to re-establish a law-enforcement group to prevent “homegrown terrorism,” according to a report in World Net Daily. The panel apparently will include representatives from the National Security Division of the Justice Department, the US Attorney General’s office, and the FBI. Reuters News Service and The Washington Times reported that the new panel, to be announced this week, will focus on cases “that involve Americans who may be spurred to violence for political or prejudicial reasons.” The Obama administration will employ the US military, DHS, and Special Weapons Para –military Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams that were created in non-security related Federal Agencies against unrest by “domestic groups.”
For 5 years, the Obama administration’s has been taking unusual steps to prepare to employ military force against American Citizens, those plans have been issued in a Pentagon Directive and tested in large scale military urban training exercises (reported over the last few years by alarmed citizens and news media throughout the nation). Pentagon’s Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” has provisions in it to use military force against domestic unrest. The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon Web site at:http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf “This appears to be the latest step in theadministration’s decision to be able to use force within the United States against its citizens on Obama’s orders,” said a defense official opposed to the directive. In a recent New York Times articlehttp://nyti.ms/1ptgjkU it was reported that the Pentagon has developed programs to arm police departments in 38 states with grenade launchers, heavily armored mine resistant vehicles, silencers, flash grenades, 5.56 mm & 7.62 mm machine guns, equipment to detect buried mines, M-16 rifles, night vision goggles, etc.
This latest initiative is designed to prevent “homegrown/domestic terrorism” is continuing the very early efforts by the Obama administration to address their concern about domestic opposition to administration various policies. That very early initiative, began in the first weeks of Obama’s White House tenure, when Obama put conservatives in the bull’s-eye in his campaign speeches to supposedly oppose domestic unrest. At that time a newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warned of the possibility of violence by unnamed “right-wing extremists,” including opponents of abortion. The DHS report was followed days later by a report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center that warned law enforcement officials to watch out for individuals with “radical” ideologies based on Christianity and warned of the threat posed by returning Combat Veterans who were considered a danger to the Obama administration, and initiatives to prevent returning Combat Veterans being treated for PTSD from ever being able to own a firearm, which would be violation of their Second Amendment rights.
The Department of Homeland Security has been building up its armed Federal Police Force at a steady pace for 5 years. DHS has been purchasing many heavily armored vehicles for crowd control, an excessive amount of hollow tipped rounds of ammunition (many more millions of rounds of ammunition than the US Army and the US Marine Corps combined uses annually for training their personnel’s annually).
In the below listed article, in addition to the authority to employ military force against American citizens, concerned defense analysts say there has been a surprising creation and buildup by the Obama administration, of military units within non-security-related Federal Agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams in non-security-related Federal Agencies that have no need for SWAT Teams. Those Federal agencies include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Education Department.
The US Army, the US Army Reserve, the National Guard, and the FBI are fully equipped and qualified to provide security for all those non-security-related agencies in conjunction with local, county, and state law enforcement agencies, if the need arises. The Republican leadership in Congress has been “asleep at the switch” allowing the Obama Administration to create these private armed Para-military Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams to receive salaries, to be funded for their tactical training over the last 5 years, allowing them to buy massive amounts of ammunition, bullet proof vests, helmets, and allowed them to be armed with heavy weapons including machineguns & automatic weapons. Does anyone in Congress really think that the Education Department, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, etc. needs to be armed to the teeth with SWAT Teams?
The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, that is in controls of the Federal Agency purse strings, should have put a stop to the development of those heavily armed Para-military Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams over the past 5 years; some defense officials in Washington have referred to those heavily armed SWAT Teams as the beginnings of a Private Army. Those SWAT Teams should be eliminated by the Republican Leadership of Congress by eliminating the wasteful funding OF the purchase of millions of rounds of ammunition, the SWAT Teams intensive training programs, their bullet proof vests, their purchase of heavy weapons, helmets, SWAT Team uniforms, armored SWAT Team vehicles, and the salaries being paid to those SWAT Teams. Those SWAT Teams appear to have been developed under the direction of Obama’s appointed Czars, without Congressional authority or approval. The below listed article provides additional details.
DOD Directive outlines Obama’s policy to use the military against citizens
sBy Bill Gertz
The Washington Times
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Pentagon’s directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities”
A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counter narcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputation of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
Three of the 36 endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, Capt-USMCR (R-CA-50), Lcdr Kirk W. Jorgensen, USCGR/former Capt-USMC (R-CA-52), and Command Master Chief Larry Wilske, USN (Ret) (SEAL) (R-CA-53) are running for election in 2014 in San Diego County. Two of the above listed Combat Veterans For Congress, Lcdr Jorgensen and CMDCM Wilske are in tough primary contests and we respectfully ask you to cast your vote for them on June 3rd. They will bring to Congress their private sector skills and wisdom to better solve problems in government. They will more effectively represent the people of San Diego County, in order to rein in the out of control spending by irresponsible members of Congress. After they are elected, and go to Washington as freshmen Congressmen, they would benefit greatly from the leadership, experience, and guidance of Congressman Duncan D. Hunter, a dedicated American Patriot who has demonstrated his strong support for The Free Enterprise System.
We encourage you to click on the Leadership page of the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC Web site, so you can view combat photos and bios of Congressman Hunter, Lcdr Jorgensen, and CMDCM Wilske; their positions on issues in support of the Republic agree with the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC Mission Statement. We will continue to support and working with Lcdr Jorgensen and CMDCM Wilske after they are elected to Congress, as we have supported Congressman Hunter. The voters are so very fortunate to have two newly endorsed Combat Veteran For Congress of the caliber of Lcdr Jorgensen and CMDCM Wilske running for Congress in San Diego County.
If you have friends, associates, or relatives who know voters in the 50th, 52nd, and 53rd Congressional Districts in San Diego County, kindly pass this E-mail on to them, and ask them to support Congressman Hunter, Lcdr Jorgensen, and CMDCM Wilske by working in their campaigns, providing financial support in any amount to support their campaigns, and/or by networking with others who would support them in their election campaigns.
The military is one of the few remaining institutions producing the caliber of men and women needed to restore this nation to the greatness our Founding Fathers envisioned. We have endorsed three Combat Veteran For Congress in San Diego County that General George Washington would have approved of. They are courageous Combat Veterans who, at one point in their lives, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount “up to and including their lives.”
In Memory Of Our Fallen Comrades and Loved Ones
It’s that time of year when we publically honor our fallen comrades, then we go back for another year of quiet reflection on our loyal comrades and family members who are no longer with us. We trust that you will enjoy these two uplifting videos on Memorial Day Weekend; the first video is of the US Marine Corps Band with bagpipes, the second video is a bagpipe rendition of Amazing Grace in memory of our fallen comrades.
My thoughts often go back to my Naval Academy classmates like Col John Ripley, USMC, a true American Patriot, and other shipmates who gave their last full measure of devotion, in far off lands, they did so to defend our liberties and freedoms. We will stay true to their selfless service, and will not allow the domestic enemies of our Judeo-Christian heritage to take precious liberties and freedoms from us, freedoms and liberties that our fellow Americans died to preserve for us.
The US Marine Corps Band marching towards the ALAMEDA COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS in PLEASANTON for the annual CALEDONIAN GAMES BAG PIPE regatta.
The second bagpipe rendition can be watched by clicking on the below listed link.
Cong Tom Cotton, Cpt-USA, Esq. on the House Floor Speaking About The Battle Benghazi Cover Up
By clicking on the below listed link, you can view another endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Thomas B. Cotton, Cpt-USA, Esq. (R-AR-4) speak to his House colleagues from the well of the House floor about The Battle of Benghazi cover up. Congressman Cotton was right on the money; he is running for the US Senate in Arkansas.
You can view Congressman Cotton’s photo in combat gear, and read his bio on the Endorsement page our Web site. We encourage yolu to contact all of your contacts in Arkansas to support Congressman Cotton election to the US Senate. Congressman Cotton repeatedly put his life on the line in Iraq to defend the “Liberties and Freedoms” we all enjoy.
Why Should You Support Conservative Combat Veterans For Congress
“Just 86 of 435 members of the House are Veterans, as are only 17 of 100 senators. This is the lowest percentage of Veterans in Congress since World War II. It’s no coincidence that this same period has seen the gradual collapse of our ability to govern ourselves, a loss of control of the national debt, and a disabling partisanship. Because so few serving in politics have worn their country’s uniform, they have collectively forgotten how to put country before party and self-interest. They have forgotten a “cause greater than self”, and they have lost the knowledge of how to make compromises for the good of the country. Without a history of sacrifice and service, they’ve turned politics into war.”
Please click on the below listed link to see what Obama has promised in his ”Fundamental Change” for the America you once knew, followed by what President Ronald W. Reagan has to say to you today about a vision of the big government, deficits, and out of control spending.
To preserve the freedoms in the Republic, the American legal residents of this country, need to go to the polls in large numbers to elect more Conservative Combat Veterans For Congress. All American citizens who want to right the Ship of State should support the campaigns of the endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress to rein in the out of control spending by the irresponsible members of Congress and they will stay true to their sworn oath as members of the US Armed Forces to protect and defend the US Constitution.
Obama’s foreign-policy ‘flexibility’ seen as weakness
The below listed Op-Ed was written by Admiral James A. Lyons, USN (Ret), the former Commander-In-Chief of the Pacific Fleet; he discussed the unilateral disarmament of the US Armed Forces by the occupant of the Oval Office, while Russia, China, Iran, and Al Q’ieda are building up their military strength.
Admiral Lyons discusses how the Obama administration’s 5 year foreign policy retreat resulted in Russia’s aggression in Crimea and Ukraine, China’s aggression opposing Japan ownership of the Senkaku Islands, Iran’s aggression against Israel & its development of nuclear weapons because Obama unilaterally lifted sanctions, Assad’s aggression against Syrian freedom fighters & his use of chemical agents again this past week against Syrian freedom fighters, and Egypt’s shift from its close relationship with the US to the establishment of a new military alliance with Russia.
Obama halted 30 years of longstanding military aid to Egypt, when the pro US Military Junta ousted Moslem Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi was deposed because his supporters were rioting & killing Christians throughout Egypt, and because Egyptian State Security documented for US Intelligence Agency in 2012 that Mohamed Morsi was a co-conspirator in the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi, that resulted in the death of 4 Americans (the Obama administration has withheld the fact the Morsi was a co-conspirator in the attack on the US Mission from the American people for 20 months).
As soon as Obama halted longstanding military aid to the new pro-US military Junta, Putin executed a long term military alliance with Egypt. Russia is now providing Egypt with $2 billion in military aide consisting of MIG 29M/M2 Fulcrum jet fighters, MI-35 helicopters, air defense missiles, coastal anti-ship defensive complexes, light weapons, and supporting ammunition. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are paying Russia for that on-going military aid to Egypt, displacing America’s strongest Arab military ally in the Middle East.
The Black Flag of Al Q’ieda is now flying over territories it has been acquiring in its massive expansion over the last 5 years in Eastern Libya, in Fallujah in Iraq, in large areas of Yemen, in southern Somalia, in areas of Afghanistan, in the tribal region of Pakistan, and Al Q’ieda has been involved in the cocaine trade with FARC terrorists from Columbia, working in the Tri Border area of Argentine/Brazil/Paraguay based in the city of Ciudad del Este. Obama replaced Spec Ops boots on the ground that used to attack and capture Al Q’ieda terrorists for interrogation, with drone strikes from afar that has done nothing to stem the out of control worldwide expansion of Al Q’ieda over the last 5 years. Whenever an Al Q’ieda leader that is taken out by a drone strike, he is simply replaced by another Al Q’ieda leader.
History has taught mankind over the last 2000 years that, “Weakness Encourages Aggression”; President Ronald Reagan understood that well known fact and followed a different course, “Peace Thru Strength.” The current occupant of the Oval Office still doesn’t understand the “Weakness Encourages Aggression” and for the past 5 years he has been intentionally disarming the US Armed Forces and systematically dismantling many of America’s military alliances.
LYONS: Obama’s foreign-policy ‘flexibility’ seen as weakness
U.S. adversaries are watching the timid response in Ukraine
By James A. Lyons
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The administration Kabuki dance we’re witnessing featuring U.S. refusal to provide nonlethal support equipment for Ukraine is President Obama displaying the new “flexibility” he promised Vladimir Putin he would have after his re-election. In short, it is capitulation.
The administration is trying to make the case that by showing restraint, Mr. Obama will encourage Mr. Putin, the Russian president, to be more willing to negotiate. The mind boggles. What’s taking place in Ukraine has far-reaching implications for the United States and our allies in both Europe and the Far East.
The apparent lack of support from NATO’s political leadershiphttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty is clearly tied to its dependence on Russia for more than 30 percent of their energy requirements. This compromised position was accepted based on the assumption that European security after the Cold War could be guaranteed (with reduced defense budgets) by engaging Russia, not confronting it.
This now appears to be a costly error, since it has been known for some time that NATO’s engagement policies have not required Russia’s reciprocity. However, one positive outcome of the current crisis should be an unmistakable wake-up call for NATO, as its credibility is clearly being challenged.
The administration’s rationale for not providing nonlethal equipment, such as night-vision devices, body armor,medical kits, uniforms, boots and military socks to the “victim” is that it could be perceived by Russia as “destabilizing” and as a “force-multiplier,” and, therefore, too provocative. This is nonsense. Russia has deployed 40,000 fully equipped, modernized troops backed up by tanks, aircraft and helicopters, plus paid KGB goon squads that are creating havoc in Eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Obama responds by debating whether to provide what amounts to humanitarian aid because he doesn’t want to encourage Ukraine’s leadership to take more aggressive action to protect its sovereignty. With this type of convoluted thinking, we’d better hope that this administration and its national security team never gets us into a war that requires real leadership.
What is behind such thinking? Is Mr. Obama concerned that Mr. Putin will somehow scuttle his precious P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Great Britain and France — plus Germany) negotiations with Iran over its nuclear-weapons program? We can only hope that Mr. Putin would take such an action, as those negotiations are nothing but a sham. According to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in about two weeks, once the order is given.
Symptomatic of the Ukraine crisis, no matter where you look, the United States is seen as being in retreat. The stability that America brought to the global strategic equation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama administration, principally by the unilateral disarmament of our military forces.
The Ukraine situation is far from being resolved. China is flexing its military muscle in the Far East. The Middle East remains in chaos. Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability is almost a certainty. With the unpredictability of North Korea, why would the Obama administration at this time make the shocking announcement of deep cuts to the U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of the 2010 New START treaty schedule?
Our most secure deterrent, our strategic ballistic-missile submarines, will be reduced by 28 percent by having the capability of 56 launch strikes disabled. Thirty B-52 strategic bombers will be converted to conventional use, which represents a 38 percent reduction in capability, and 50 missiles will be removed from our underground silos, which is the most vulnerable leg of the triad.
With every nuclear power in the world modernizing its strategic forces, particularly Russia and China, plus the known fact that Russia has been cheating on existing treaties, making such a dramatic force-reduction announcement now is more than troubling.
The Obama administration is taking the United States down a course that will put us in an absolute nuclear inferiority position with regard to Russia and perhaps China. It is jeopardizing our national security.
With the United States’ strategic policy adrift, Mr. Putin is controlling events in the Ukraine. With basically no opposition, he will certainly seek more opportunities. In the Far East, we can anticipate that China, seeing our basic inability to respond to the Ukraine crisis, will seize the opportunity to absorb some low-hanging fruit in the South China Sea, most likely contested Philippine islands.
What will it take to make Congress exercise its constitutional responsibilities and maintain its legitimacy by acting in the best interest of the United States? We are being challenged, and we cannot afford to continue to embrace a fantasy foreign policy.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Kit Daniels: Sen. Harry Reid Was Behind BLM Land Grab of The Bundy Ranch
The below listed article with the links will enlighten you about how a corrupt Senator Reid was behind the land grab of the Bundy Ranch. It turns out that Neil Kornze who was raised in Elko, Nevada, and was a former senior advisor on Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid’s staff, joined the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2011 and had been leading the agency as the Principal Deputy Director; he was subsequently formally appointed Director of the Bureau of Land Management, by a US Senate vote of 71 to 28. The BLM overseas more than 245 million acres of public lands nationwide, including 48 million acres in Nevada. So why did Senator Reid’s aide who owed his appointment to his old boss go after Cliven Bundy’s cattle ranch that had been in the Bundy family since 1870?
It turns out that in 2012, Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid who is lawyer with the prominent Harvey Whittemore law firm in Las Vegas, became the chief representative for a Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group. Journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters reported that Senator Reid was heavily involved in a “DEAL,” as well as his oldest son Rory Reid who works for Harvey Whittemore. Rory and his father were both involved in an effort to get the Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion utility scale solar energy facility and panel manufacturing plant in the Nevada desert (instead of helping a US energy company benefit from such a development, Harry Reid imported Communists to do own land in Nevada and develop a utility scale solar energy plant). Marcus Stern wrote that that Senator Reid has been the most prominent advocate of recruiting the Communist Chinese Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group on his trip to Communist China in 2011; it was the same time frame when Senator Reid placed his senior senate advisor, Neil Kornze, in the BLM as the Principal Deputy Director. Marcus Stern reported that Harry Reid applied his political muscle on behalf of developing the Chinese Communist project in Nevada. Then in 2012, Rory Reid facilitated the Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group in developing plans to build the $5 billion solar plant on public land in Nevada by helping the ENN Energy Group locate a 9000 acre desert site that it planned to buy well below the going market value of land sold by Clark County; you see Rory Reid was formerly Chairman of the Clark County Commission and facilitated the deal.
Unfortunately the problem with the area was that the 908 head of cattle in the herd on 67 year old Cliven Bundy’s family Bundy Ranch roamed and grazed free as they had been doing since the 1870, their grazing on open range would interfere with the Chinese Communist Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group’s solar field. So Rory Reid, working with Neil Kornze, trumped up the bogus charge that the grazing cattle were destroying an endangered species, the desert tortoise. The desert tortoise were proliferating (they were not in danger), despite the fact that the cattle from the Bundy Ranch had been grazing in their habitant for over 140 years, in fact the Interior Department had implemented euthanasia of the desert tortoise to keep the population from getting out of control. The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy Ranch and family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise which the Interior Department had been killing in mass for some time. Journalist Dana Loesch wrote “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when US Senator Harry Reid worked with the BLM and his former senior aide, Neil Kornze, who was now in charge of the BLM when they were literally changing the boundaries of the tortoise habitat to accommodate the development plans of the Communist Chinese Energy Giant, ENN Energy Group and the second most powerful man in Nevada, after Senator Reid, Harvey Whittemore,” who just happened to be the employer for Rory Reid’s and Rory’s three brothers (Harry Reid’s four sons).
Unfortunately the left of center liberal media establishment spun the story so Americans would view Cliven Bundy as grossly violating federal regulations and a law breaker, not the true story of how a corrupt Harry Reid was facilitating a Communist Chinese Energy Giant to come into the United States, displacing any possibility of a US Energy Company from getting to develop solar energy in Nevada, and arranged for the Communists to get ownership of US public land in Nevada below the going market price, while using Gestapo-style tactics to illegally remove a Patriotic Cattle Rancher off the land his family owned since the 1870s in violation of the rights accorded him by the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment, and the Bill of Rights. It should have been a story about the overreach by another bloated, corrupt, and out of control bureaucracy that was doing absolutely nothing to manage the overgrowth on public land that they were supposed to be doing, while in fact, the cattle from the Bundy Ranch were feeding on the overgrowth keeping the overgrowth under control. The principle and courageous stand by Cliven Bundy in the face of an oppressive BLM and the prosecution by Holder’s Justice Department, while fining him $1 million, illegally rustling 400 cattle of his herd, surrounding his family with snipers, knocking down his pregnant daughter-in-law, grinding Clive’s head into the dirt with boots on his head, arresting his son for taking photos of the Gestapo-type tactics, and tazing his son three times, etc. Cliven Bundy’s principled stand was a Seminole event, Patriotic Americans from all over the Republic mobilized, rode to the aide of the rancher with American flags flying, and supported the Bundy Ranch against an out of control government bureaucracy. When Neil Kornze realized the magnitude of the opposition he and Reid engendered from throughout the Republic, resulting in over 3000+ armed Americans who had arrived on the Bundy Ranch (with thousands more enroute), in opposition to his 200 federal armed guards, Kornze released the 400 rustled cattle he intended to sell, and pulled his 200 federal armed guards back from the brink of an armed conflict with very angry American citizens from throughout the Republic, who now had their own snipers in place at the ranch aimed at the 200 federal armed guards. This attempt at grand larceny by the BLM, and violation of Cliven Bundy’s freedoms all Americans are accorded by the US Constitution requires a Congressional investigation and actions in the courts to charge the BLM. We wonder if the Republican leadership in Congress will do anything about this attempt by an agency of the US Government to support a group in Nevada commit grand larceny on behalf of the Chinese Communists Energy Giant, or will they just let it ride, and hope it goes away?
We ask you to encourage those in your address book to support our effort to protect and defend the US Constitution, we try to do this by bringing violations of our freedoms by an out of control and corrupt administration to the attention of Patriotic Americans, by campaigning to elect newly endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, and by campaigning to re-elect the endorsed and previously elected Combat Veterans For Congress. We plan to endorse over 50+ Combat Veterans For Congress to run for Congress before the November election. We are currently considering the endorsement of a slate of 28 additional Combat Veterans in 16 states to run for Congress in 2014. This November election will be the most important election in 238 years, and may be the last chance to save the Republic from Obama’s intent to “CHANGE” the Free Enterprise System, that created the most effective economic engine in the history of mankind, into a Socialist state—Socialism has never worked in any country it has ever been tried in over the last 100 years.
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm
Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
April 11, 2014
The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.
Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) working with the Chinese Communist gov’t to take land from hard-working Americans.
Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”
“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.
Obama Administration Released 68,000 Illegal Criminal Immigrants
Obama administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been recruiting and appointing many pro-amnesty lawyers in key management positions throughout DHS. The goal of the Obama administration in placing those pro-amnesty lawyers throughout DHS was to dismantle the deporting infrastructure it took 12 years for the US government to create. Those pro-amnesty lawyers have been preventing ICE Agents, Border Patrol Agents, and CBP Inspectors from enforcing the Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold. Those pro-amnesty attorneys have instructed ICE Agents to “walk away” from hundreds of thousands of cases that should be prosecuted. They eventually directed ICE Agents to release 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” into the general public, thus completing the corruption of that once proud Federal Law Enforcement Agency. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” were not in jail because of driving infractions—-they were felons who had been tried and convicted in Federal and Superior Courts because of serious criminal infractions, or had been convicted of very serious misdemeanors. Traffic violations like driving under the influence of alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward ICE’s description of “Criminal Illegal Immigrant.”
The 68,000 serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” released by the Obama administration will pick up where they left off, and continue with their very serious crime sprees, committing murders, rapes, burglaries, car theft, drug dealing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, armed robberies, attacking law enforcement officers, and much more that they were previously arrested and convicted for. The pro-amnesty attorneys at DHS could have deported the 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” to Mexico, but opted instead to release those dangerous convicted criminals into the general public. American citizens who are concerned about the safety of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, sisters, wives, mothers, grandparents, small businesses, etc. will have to be on high alert to protect them from this new and very dangerous threat foisted upon them by the Obama administration. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” releases occurred without the required formal notification of local Law Enforcement Agencies (law enforcement has a need to know whenever dangerous felons are released prematurely, so they can alert police officers of the perceived spike in criminal activity in their jurisdictions), and those dangerous felons were released without notifying the victims of those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” who will be in fear of their lives because they testified against those felons in court, in order to get them convicted. The political appointees at DHS simply unlocked the jail house doors and let 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” walk free. Those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” will now prey on American citizens, and will seriously complicate the task of law enforcement officers in their attempt to protect law abiding American citizens.
That unlawful release of those serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and the complete corruption of DHS by Obama’s appointees into key management positions, is further proof that Obama continues to violate the US Constitution with impunity, as well as violate Federal Immigration Laws of the United States. In an interview on WBEZ-FM in Chicago on September 6, 2001, Obama said “The US Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” and said “the US Constitution has deep flaws, and the Founding Fathers had an enormous blind spot when they wrote it.” He also implied in that interview that the US Constitution was outdated, because he said, “it only reflects the time period of the Colonials and our Founding Fathers.” Obama raised his right hand twice sworn on a bible to uphold the US Constitution when he was inaugurated in 2008 and 2012; he swore “I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”—–we know by his actions over the past 5 years, that his two sworn pledges were two more lies to add to, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and “If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan.” and “Your healthcare premiums will be lowered by $2500.” and “The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk before I sign it.” and “I knew nothing about the IRS targeting conservative groups before the 2012 election.” and “I knew nothing about the “Fast and Furious” gun running operation to Mexican drug cartels.” and “I will have the most transparent administration in history.” and “I will restore trust in government.” and ”In a speech at the UN 2 weeks after he knew 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi by Al Q’ieda terrorists, Obama told the entire world; “The attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was the outgrowth of a demonstration against a U-Tube video that went bad.” American citizens are now used to witnessing one lie after another by the occupant of the Oval Office, yet the left of center liberal media establishment continues to cover up the lies emanating from the Oval Office.
You will be able to read the details of the illegal release of the “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” in the below listed news article. We have information that although 870,000 Illegal Immigrants have been ordered to be deported from the United States, following their conviction in trials in US Federal Immigration Courts, that the pro-amnesty attorneys in key management positions at DHS have ignored those court orders, and those 870,000 Illegal Immigrants remain in the United States; ICE has been told to leave them alone, to “walk away” and “not enforce Federal Immigration Laws.” Over 40 million unemployed Americans citizens are searching for employment in the 5th year of the worst economic recovery in 70 years, yet their search for employment continues to be undercut by nearly 20 million Illegal Immigrants being paid very low wages under the table with no taxes deducted from their cash payments by US employers. There were over 11 million Illegal Immigrants in the United State when I was recruited as an Armed Federal Law Enforcement Officer in the newly established Department of Homeland Security in 2002—DHS knows that over 800,000 Illegal Immigrants continue to enter the United States thru the wide open borders each year, and for the 12 years since 2002 approximately 9.6 million Illegal Immigrants have come across the wide open borders (you might find it interesting to learn that a DHS official testified that US authorities are not “routinely” notified when foreign sex offenders enter the United States.). So the 11 million Illegal Immigrants figure that the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment has kept referring to for 12 years, is more accurately 20 million Illegal Immigrants, not the 11 million figure that were illegally in the US in 2002. It is interesting to note that US military personnel are employed to secure the borders of South Korea, Afghanistan, and the Sinai, and are not employed by the US Congress or the occupant of the Oval Office to secure US borders.
The American people are wondering, whether the Republican leadership of the House and Senate, intends to do anything about the violation of Federal Law by Obama’s civilian appointees at DHS in the unlawful release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” many of whom are violent criminals The Speaker has control of the purse strings and funds DHS; he could have put pressure on DHS’s by threatening to only approve very low salaries for the pro-amnesty lawyers who are aggressively corrupting enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws at DHS. The current Republican leadership could have done something to stop the release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and could insist that the DHS deport 870,000 Illegal Immigrants who were ordered deported by US Federal Immigration Courts. It was always the primary responsibility of every one of the previous 43 US Presidents to enforce all Federal Laws passed by Congress, to protect and defend the US Constitution, to enforce Federal Immigration Laws, and to ensure that American citizens were protected from the threats of foreign convicted felons who had been preying on them. The current occupant of the Oval Office, by his actions over the last 5 years, has been intentionally shredding the “Rule of Law” and preventing Federal Law Enforcement Officers from “ enforcing the “Federal Laws” of the Republic that the 43 previous US Presidents upheld in the execution of their office.
SSA Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) provided the below listed information from Senator Jeff Sessions, and highlights how Obama continues to “shreds the Immigration Laws” that he swore to uphold, and cites examples of how Obama “refuses to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution”:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently released a critical alert about the status of immigration enforcement in the United States. In it, he writes, “DHS has blocked the enforcement of Immigration Law for the overwhelming majority of violations – and is planning to widen that amnesty even further.”
Put another way,
“At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”
Senator Sessions’ alert continues:
“Those who do not facially meet the Administration’s select ‘priorities’ are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.”
What we have is an Administration that is creating a de facto amnesty and encouraging more Illegal Immigrants to illegally enter the United States, granting employment authorization to “DREAMERS” and other illegal aliens, all the while American workers continue to struggle to find employment.
SSA Michael Cutler’s most recent commentary for California for Population Stabilization (CAPS) addresses the serious damage being done to America, and Americas by the ongoing expansion of the use of what the Obama administration claims is “prosecutorial discretion” but which, in reality amounts to “Gross Dereliction of Duty.”
REPORT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION RELEASED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS INTO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security caught then released 68,000 illegal aliens who had previously been convicted of a crime, a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows.
The report, provided to Breitbart News ahead of its late Sunday evening release, reviews internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) metrics to conclude that the Obama administration released 35 percent—or 68,000—convicted criminal aliens back into the U.S. general population when they could have been deported. “The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims,” CIS’s Jessica Vaughan, the report’s author, added.
By “criminal,” ICE means people who have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony that is not a traffic violation. For instance, traffic violations like Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward this description of “criminal alien.” As for the definition of “alien,” ICE mostly means illegal aliens, though some are legal aliens when they are considered deportable legal aliens—which is possible for legal immigrants who have committed a serious crime, like a felony.
The documents also show ICE only deported a small fraction of the aliens they encountered overall.
“In 2013, ICE targeted only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered,” CIS’s Vaughan wrote. “Most of these aliens came to ICE’s attention after incarceration for a local arrest.”
This report comes out on the heels of a report from the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) last week which found that only .08 percent of the aliens deported in 2013 were not serial immigration law violators or convicted of serious crimes.
In response to these findings from CIS that follow up on his office’s report last week, Sessions said immigration law in America has essentially ceased to exist.
“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed,” Sessions said. “Even those with criminal convictions are being released. DHS is a department in crisis. Secretary [Jeh] Johnson must reject the President’s demands to weaken enforcement further and tell him that his duty, and his officers’ duty, is to enforce the law – not break it. As Homeland Secretary, Mr. Johnson is tasked with ensuring the public safety and the rule of law. But Secretary Johnson is not meeting these duties.”
The CIS report also contains a breakdown per city of percentages of criminal aliens who were released back into the population. San Antonio’s 79 percent is the highest, where ICE encountered 36,228 criminal aliens and released 28,680 back into the general population in 2013. New York City’s 71 percent is next, where ICE agents encountered 7,571 criminal aliens and released 5,391 of them. Washington, D.C. follows that, with ICE agents encountering 8,688 criminal aliens and releasing 64 percent, or 5,558, of them into the public. Other cities with high percentages include Salt Lake City, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Newark, and Buffalo. Notably, many of these cities are not in border states, which means visa overstays and illegal aliens who crossed the border but migrated further inward are as much a problem as the actual U.S.-Mexico border in terms of stopping the flow and enforcing the law.
“These findings raise further alarm over the Obama administration’s pending review of deportation practices, which reportedly may further expand the administration’s abuse of ‘prosecutorial discretion,’” CIS’s Vaughan wrote. “Interior enforcement activity has already declined 40 percent since the imposition of “prosecutorial discretion” policies in 2011. Rather than accelerating this decline, there is an urgent need to review and reverse the public safety and fiscal harm cause by the president’s policies.”
Sessions echoed Vaughan’s concerns, saying the lack of enforcement for immigration laws further hurts the ability of American citizens to obtain employment.
“American citizens have a legal and moral right to the protections our immigration laws afford – at the border, the interior and the workplace,” Sessions said. “The administration has stripped these protections and adopted a government policy that encourages new arrivals to enter illegally or overstay visas by advertising immunity from future enforcement. Comments from top Administration officials, such as Attorney General Holder’s claim that amnesty is a civil right, or Vice President Biden’s claim that those here illegally are all US citizens (apparently including someone whose visa expired yesterday), demonstrate the administration’s increasing belief in an open borders policy the American public has always rejected.”
Obama Caught Secretly Giving “Free” US Army and US Marine Corps Equipment to Putin While He Was Invading Crimea and It Continues Now
Another endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman James Bridenstine, Lcdr-USNAR (R-OK-1) uncovered another Obama secret scandal, the deal that was entered into behind closed doors by Obama with Putin, and was approved by Obama to give Russia “Free of Charge” crucial, mid-grade sensitive US military technology, used by US Special Operations Forces to get ready for combat operations.
The National Nuclear Security Agency has been providing Multiple Intergrade Laser Engagement Systems (MILES) to Russia; the transfer has been facilitated by Obama’s democratic Secretary of Energy Ernest Moritz he is overseeing this treasonous act and illegal transfer of crucial, mid-grad, sensitive US military technology to Putin while he was invading Crimea and poised to invade Ukraine. Moritz is continuing the transfer in the midst of Putin the mobilization of 150,000 Russian troops on the border of Ukraine.
Every American should be informed of this illegal act by the Obama administration, should read the below listed article, and should click on the three links to see how the Democrats in Congress have been betraying the American people. The Democrats in the Senate and House under Reid, Pelosi and the leadership of Obama have by their actions been degrading the “Combat Effectiveness” the US Armed Forces. They have been caught “RED HANDED” secretly giving US Army and US Marine Corps US military sensitive technology to Putin, instead of giving it to the National Guard, the US Marine Corps Reserve, and the US Army Reserve who desperately need that that type of equipment to prepare their personnel for combat operations.
The question every American should be asking is why didn’t Speaker Boehner halt the “illegal” transfer of crucial, mid-grade technology US military sensitive technology, to Russia “Free Of Charge” and allowed it to inserted in the House Fiscal Year 2014 and Fiscal 2015 budgets. Why did it require the investigation of an endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Bridenstine to discover the traitorous and illegal transfer of US military sensitive technology to Russia “Free of Charge”? Will the Speaker “IMMDIATELY” stop this illegal transfer of US military sensitive technology to Russia, or will he do what he has been doing about the Benghazi investigation for 18 months, nothing, frustrating 186 Congressmen who keep asking Boehner to appoint a Select House Investigative Committee on The Battle of Benghazi, so they can finally have subpoena powers that the 5 House investigations on Benghazi do not have. To cover up what happened in The Battle of Benghazi, the Obama administration has classified information on Benghazi that should never been classified and has prevented 32 US personnel who were on the ground during The Battle of Benghazi from testifying—-the only way to get around that is for the House to have subpoena powers which Boehner has prevented 186 Congressmen from doing for 18 month.
Mr Speaker, 26 million Veterans in the United States, millions of patriotic American citizens, all the members of the US Armed Forces, Republican in the nation, Independent in the nation, Tea Party Patriot in the nation, and many Blue Dog Democrats are waiting for you to “do something”. Please don’t go before the cameras again, and make another indignant speech—we’ve had enough of your indignant speeches for the last 3 years, which are followed by your lack of action. Your lackadaisical attention to your duties allowed US Military’s sensitive crucial mid-grade technology to be transferred “Free of Charge ” to Russia, you also allowed the democrats to cut military benefits to poorly paid enlisted military personnel, to eliminate military commissaries, to reduce the US navy below its strength at the beginning of WWI, reduce the US Army below its strength at the beginning of WWII, eliminate entire categories of US Air Force Combat aircraft, allowed Obama to kill the cornerstone of US Naval Power–The Tomahawk & Hellfire Missile Programs, are in fact allowing the democrats to dismantle the US Armed Forces. Will you ever “do something”——you do control the purse string and have massive powers of control given to you by the framers of the US Constitution?
U.S. GIVES RUSSIA FREE MILITARY EQUIPMENT USED BY ARMY, MARINES
Posted on March 28, 2014 by Patriots Billboard
WHY ISN’T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT THIS? WHY ARE WE HELPING RUSSIA AND SUPPLYING THEM WITH MILITARY TECHNOLOGY THEY DIDN’T HAVE UNTIL WE GAVE IT TO THEM. IT’S NOT JUST SNOWDEN GIVING AWAY OUR MILITARY TECH; OBAMA HAS ALLOWED CHINA AND RUSSIA MORE OF OUR SECRETS THAN ALL OF THEIR SPY’S COULD POSSIBLY STEAL.
3-28-14 Behind closed doors the U.S. government is giving Russia free military equipment—also used to train American troops—even after President Obama announced punitive sanctions against Moscow and, more importantly, a suspension in military engagement over the invasion and occupation of Ukraine.
The secret operation was exposed this week by members of Congress that discovered it in the process of reviewing the Fiscal Year 2014 budget and the proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget request. It turns out that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been providing the Russian Federation with the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), the federal legislators say. The U.S. military uses MILES for tactical force-on-force training because it has a system of lasers and dummy ammunition to simulate ground combat.
It’s a crucial, military-grade technology that’s similar to a “laser tag” available in some commercial markets, according to one of the outraged lawmakers (Oklahoma Republican Jim Bridenstine) that helped uncover the scandal. Bridenstine, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has joined forces with Ohio Republican Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, to demand an end to the program. Along with about a dozen other House colleagues they penned a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who oversees the agency carrying out the “irresponsible military equipment transfers” to Russia.
The Obama administration’s planned supply to the Russian Federation is a grave mistake given the recent invasion of Ukraine launched by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, the legislators point out. “It is difficult to imagine a worse time to provide military-grade technology employed by the U.S. Marine Corps, Army, and Special Operations Forces to Russia than when it has illegally invaded Ukraine and is violating the intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty,” the letter to Moniz says. “To make matters worse, it is our understanding from the budget documents that the Department has been, and continues to propose, providing this technology to Russia free-of-charge.”
This is preposterous and borders on criminal if you really think about it. As if we need reminding, Congressman Turner recants Putin’s “brazen disregard for the sovereignty and stability of Eastern Europe” as well as his disregard for international law. “Despite this overwhelming evidence that Putin is not our ally, it is astonishing that the Obama Administration would still provide superior, U.S. military technology to an aggressive and advancing Russia,” Turner said. “The United States must seriously redirect its approach and immediately terminate all military aid to Russia.”
President Obama has already proven to be an international joke for his response to the worsening crisis in Ukraine. Even the mainstream media in this country has blasted the commander-in-chief’s foreign policy as based on fantasy. One famously liberal magazine published a satirical article saying that the Obama administration froze Putin’s Netflix account as a “major ramping up of sanctions.” In a piecepublished a few days ago, a former veteran congressman wrote this: “The embarrassment of U.S. impotence in dealing with Russian aggression in the Ukraine is only the beginning of what will likely be a series of foreign policy disasters.”
PLEASE SHARE THIS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
…
next ›
last »
Neither military information, military branch logos, nor photographs imply endorsement of the Combat Veterans For Congress by the Department of Defense or their particular Military Departments
PAID FOR BY COMBAT VETERANS FOR CONGRESS PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108
Nicole V. Parsons, Treasurer
The Next Shoe Just Dropped: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege
Tyler Durden’s picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/19/2014 22:14 -0400
None
inShare21
Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,
In the Land of the Free, people grow up hearing a lot of things about their freedom.
You’re told that you live in the freest country on the planet. You’re told that other nations ‘hate you’ for your freedom.
And you’re told that you have the most open and fair justice system in the world.
This justice system is supposedly founded on bedrock principles– things like a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right to due process and an impartial hearing. The right to counsel and attorney-client privilege.
Yet each of these core pillars has been systematically dismantled over the years:
1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA surveillance.
According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, of the nearly 34,000 surveillance requests made to FISA courts in the last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.
Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the government’s perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?
2. The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ may officially exist in courts, but administratively it was thrown out long ago.
These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you out of your life’s savings. None of this requires a court order.
By the time a case goes to court, you have been deprived of the resources you need to defend yourself. You might technically be presumed innocent, but you have been treated and punished like a criminal from day one.
3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is completely private.
In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld attorney-client privilege as necessary “to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law. . .”
It doesn’t matter what you’re accused of– theft. treason. triple homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.
Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:
“When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications.”
In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.
Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.
Unbelievable.
While it’s true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.
With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the chance to defend himself.
Naturally, you won’t hear a word about this in the mainstream media.
But it certainly begs the question, what’s the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?
When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a ‘free country’ any more.
Justice Stevens & the 2nd Amendment, from the ABA Journal, my notes in []
Posted: 18 April 2014
[Another reason for secession. This article is from this week’s, 18 April 2014, ABA Journal.
Notice Justice Stevens wants the legislature to change the 2nd Amendment. Note how the liberal justices ALWAYS ignore Article V. Article V is the article which explains how amendments are to be made. Stevens, and the others, all want amendments to go through the legislature. A legislature controlled by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Keep in mind that Pelosi’s net worth before she became a “public servant”, was a negative value – she owed more than she was worth. Since becoming a “public servant”, her net worth is over $25,000,000.00. Yupper, that’s 25 million U.S. Dollars. As to Reid, go to the Youtube address posted as the first line after [ ] in the Bundy Farm Fact Check post, posted yesterday.
As noted in “The Albany Plan Re-Visited”, Justice Stevens has not got a clue as to who the militia is. Federal Statute defines the militia of the United States. Last time that I looked, that was every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 54, the only exceptions being first responders and, get this, elected officials. Women were excluded. Now, it has been many years since I looked, but I doubt that the definition has changed extensively, if at all.
Secession, pure and simple, secession.]
•
•
•
•
•
• Home
• News
• Retired Justice Stevens proposes this fix for the Second Amendment
Constitutional Law
Retired Justice Stevens proposes this fix for the Second Amendment
Posted Apr 14, 2014 6:25 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
•
Retired U.S. Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens.
Rena Schild / Shutterstock.com
Legislators rather than federal judges should be allowed to decide what kind of guns can be carried by private citizens, as well as when and how those weapons can be used, according to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
Toward that end, Stevens is proposing a change to the Second Amendment to clarify that it applies only to citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in state militias. He offers his suggestion in a Washington Post essay taken from his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.
Stevens thinks the court misinterpreted the amendment in recent opinions finding a right to own a handgun at home for self-defense. The amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Stevens would add five words to the amendment, so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
[First off, after all of the tobacco/cigarette use medical problems for COPD, Lung Cancer, Emphyzema, &c., why is marijuana smoking ok? Secondly, except for the tax revenue, who in their right mind wants to push it? Alcohol is too ingrained in ALL (and Islam allows it if you go to sea!) human cultures to eliminate it. Why are we starting another addiction problem? This posting is an abstract of the full article in this month’s Journal of Neuroscience. You can go to their website and download the full thing if you want to.]
Cannabis Use Is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult Recreational Users
1. Jodi M. Gilman1,4,5,
2. John K. Kuster1,2,*,
3. Sang Lee1,6,*,
4. Myung Joo Lee1,6,*,
5. Byoung Woo Kim1,6,
6. Nikos Makris3,5,
7. Andre van der Kouwe4,5,
8. Anne J. Blood1,2,4,5,†, and
9. Hans C. Breiter1,2,4,6,†
+Show Affiliations
1. Author contributions: J.M.G., M.J.L., B.K., N.M., A.J.v.d.K., A.B., and H.C.B. designed research; J.M.G., J.K.K., S.L., and A.J.v.d.K. performed research; M.J.L., B.K., A.B., and H.C.B. contributed unpublished reagents/analytic tools; J.M.G., J.K.K., S.L., M.J.L., N.M., A.B., and H.C.B. analyzed data; J.M.G., A.B., and H.C.B. wrote the paper.
2. ↵*J.K.K., S.L., and M.J.L. contributed equally to this work.
3. ↵†A.J.B. and H.C.B. contributed equally to this work.
1. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16 April 2014, 34(16): 5529-5538; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4745-13.2014
• Abstract
• Full Text
• Full Text (PDF)
Abstract
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, but little is known about its effects on the human brain, particularly on reward/aversion regions implicated in addiction, such as the nucleus accumbens and amygdala. Animal studies show structural changes in brain regions such as the nucleus accumbens after exposure to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, but less is known about cannabis use and brain morphometry in these regions in humans. We collected high-resolution MRI scans on young adult recreational marijuana users and nonusing controls and conducted three independent analyses of morphometry in these structures: (1) gray matter density using voxel-based morphometry, (2) volume (total brain and regional volumes), and (3) shape (surface morphometry). Gray matter density analyses revealed greater gray matter density in marijuana users than in control participants in the left nucleus accumbens extending to subcallosal cortex, hypothalamus, sublenticular extended amygdala, and left amygdala, even after controlling for age, sex, alcohol use, and cigarette smoking. Trend-level effects were observed for a volume increase in the left nucleus accumbens only. Significant shape differences were detected in the left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala. The left nucleus accumbens showed salient exposure-dependent alterations across all three measures and an altered multimodal relationship across measures in the marijuana group. These data suggest that marijuana exposure, even in young recreational users, is associated with exposure-dependent alterations of the neural matrix of core reward structures and is consistent with animal studies of changes in dendritic arborization.
How the Apostles Died / The Death of Jesus
Posted: 16 April 2014
1. Matthew: Suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound
2. Mark: Died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead
3. Luke: Was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost
4. John: Faced martyrdom when he was boiled in huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution In Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison Island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.
5. Peter: He was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross.
According to church tradition it was because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die In the same way that Jesus Christ had died.
6 James: The leader of the church in Jerusalem , was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller’s club.
* This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.
7. James the Great: Son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus Called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial.
Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.
8. Bartholomew: Also known as Nathaniel Was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed for our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia where he was flayed to death by a whip.
[Historical note: in the Q’Ran, Mohammed claims that the reason that he was chosen to represent Allah as prophet to the Arab peoples is because none of Jesus’ disciples ever went East to include them. Hmm.]
9. Andrew: He was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: ‘I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.’ He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.
10. Thomas: Was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the Sub-continent
[Historical note: in the Q’Ran, Mohammed claims that the reason that he was chosen to represent Allah as prophet to the Arab peoples is because none of Jesus’ disciples ever went East to include them. Hmm.]
11. Jude: Was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.
12. Matthias: The apostle chosen to replace Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.
13. Paul: Was tortured and then beheaded by the Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment, which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational Doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.
[Historical note: Paul was on the road to Damascus when he was raptured. Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon, Persia, and Hindustan were all visited by various Apostles.]
Perhaps this is a reminder to us that our sufferings here are indeed minor compared to the intense persecution and cold cruelty faced by the apostles and disciples during their times for the sake of the Faith.
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: But he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Matthew
Jesus’ Death
The Death of Jesus
THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS
At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to death. At the time Crucifixion was the “worst” death. Only the worst. Criminals were condemned to be crucified. Yet it was even more dreadful for Jesus, unlike other criminals condemned to death by crucifixion Jesus was to be nailed to the Cross by His hands and feet.
Each nail was 6 to 8 inches long. The nails were driven into His wrist. Not into His palms as is commonly portrayed. There’s a tendon in the wrist that extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew that when the nails were being hammered into the wrist that tendon would tear and break, forcing Jesus to use His back muscles to support himself so that He could breath. Both of His feet were nailed together. Thus He was forced to support Himself on the single nail that impaled His feet to the cross. Jesus could not support himself with His legs because of the pain. So He was forced to alternate between arching His back then using his legs just to continue to breath. Imagine the struggle, the pain, the suffering, the courage.
Jesus endured this reality for over 3 hours.
A few minutes before He died, Jesus stopped bleeding. He was simply pouring water from his wounds. From common images we see wounds to His hands and feet and even the spear wound to His side… But do we realize His wounds were actually made in his body. A hammer driving large nails through the wrist, the feet overlapped and an even large nail hammered through the arches, then a Roman guard piercing His side with a spear. But before the nails and the spear Jesus was whipped and beaten. The whipping was so severe that it tore the flesh from His body.
The beating so horrific that His face was torn and his beard ripped from His face. The crown of thorns cut deeply into His scalp. Most men would not have survived this torture. He had no more blood to bleed out, only water poured from His wounds. The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters (just less than a gallon) of blood. Jesus poured all 3.5 liters of his blood. He had three nails hammered into His members; a crown of thorns on His head and, beyond that, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into His chest…all these without mentioning the humiliation He suffered after carrying His own cross for almost 2 kilometers, while the crowd spat in his face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg of weight, only for its higher part, where His hands were nailed).
Jesus had to endure this experience, to open the Gates of Heaven, so that you can have free access to God. So that your sins could be “washed” away.
Gene therapy
Ingenious
Fixing a body’s broken genes is becoming possible
Feb 8th 2014 | New York | From the print edition
Timekeeper
IT SOUNDS like science fiction, and for years it seemed as though it was just that: fiction. But the idea of gene therapy—introducing copies of healthy genes into people who lack them, to treat disease—is at last looking as if it may become science fact.
The field got off to a bad start, with the widely reported death of an American liver patient in 1999. In 2003 some French children who were being treated with it for an immune-system problem called SCID developed leukaemia. Since then, though, things have improved. Indeed one procedure, for lipoprotein lipase deficiency (which causes high levels of blood fats, with all the problems those can bring), has been approved, in Europe, for clinical use.
In this section
Ingenious
Breathe it in
Hot wheels
Once more, with feeling
Reprints
Related topics
Eyesight and eye health
University of Pennsylvania
Medical technology
Health and fitness
Genetic engineering
The most recent success, announced last month in the Lancet, was of an experimental treatment for choroideremia, a type of blindness. This is caused by mutation of the gene for a protein called REP1. Without REP1, the eye’s light receptors degenerate. Robert MacLaren of Oxford University used a virus to deliver working versions of the REP1 gene to the most light-sensitive part of the retina. Five of the six participants in the trial duly experienced an improvement in their sensitivity to light. Two were so improved that they could read more letters than previously on a standard eye chart.
Dr MacLaren’s work complements that of Albert Maguire and Jean Bennett at the University of Pennsylvania, who use gene therapy to treat another eye disease, Leber’s congenital amaurosis. A defective version of a gene called RPE65 means that, in this condition, retinal cells are starved of vitamin A, which also causes blindness. Putting normal copies of RPE65 into the retina leads, as with REP1, to greater light sensitivity and—sometimes—clearer vision.
Drs MacLaren, Maguire and Bennett all use adeno-associated viruses (a type not known to cause illness, and which does not much provoke the immune system) to carry their genetic payloads to the target. Luigi Naldini of the San Raffaele Telethon Institute for Gene Therapy, in Milan, employs a rather scarier vector—one derived from HIV, the virus that causes AIDS—because its life cycle involves it integrating its genes into its host cells’ nuclei.
Last year Dr Naldini and his colleagues reported that, using their safely neutered version of HIV, they had inserted working copies of genes into blood stem cells which lack them, in order to treat metachromatic leukodystrophy (which damages nerves) and Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (which harms the immune system and reduces blood’s ability to clot). In both cases—though in only a handful of patients, for the diseases are rare—Dr Naldini’s approach either prevented the disease or at least halted its progress.
The rarity of metachromatic leukodystrophy, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome and many other diseases for which gene therapy might be appropriate means a lot of the applications of this approach are narrow. But a different one—constructing tailored genes and using them to guide the immune system—may have wider application, specifically against cancer.
Michel Sadelain, of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, in New York, is one of those at the forefront of a method that works this way. It employs chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) cells, which are engineered versions of T-cells, the part of the immune system that kills body cells, including tumorous ones, which have become threats.
Dr Sadelain’s trick is to take natural T-cells from patients (specifically, leukaemia and lymphoma patients) and add to them genes which turn those cells’ attention to the tumour in question, causing them to seek out its cells and destroy them. He then returns the modified cells to the patient, where they multiply and attack.
The CAR pool
The extra genes in CAR cells are derived in part from monoclonal-antibody genes. These have, in turn, been selected for their affinity to the target tumour. Because CAR cells multiply in the body this is, as Dr Sadelain puts it, like creating a living drug.
Last year Dr Sadelain’s team, and also another group led by Carl June at the University of Pennsylvania, published results showing the promise of CAR cells in treating people with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Dr Sadelain’s paper showed that they caused full remission in all five adult patients treated (though two subsequently died of complications, one set of which was unrelated to the treatment); Dr June’s, that they eradicated the cancer from two children. And, at a meeting of the American Society of Hematology held in December, both researchers reported further successes.
There is, moreover, one further technique that might bring gene therapy into the mainstream. Current approaches work by adding genes to affected cells. But it may be possible to modify those cells’ existing, broken genes, using a method called CRISPR-Cas9 editing, a process that takes advantage of a natural antiviral system which chops up genetic material.
CRISPR-Cas9 editing is specific to particular sequences of genetic letters, and can thus be tweaked to do a researcher’s bidding. In a recent edition of Cell, Sha Jiahao of Nanjing Medical University showed how to use it to execute the reverse of gene therapy—creating genetic problems, rather than solving them—in monkeys. His aim was to produce model organisms that might help understanding of diseases in human beings (though making such models out of monkeys is controversial). But the technique might eventually be employed to do running repairs on damaged DNA in people.
That, if it ever happens, is a long way off. In the meantime, the promise of gene therapy can be seen in the fact that it is attracting lawyers. The University of Pennsylvania has licensed its CAR technology to Novartis, a Swiss drugs firm. The pair of them are now fending off a lawsuit brought by competitors including Juno Therapeutics, the creation of three research centres of which Memorial Sloan-Kettering is one. For patients, that suggests gene therapy really is something worth fighting over.
From the print edition: Science and technology
[This is just one of many reasons that I subscribe to both The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist. The Lancet is reporting, and The Economist re-reporting, that someone has figured out a cure for HIV/aids. Delivery is a few years away, but someone HAS figured out how to cure the disease. So, where are ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and FOX? My local NBC station, as recently as two weeks ago, ran a ‘story’ on how bad AIDS is and what its doing to us. They ran their story over two weeks AFTER The Economist printed this article citing the research published in The Lancet. What news media????
BTW, the article preceding this one, reports on how a 3D printer is getting closer to printing real human organs, and this without using stem cells!!!]
POSTED ON OCTOBER 27, 2013 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN WELFARE
WELFARE NATION
It was a long time coming, but we appear to have reached a tipping point. Terry Jeffrey picks up the news buried in Census Bureau data:
Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau. They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines.
There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.
That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.
The Census Bureau counted as recipients of means-tested government programs “anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program.” Many of these people lived in households receiving more than one form of means-tested benefit at the same time.
Among the 108,592,000 people who fit the Census Bureau’s description of a means-tested benefit recipient in the fourth quarter of 2011 were 82,457,000 people in households receiving Medicaid, 49,073,000 beneficiaries of food stamps, 20,223,000 on Supplemental Security Income, 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 13,433,000 in public or subsidized rental housing, and 5,854,000 in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Also among the 108,592,000 means-tested benefit recipients counted by the Census Bureau were people getting free or reduced-price lunch or breakfast, state-administered supplemental security income and means-tested veterans pensions.
Jeffrey notes that the data properly omit recipients of Social Security, Medicare and other non-means-tested support programs:
The 108,592,000 people who were recipients of means-tested government programs in the fourth quarter of 2011 does not include people who received benefits from non-means-tested government programs but not from means-tested ones. That would include, for example, people who received Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, or non-means-tested veterans compensation, but did not receive benefits from a means-tested program such as food stamps or public housing.
Whole thing and relevant links here.
[Actually, the pertinent url is above, it did not c & p. People ask what to do, I respond secession, then I receive nasty looks and derogatory commentary. The next knish post easily explains, if you read between the lines, why secession is an absolute necessity.]
Let’s put national health care in its historical perspective, and then consider the truth of the matter.
For our purposes, we will ignore the rest of the world, not bring too far forward how the NHS in the UK dictates their internal politics and is ration driven, nor how in Canada they flood to the US for care, nor how they invade the US from Mexico to get social services of all kinds.
We will start in 1950.
As noted elsewhere, everything is connected, just not in the ‘butterfly effect’ that a small number of physicists and mathematicians think.
Prior to 1950, health care was the responsibility of the individual. The medical profession was regulated in the same manner as other special service businesses, most notably lawyers, accountants, and bankers. Doctors, lawyers, and barbers had to take proficiency exams before they could charge for their services and were held accountable for their actions, not only through Tort Law, but through internal policing, and self-defense by buying liability insurance. They attended specialized schools, with specialized educations and fields of study. Funding of health care was primarily in the form of direct payment for services, with a small, expanding, insurance segment.
In the 1950’s, the failure of The Federal Government to overhaul the income tax code, led to unions negotiating for benefits, rather than wages. This change in direction was a direct result of FDR’s Transnational Policies. Government had decided that income would be taxed in the unfair step-rate method. Those whose incomes where under $10,000 would not be taxed. Union wages, and thus first line supervisors and then up the entire corporate chain of command got compensation increases. Through negotiation, post WW II labor shortages, and an aggressively growing US economy, people found their wages entering the taxable income levels. In order to reduce the impact on blue collar and first level white collar workers, benefits were, as a matter of law, decided to not be income , and thus, non-taxable. Before the expansion of health care as a benefit of employment, and therefore, the insurance industry, the individual had to pay for medical services either out of pocket, or by paying for his own insurance, again, out of pocket.
The consumer of health care knew AND FELT, the direct costs of medical care. (For purposes of clarity, simplicity, and understanding, we’ll gloss over technological –pharmaceutical advances in the field, which, in and of themselves, are a significant factor in driving up costs.)
The individual needed cash in hand to visit the doctor.
The individual needed cash in hand to have the doctor make a house call.
The individual often looked to alternative, less expensive, care options. One got a mid-wife to deliver ones’ child. One had the child born at home, not in a specialized and expensive ‘birthing facility’.
The individual knew what he was paying for when he got it, and got what he was paying for and, in many instances, was getting more than he was paying for, the medical profession being very altruistic and actually believing in the Hippocratic Oath.
Almost all peaking of health care expenses have been caused by the interference of the Federal Government.
As noted, with Federal Labor Laws and the Internal Revenue Code impacting employment compensation, health care became an area of national interest. While employers and employees were working out a viable adaptation of this into their business models , left wing idealists were actually looking to create a capitalistic style economic safety net. Enter Camelot Jack and LBJ.
Jack was controlled by a GOP congress. Even so, he got us started in Viet Nam, failed us with Cuba, killed “The Monroe Doctrine” , but was persuaded to leave the domestic economy alone. Benefits packages became traditional in a very short time, and expected to expand as a method of tax avoidance.
LBJ, wanting to be more left than Camelot, with a Democratic Party controlled congress, got Medicare passed. Medicare is the first, direct, and most damaging of government intervention in health care spiking costs to levels that we will never be able to go back to.
Medicare provided our second, federally enforced, Ponzi scheme. Medicare, through the HCFA payroll tax, takes money from employees and employers, to pay for, AT NON-MARKET, BUREAUCRATICALLY DISCOUNTED FIXED RATES, health care for those over 65. There is NO negotiation for these rates, and facilities must meet government fixed standards. The actual cost of Medicare services has not, in Medicare’s history, ever met the actual cost of the services provided. Health care providers, and insurance companies, have simply allowed those unpaid costs to be integrated into insurance premiums.
This is the first, huge and unrealistic spike in health care costs; not caused by technological –pharmaceutical advances; NOT caused by an increase in wages to doctors and nurses; & NOT caused by a surge in facilities’ expenses.
A decade later comes the next huge spike, again caused by federal intervention.
HIPAA.
Except in few jurisdictions, those applying for a marriage license must get blood tests. These tests are not for DNA incompatibility, they are a check for venereal diseases being harbored in the applicant’s body. These tests are carried out by state law, under state constitutions, authorized by each state’s right to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. This is NOT a federal issue, however ….
With the expansion of “civil rights” well beyond that intended by the founders , or even by most US citizens, sexual preferences have been designated as constitutionally protected civil rights. In order to protect the reputations of people with HIV/Aids, HIPAA created a situation that so altered the medical care delivery system, that this political agenda and group preferential treatment, again unrelated to actual medical services, had caused billions of dollars to be spent to reconfigure the physical facilities of the system.
Prior to HIPAA, wards and semi-private rooms existed in hospitals, emergency rooms, and clinics. Wards, where groups of people could be treated using economy of scale to keep down costs, disappeared. Where one ward could treat 20 people, with a small group lavatory, where one main line could feed oxygen or other gases to patients, where one physician making rounds could visit 9 patients in an hour as opposed to 2, where nurses could be physically on hand for all circumstances .
Here are only some of the physical costs. A complete lavatory per room instead of a group lavatory, LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE AT WORK OR AT A RESTAURANT! Expanded physical space, the hospital building needing to expand the walls, ceilings, floors, electrical wiring, plumbing, elevators, &c, at what cost? Buying land to build on. Telephones, corridors, laundries, visitation space, &c. absolutely none of these things enhancing the delivery of services, but now required by federal law!
The Emergency Room Access Act, another federal law, requiring that, regardless of condition, legal right, criminal status, or ability to pay, everyone, in any and all conditions, who presents at an emergency room, must be treated and may not be released until the presenting condition has been “stabilized”. This, as argued prior to the enactment of this legislation, simply made Emergency Rooms, the clinic of choice for the uninsured, the illegal, and the criminal. This created an economic crisis in the delivery of emergency care.
And now, The Affordable Care Act, which, according to all realistic estimates and CBO reports, will increase costs across the board, while at the same time, significantly lowering standards of care and rationing care in the same fashion as in Europe!
Consider: before The Affordable Care Act, everyone physically in the US, had free access to premium, personal health care, REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY!!!
Consider: before The Affordable Care Act, over 40% of all hospital beds, were being provided by charitable institutions, e.g., The Sisters of Carondelet (Roman Catholic), Long Island Jewish Hospital (B’Nai B’Rith), Shawnee Mission Medical Center (Seventh Day Adventists), St. Luke’s Health System (Episcopalian), &c., whose whole purpose is charitable giving, charity health care, and at no cost to taxpayers.
St. Jude’s doesn’t charge; Children’s Mercy Kansas City doesn’t charge; Cornell Medical Center doesn’t charge; KU Med doesn’t charge, &c. They are pleased to take insurance payments if the patient has insurance, but admission is not based on ability to pay.
Need I go into the constitutionality of it? It isn’t!
Footnotes:
I could easily go into how FDR created the extended US economic depression through his keeping the US Dollar pegged to gold when economists were telling him not to and his Euro-Centric monetary policy, and other anti-US policies of his, but there’s a whole section in “The Albany Plan Re-Visited” about this.
Tangentially, this has led to the pension problem, most particularly how it has killed the US auto industry through the inability to fund UAW pensions, and the bankruptcy of Detroit, and soon of Illinois and California.
Another point not needed here: Tort Reform and the needed additional education, and its inherent expense, that doctors need to understand and use the advancing technologies.
Ok, it’s the 50’s. This model predated globalization and the fierce competition in labor costs currently impacting us. For the moment, we are only dealing with a portion of the entire problem of utopian government failure.
Yah, another area we’ll gloss over. Just suffice it to say that in exchange for the USSR removing inoperable missiles from Cuba, Camelot Jack promised that the US would no longer take any military action against anything going on in the Western Hemisphere, and guaranteed the territorial integrity of Cuba.
Avoidance, not evasion: Avoidance is every citizen’s duty, evasion is a felony.
I have litigated extensively in this area; I know whereof I speak in detail.
And, one must consider that 90% of ones’ total medical costs come in the last one year of ones’ life. Pause for effect: yupper, this means that by unconstitutional government fiat, 90% of almost all medical costs of ones’ life had just been shifted from the individual, to the taxpayer! AND, worse yet, these are at an unrealistic discount!
Two direct points here: a quick survey of the writings of the founders shows both health care and sexual preferences to be areas of life from which the federal government was specifically excluded; and two, the founders included Article V, again in both “The Federalist Papers” and in “The Anti-Federalist Papers”, as a method of allowing THE TAX PAYING CITIZENS, to amend The Constitution, to specifically deal with such issues. As an aside, they did consider giving this power to The Supreme Court, and rejected it. Something that CJ Marshall decided on his own to change.
Compare that to the current facility where a nurses’ station is located yards down the hall from the patient’s room. If the nurse is busy in room 3 and the patient in room 1 pushes her emergency button, which lights up the previously un-needed red bulb over the patient’s exterior door, how is she to know that the patient in room 1 is in need? What if this need is a critical need? The heart monitor beeping flat line, but the nurse so out of position that she will never know until the patient in room 1 has passed.
While running for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton stated in an interview that the cost of the uninsured to the insured was $800 per premium/ individual covered by private insurance. Compare that to the CBO $2,500 – $7,500 estimate of premium increase under “The Affordable Care Act”.
A known to me true example is that of the Multiple Sclerosis sufferer, unfortunately no celebrity like Michael J. Fox has chosen this disease to become the spox for, but, Avonex, Beta-Seron, and Ampyra, are now on the questionable list for Rx. The first two are anti-cancer drugs, the last a muscle treatment which allows a sufferer to actually lift one’s legs and walk without falling, stumbling, or collapsing.
Although the unconstitutionality of it is posted elsewhere on this blog, y’all must consider the very simple fact that The Federal Government, under this constitution, does not have the authority to force someone to buy something, nor to force an employer to pay for something, that they do not want. (I have pointed out elsewhere how CJ Robert’s ruling is corrupt and unconstitutional on its face, posted elsewhere on this blog.)
[Addenda: received the following email, its self-explanatory, on 27 March 14 :
I Think SHE IS PISSED!
I don’t think ‘pissed’ really covers it!!!!
Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the ‘Greediest Generation’ as he compared “Social Security” to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
Here’s a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana … I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!
………………………………………………………………………………
“Hey, Alan, let’s get a few things straight!!!!!
1. As a career politician,
you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in ‘an interest bearing account’ for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of losers in return for votes , thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
4. Recently, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown, you and “your ilk” pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your “shill commission” are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN .
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from day one, and now
“you” propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because “you” mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you “incompetents” spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
7.To add insult to injury, you label us “greedy” for calling “bullshit” to your incompetence . Well, Captain Bullshit , I have a few questions for YOU:
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit , and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the
“greedy” ones. It is you and your fellow thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes, your job and retirement security at our expense, you leech.
That’s right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing
your political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
And you can take that to the bank you miserable son of a bitch .
NO, I did not stutter.
P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits “entitlements”. WHAT AN INSULT!!!!
I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years. It’s my money-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks.
EVERYONE!!!
If you like the way things are in America delete this.
If you agree with what a Montana citizen, Patty Myers, says, please PASS IT ON]
Income Equality
Posted: 29 January 2014
First things first: being fluent in the English Language, income equality, means that we all get paid the same regardless of our productivity. If that is true, and it is, what is the purpose of pushing for income equality?
Next, the reason that people are paid a “minimum wage” is because these people have MINIMUM SKILLS or NO SKILLS AT ALL. Need I say more?
As far as an Executive Order requiring that all businesses that contract with The Federal Government must pay a federal minimum wage dictated in this order, this is meaningless for several reasons.
The first reason that this is irrelevant is that all federal contractors must pay The Prevailing Wage of the area where they are working. This is a fix for unions. The Prevailing Wage is NOT the average wage of the area. It is The Union Wage for that area, whether or not there are any unions there! This means that if there are no unions with which to compare compensation packages, a federal bureaucrat may arbitrarily fix them. Usually a contractor simply puts this fixed wage in the contract bid or states that he is paying the prevailing wage and has an appendix to demonstrate same.
The second reason is that all federal contracts have quotas for minority businesses. Minimum wage is not a factor for this as all minority businesses eligible for federal contracts are registered and monitored by the bureaucracy and is already in compliance with union prevailing wages.
The third reason is the one that everyone, especially the arrogant and ignorant lame-stream media, ignores. It is that Article II of the United States Constitution does NOT give the president the authority to set wages for anyone. It is a function of the congress to set federal wages, of which there are over a dozen different pay scales, and no authority whatsoever for the president to set a pay scale in the private sector.
What does this action tell you? Is this more diversion from the failed and unconstitutional Affordable Care Act? Diversion from the IRS Scandal? Diversion from the Fast & Furious Scandal? Diversion from the NSA Scandal? Diversion from the failed Border Security? Diversion from the failed Taliban War in Afghanistan? Diversion from the Benghazi Scandal? Diversion from Holder’s failure to prosecute the criminal sheriff in Noxubee County MS? And, how many scandals can you add?
Or is this simply another step toward a Marxist Industrial-Feudalism, with Hillary as the heir apparent?
Bibliography
[To: The Albany Plan Re-Visited]
Posted: 14 January 2014
Each book has a reason why I think it important and whether or not it is political (P), historic (H), must read (MR), should read (SR), could read (CR) and of interest (OI). Not all of the books in the body of the text are here, e.g., gosh, is it here, yet again??? You guessed it, McClanahan’s,
The Founders’ Guide to the Constitution
. Sigh, so much to read, learn, and comprehend, so little time!
Originally written in 2005, there have been loads of good books published since then. The two biographies of George Washington that I mentioned early on are among them. I put as many of the new books as possible in the appropriate place above, but I certainly have not been complete, just mentioning how I learned of James Q. Wilson and his works would take up a page, so, here’s the incomplete bibliography:
The Constitution of the United States
, ed. Conrad Smith, Harper & Row, ISBN 06-460163-3
MR H&P; this copy has various case summaries as well as the 1787 Constitution, almost any copy that you can get that has some court decisions will do, but it is the first document that you must read before going any further. I further recommend that the next item that you read be the Constitution of the Confederate States, and then read Thucydides or Thucydides immediately after the Anti-Federalist Papers; for those wanting more meat, there is Ed Meese, III’s, The Heritage Guide to the U.S. Constitution
The Federalist Papers
, Hamilton, Madison & Jay, Signet Classic ISBN 0-451-52881-6
MR H&P; the book itself gives the Federalist view on why the 1787 Constitution should be ratified. It does so from both political and historic perspectives. It is also important because, from a contract viewpoint, what it promises the constitution will provide and how it is be interpreted become consideration for contract formation. What this means is that everything that they say will happen and how the constitutional clauses will be interpreted, if ratified, will be in accordance with this book. They were wrong and Patrick Henry right, but, hey….
The Anti-Federalist Papers
, Henry, DeWitt, et al, Signet Classic, ISBN 0-451-52884-0
MR H&P; the book gives the Anti-Federalist view on why the 1787 Constitution must not be ratified. More importantly, it is the basis for the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to the 1787 Constitution. Remember, the 1787 Constitution does NOT provide for free speech, the right to assemble, reasonable cause, search and seizure, bearing arms, free press, warranted searches, cruel and unusual punishment, &c., these rights are found in the amended constitution and discussion of those rights, and many other things, are found here. This is the second half of how the constitution should be interpreted and its neglect by the courts, congress and the executive, is a contributing factor to why the 1787 Constitution died in 1861 and to why we are ruled by the Ins and the Outs instead of by ourselves. It is not in the Federalist that you will find the true interpretations of the right to bear arms or of free speech and assembly, it is in here. The adoption of the Bill of Rights has the same contractual effect as the original ratification. Because of their historical context, these writings, that is both books, are actually consideration for the social contract and, as such, must both be read in interpreting the 1787 Constitution which is how The Constitution should be, but is not, interpreted. MOREOVER, it is THIS, which should always take precedence over The Federalist Papers whenever there is a conflict!
A Disquisition on Government,
John C. Calhoun, Bobbs-Merrill, ISBN 0-672-60014-5
MR H&P; a historical and political review of the first 60 years under the 1787 Constitution combined with suggestions for change. Consider it the first the Heartland Plan. Calhoun reviews the history leading up to his time of writing and gives astute and succinct commentary on what is working, and what is not working. He also adds suggestions to protect the minority from the tyranny of the democratic majority. Today, it is the majority who needs protection from the minority, thanks mostly to the legislating federal courts. Calhoun’s political savvy and conceptual social genius means that his work belongs up there with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli as must reads for anyone interested in government, politics, American history and social organizations of all types.
History of the Peloponnesian War
, Thucydides, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-04-4039-9
MR H&P; probably the best primer on war and government ever, if you read no other work in this bibliography, read this one!
The English Constitution,
Walter Bagehot, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0-8014-9023-5
MR H&P; in 1787 we could have gone the parliamentary way, here is what that looks like and how that worked up until 1867, when Bagehot penned this work. This work is an absolute must as there must be a comparison against which to judge the 1787 Constitution. This is it. ‘This work is a study of the classical period of Cabinet government before the extension of the suffrage, the creation of the British party machines, and the emergence of the independent civil service administering a vast welfare state.’ (paraphrased from the end cover which sums it up quite well)
Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic
, Matthew Mason, Chapel Hill, ISBN 978-0-8078-3049-9
MR H&P; the title pretty much says it, but for me, the fact that it is readable when compared to Thomas’ work is much more important. It truly brings out the effect of slavery on our early history by placing into context the complexity of the interrelationships of slavery with most of the early development of the United States.
The Slave Trade,
Hugh Thomas, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-684-81063-8
MR H; Hugh Thomas, an Oxford Don, has gone into the records of the ships, merchants, owners and governments in order to tell the story of slavery in the European Ecumene. This is a tough but worthwhile read because it debunks so many of the myths that have been percolating as both truth and justification for so much of XXth Century welfarism in the West. Much of what is out there is false regarding who benefited from slavery, how it developed, who enslaved who, where the slaves actually went as well as where the profits went. If you’re going to talk racism based on slavery or use slavery as a justification for compensation, you had better have read this book, as well as the one above and the one below, first.
The South was Right
, the Kennedy brothers, Pelican (LA), ISBN 1-56554-024-7
MR H&P; the Kennedy brothers, James & Walter, in an engaging fashion, point out certain facts that are ignored below the graduate level in our educational system. One of the most important is their analysis of the 1860 census showing the breakdown of races both enslaved and owning slaves. Another is to point out that the War of 1861 was not about slavery but it was about independence and State’s Rights, leading us back to Calhoun and books further down on this list.
Not Out of Africa
, how Afrocentrism became an excuse to teach myth as history, Mary Lefkowitz, Harper-Collins, ISBN 0-465-09838-X
MR H; so, you think that the Kennedy brothers are Neo-Confederates and have falsified their “facts” about race and slavery, &c.? Nope, before letting yourself be swayed that the people of color are owed anything based on historical fact, you had better read this to find out what historical fact actually is.
The Civil War,
a narrative, Shelby Foote, Vintage (in three volumes) ISBN 0-394-74623-6
MR H&P; primarily the best history book taking in the whole War of 1861, it also includes political factors justifying or explaining the behavior of the participants of that war. Of special interest to the Heartland Plan are the various quotes and researches relating to causes. The quotes you have already seen in the plan proper, but in order to see how The Emancipation Proclamation destroyed the Confederacy and how it was unconstitutional in the first place, you have got to go through the book. Foote explains how just after Antietam, Britain and France were going to recognize the Confederacy but because the proclamation changed the footing of the war from one based on the legitimate right to secede and form one’s own government, to one based on the abolition of the abomination of slavery, they couldn’t, thus dooming the confederacy and killing the constitution of 1787. (Time-Life books has a truly collectible edition in a multi-volume hard-back available.)
One Nation Under Law;
America’s Early National Struggles to Separate Church and State, Mark D. McGarvie, Northern Illinois, ISBN 0-87580-333-4
MR H&P; although he doesn’t go back far enough in his discussion as to where, when and why separation of church and state becomes important, look at how Rome collected taxes and how Christians became scapegoats as well as the pre-Jesus anti-Semitism that existed, he does cover and discuss quite fully the American perspective of it from before the revolution and how it has become such a hot issue. This is a MR because of its research and reasoning.
The People Themselves
, popular constitutionalism and judicial review, Larry D. Kramer, Oxford Press, ISBN 0-19-516918-2
MR H&P; so, you think that I made up all that stuff about the legislating Supremes and juries and what not! This is a must read to understand how the Marshalista’s and populists stole our land and government.
What Kind of Nation,
Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the epic struggle to create a United States, James F. Simon, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-684-84871-6
MR H&P; no, really, so you think that I made up all that stuff about the legislating Supremes and juries and what not. You have got to read this to understand how our republican democracy was stolen from right under us at the very beginning. Jefferson was NOT one of our better presidents, regardless of his intellect and writings.
How Democratic is the American Constitution,
Robert A. Dahl, Yale, ISBN 0-300-09218-0
SR P; it’s not, and Dahl explains it, and because it’s not, the minority is ruling the majority in a downward socialist spiral
The First American,
the life and times of Benjamin Franklin, H. W. Brand, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-49328-2
MR H; the first of many biographies and, with the possible exception of Alexander Hamilton, probably of the greatest American thinker who ever thunk and with the possible exception of George Washington, the greatest American. Biographies in general are important because they explain so much of the people and times. One of the most crucial events in American history occurred in “the pit” of a cabinet ministry when Doctor Franklin was exposed to the vitriolic hatred and spite of the Prime Minister shortly before 1775. Why did the American Voice of Reason resort to revolution? And how did Doctor Franklin conceive of some of his political theories?
His Excellency, George Washington,
Joseph J. Ellis, Knopf, ISBN 1-4000-4031-0
MR H&P; the only great American president. He is historically important because of all the things that we learned in grade school, but the man’s political genius is ignored, for the most part. When in doubt of a political, governmental or governance issue, he would have both Hamilton, his Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State, write out a position, always giving each the opposite. He usually went with Hamilton’s position which is part of why Jefferson left the cabinet and spent Washington’s second administration creating a true political party and party machine, sniping at Washington from behind Freneau’s libels, and suborning Madison from Federalism.
Alexander Hamilton,
Ron Chernow, The Penguin Press, ISBN 1-59420-009-2
MR H&P; the person who most shaped Washington’s administrations and the early years of the Federal Government by virtue of his intellect, bastardy, and most particularly, his prominent position as key author of The Federalist. His financial insights and genius laid the early foundation which held such great promise but took such direct hits from Jefferson, Madison and Andrew Jackson that our economy, except for the interlude when J. P. Morgan acted as our central bank, until the mid-1930’s was so wrought with massive depressions and booms. For those who consider the “great” depression of the 1930’s to have been so horrific, one should look to the depression caused by Jefferson’s isolationist policies and laws, his friendship with Madison causing the War of 1812, and Andrew Jackson’s tax and economic policies.
Thomas Jefferson,
a strange case of mistaken identity, Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Madison Books, ISBN 0-8191-7454-8
MR H&P; unlike Koch’s fawning, Mapp looks into much more of Jefferson’s life and character which helps to explain his motivations. His facts regarding Sally Hemings, pp 263 – 264, his blond mistresses in Paris, and how his writings reflect his elitist planter attitudes as well as his “yeomen farmer” democratic theories are important to the understanding of the principles which drove both the High Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. His friendship and estrangement with the John Adams’ are here as well.
The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
Adrienne Koch & William Peden, Random House, ISBN 0-375-75218-8
MR H&P; in addition to a biography, Koch & Peden have edited much of Jefferson’s writings. This copy is necessary because of the writings included as well as to offset the Mapp biography. Considering Jefferson’s behavior as both Governor of Virginia and President of the United States, his writings are of great significance to understanding both him and his actions. As Mapp says, “a strange case of mistaken identity.”
John Quincy Adams
, Robert V. Remini, Times Books, ISBN 0-8050-6939-9
MR H&P; “It is the responsibility of government to improve the conditions of life for those who are subject to its authority; otherwise government can never accomplish its lawful ends.” J.Q.A.
John Adams
, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0684-81363-7
MR H&P; yep, another biography. Apparently a cranky puritan with an eye for detail and an incredible intellect that he thought that most of his fellows were envious of. Intolerant of others and not afraid to voice that intolerance, Adams contributed much to all discussions with sound reasoning and a sounder base of fact. His one term in office as president and two as vice-president gave us a start that Jefferson and Madison abused. The ‘impressment wars’ with France and Britain, the Jay Treaty and the unconstitutional ‘Alien and Sedition Acts’ with the Supremes approving of them, make this an important read. By understanding these people, we get a much greater understanding of our current history and politics. BTW, one should consider the timing of his proposal of marriage to Abigail, the date of their wedding, and the date of the birth of their first child. Yupper, that’s what I thought, too!
James Madison
, Garry Willis, Times Books, ISBN 0-8050-6905-4
MR H&P; at the time in 1812 that Madison, with Jefferson pushing from the shadows, went to congress to ask for a Declaration of War, we were still negotiating for fulfillment of the 1783 Treaty of Paris Accords which supposedly ended the Revolution. We had diplomats in London on a peace mission! Not the great tome on Madison, but enough to fill in the times and conditions of The Founders and some of how he figured into the picture, it’s just not complete enough to be the only book on him.
Founding brothers, the Revolutionary Generation,
Joseph J. Ellis, Knopf, ISBN 0-375-40544-5
MR H&P; “Ellis recounts the sometimes collaborative, sometimes archly antagonistic interactions between these men, and shows us the private characters behind the public personas: Adams, the ever-combative iconoclast, whose closest political collaborator was his wife, Abigail; Burr, crafty, smooth, and one of the most despised public figures of his time; Hamilton, whose audacious manner and deep economic savvy masked his humble origins; Jefferson, renowned for his eloquence, but so reclusive and taciturn that he rarely spoke more than a few sentences in public; Madison, small, sickly, and paralyzingly shy, yet one of the most effective debaters of his generation; and the stiffly formal Washington, the ultimate realist, larger-than-life, and America’s only truly indispensable figure.” I copied this from the overleaf. It says what I want to say about this book, only much better.
Prelude to Civil War; The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 1816 – 1836
, William W. Freehling, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-50768-18
MR H&P, excepting only Shelby Foote, Freehling is probably the top authority on ante-bellum U.S. history. Personally, I think that he allows some of his personal bias into his conclusions, but his academic integrity is, in my opinion, exceptional and his work authoritative, complete, readable and understandable. If you’re going to consider anything about nullification and secession, this, the second volume to this, and the following work are essential.
Secession Debated; Georgia’s Showdown in 1860
, William W. Freehling, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-50794-5-0
MR H&P, Secession was and is legal. Here are the arguments and the historical background within which they were used in 1860 Georgia. Must read for anyone considering secession and its moral and legal foundations.
The Rise of the West,
a history of the Human Community, William H. McNeill, University of Chicago, Book # ME751 (that’s how old my copy is, before ISBNs)
MR H; it doesn’t get anymore Must Read than this. If you pretend to have an understanding of Western Civilization without having read this monster at least twice, you will probably lose any debate that you have with someone who has read this work. It is an extraordinarily succinct and astute work considering its breadth. It’s the basic foundation for any historian of The West.
illiberal democracy at home and abroad, Fareed Zakaria, W. W. Norton, ISBN 0-393-32487-7
MR P; if you think that you know democracy and haven’t read this work, you’ve got a gap that needs filling.
The Economics of Trade Unions
, Albert Rees, University of Chicago, ISBN 0-226-70702-4
MR P; like Zakaria’s work, you must read it to understand how unions work and play a part in U.S. politics
An Empire of Wealth,
the Epic History of American Economic Power, John S. Gordon, Harper-Collins, ISBN 0-06-009362-5
MR H; remember all of those economics and statistical numbers thrown at you regarding the industrial revolution and those stories of robber barons and employee abuses? Gordon actually looked up those figures and put together a book that debunks much of what you learned in high school about capitalism in the XIXth Century.
The Regulators
; watchdog agencies and the public interest, Louis M. Kohlmeier, Jr., Harper & Row, Library of Congress #69-15314
MR P&H; yep, another pre-ISBN. People think that I make up much of what I talk about. Here is a work from 1969 that is a simple survey of how bureaucracy works. I particularly like the “yak fat” incident on pp 95 – 97. Chapter 2 has a very nice dissertation of the constitutionality of government regulation. Bureaucracies only respond to their owners, the politicians. Read this and decide for yourself.
The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, an investigation, Christopher Ruddy, Free Press, ISBN 0-684-83837-0
MR P&H; and here is a current work to show how bureaucracy works. On its face, it doesn’t appear to be about bureaucracy but about an assassination, however, if Mr. Ruddy is to be believed, it appears that the murder was committed by a bureaucrat not only under the direction of but in the presence of, a politician. This is a MR because you must come to your own conclusion as to who is responsive to whom.
This book, and the forensic evidence presented in it, is reason enough to NOT allow Hillary Clinton to run for, much less be, President of these United States!
Freakonomics
, a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything, Levitt and Dubner, William Morrow, ISBN 0-06-073132-X
SR H; the economist put statistical analysis to all sorts of social conditions, in other words, he applied the scientific method to social conditions, and you will probably be very surprised as to his results. Like Gordon above, the actual use of the scientific method exposes a considerable amount of myth and urban legend that’s being used as the basis for spending tax dollars and in the making of social and government policy. There’s a follow-up book that is also worth getting and reading
Atlas Shrugged,
Ayn Rand, Signet, ISBN 0-451-09135-3
SR P; except for John Galt’s turgid monologue, this is why the center is where we’re whole, her other works are CR or OI and include: The Fountainhead, Anthem, For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution, Night of January 16th, and The Romantic Manifesto
A Leap in the Dark,
The Struggle to Create the American Republic, John Ferling, Oxford Press, ISBN 0-19-515924-1
SR H; good telling of what led up to the Revolution, it fills in details and relationships that biographies don’t do on their own.
The Genuine Article
, A Historian Looks at Early America, Edmund S. Morgan, W. W. Norton, ISBN 0-393-05920-0
SR H; Another filler of detail and relationships. These books give a broader and wider scope than straight biographies and help keep down the adulation one can feel for the subject of a biography which can and does cause one to lose focus on the reality of the community.
The French & Indian War,
deciding the fate of North America, Walter R. Borneman, Harper-Collins, ISBN 978-0-06-076184-4
SR H; the first Global War. This read is the one that covers the original set of grievances between Britain and us. Considering its relationship to the Revolutionary War of 1776 as being almost identical to that of World War I’s, 1914 – 1918 relationship to World War II, 1939 – 1945, understanding what happened here becomes as important as understanding that it’s not until 1819 that the Revolutionary War of 1776 finally concludes with the United States ordering the payment of the rightful debts of its citizens and the withdrawal of British Troops from the Mid-West.
Understanding these reasons explains the how and why of The Declaration of Independence, and why so many literate, non-The New York Times readers, are secessionists!
The Scratch of a Pen,
1763 and the transformation of North America, Colin G. Calloway, Oxford Press, ISBN 0-19-530071-8
SR H; a really good analysis of the treaty ending the first global war and how it changed the face of the geo-political world in 1763. This is the treaty and its effect on North America; this is the analytical prelude to the revolution.
The Glorious Cause,
the American Revolution, 1763 – 1789, Robert Middlekauff, Oxford Press, ISBN 0-19-503575-5
SR H; good narrative history of the Revolution
1812; The War that Forged a Nation
, Walter R. Borneman, Harper-Collins, ISBN 0-06-053112-6
SR H; personally, the American Revolution took place from about 1745 through 1819, by starting with Borneman’s The French and Indian War, reading the in-between works, and ending with this work, you’ll have an excellent grasp of what happened, and more importantly, why it happened.
The Histories, Herodotus,
Barnes & Noble, Classics, ISBN 1-59308-102-2
CR H; facts, myths, fables and fabrications from before the common era (B.C.E.), This is the spice and narrative missing from MacNeill’s work for that particular period of time. What were the people like, is revealed in here.
Dereliction of Duty,
Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that led to Vietnam, H. R. McMaster, Harper-Collins, ISBN 0-06-018795-6
SR H&P; the truth of how we got involved in Viet Nam. Best read without any comment from me regarding its contents. The reason it’s both H & P is that the research is from the actual tapes and writings of the participants and that what they did was everything that Thucydides said NOT to do.
The Annals of Imperial Rome,
Tacitus, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-044060-7
CR H; “History as fact, rhetoric, psychology and art,” from the end-piece. More importantly, it covers from 55 Common Era (C.E.) through 117 C.E. which is the transition from Republic to Empire. Taxation and war are significant factors as is the internal political struggles he describes; got it? Taxation & war!!!
The Works of Josephus
, Translator William Whiston, Hendrickson, ISBN 0-913573-86-8
CR H; Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. Aside from a self-serving autobiography, a historical perspective of the time is shown; and since he worked for Rome at one time in his life, he gives an accurate and personal picture of internal politics and taxation in the provinces.
Washington’s Crossing
, David H. Fischer, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-517034-2
OI H; the first year of the Revolution and the importance of Trenton.
Alexander Hamilton & the Persistence of Myth, Stephen F. Knott, University Press of Kansas, ISBN 0-7006-1157-6
OI H; want to know more about Hamilton’s place in history and the constant conflict between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians?
A Wilderness so Immense,
The Louisiana Purchase and the Destiny of America, Jon Kukla, Knopf, ISBN 0-375-40812-6
OI H; how we came to make the Louisiana Purchase, of interest because of the unconstitutionality of it all and how Jefferson did it.
Mr. Jefferson’s Lost Cause, land, farmers, slavery, and the Louisiana Purchase, Roger G. Kennedy, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-515347-2
SR H&P; a very good analysis of the Louisiana Purchase, different from Kukla’s.
Undaunted Courage,
Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West, Stephen E. Ambrose, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-684-82697-6
SR H; when Jefferson sent them out, part of their job was to write a report to be published. They did not. This is an analysis and editing of all of their notes and records. It’s important because it’s an accurate first hand report of what the Native Americans were like, their living & working conditions, and their social structure. If Ambrose hadn’t made reference to U.S. Troops burning down villes in Viet Nam as part of this work, I’d’a made it a must read, instead, I’m gonna tell some of it like it was:
U.S. Troops burned all sorts of villages along the Laotian and Cambodian borders of S.E. Asia under the direction of McNamara’s DoD. Now, here’s why: in order to interdict The Ho Chi Minh Trail, Johnson & Co., decided to remove the locals upon whom the VC/NVA were dependent on for food and recruits, so, they purchased all of the land, stock, buildings, &c., of the Viet Namese who lived along the trail, and moved them, again at U.S. expense to the coast, where they were given new land to live on. These tribes decided that they did not like living on the coast under Saigon’s rules so they moved back to the areas that the U.S. had purchased and squatted on them. Johnson & Co., bought them out a second time, and moved them a second time, to the coast, again at U.S. taxpayer expense. When the tribes moved back inland a second time, Johnson & Co., decided to buy them out a third time, but ordered the destruction of their tribal homes and lands to prevent a third return. U.S. Troops had not gone wild or barbarian; it’s almost ALWAYS the politician who does that.
America Afire,
Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800, Bernard A. Weisberger, William Morrow, ISBN 0-380-97763-X
MR P, SR H; what were early politics and politicians really like in the United States?
Adams vs. Jefferson,
the tumultuous election of 1800, John Ferling, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-516771-6
MR P, SR H; if you read America Afire, you should read this book, as well and for the same reasons
The First Salute,
a view of the American Revolution, Barbara W. Tuchman, Ballantine Books, ISBN 0-345-33667-4
CR H; a very good history of the revolution
The Birth of the Nation
, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0-395-31675-8
CR H; not much to say about this one
American Colonies
, Alan Taylor, Viking, ISBN 0-670-87282-2
SR H; about the only work that I’m familiar with that actually discusses American life during the colonial period, that is, 1620 through 1776.
Crucible of American Democracy
, the struggle to fuse egalitarianism & capitalism in Jeffersonian Pennsylvania, Andrew Shankman, University Press of Kansas, ISBN 0-7006-1304-8
SR H&P; A microcosm of what was going on at the time both politically and historically. The depth of detail brings out nuances of the political situation whose effects are still with us.
The Island at the Center of the World,
the epic story of Dutch Manhattan & the forgotten colony that shaped America, Russell Shorto, Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-50349-0
OI H; New York City before it was New York City
Jefferson Davis, American, William J. Cooper, Jr., Knopf, ISBN 0-394-56916-4
MR H&P; One of the better U.S. Presidents. Yep, U.S. Presidents. Better read this one to find out why.
The Civil War
, a narrative, Shelby Foote
Go read this one again because if you’ve been reading this list in order, you’ll need ole Shel before going on to Reconstruction and States’ Rights, or, read it for your personal pleasure, otherwise, skip right on to:
Allegiance
, Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the beginning of the Civil War, David Detzer, Harcourt, ISBN 0-15-100641-5
MR H; it’s an MR because of what it tells us about the times in general and the actual workings of this military action from both sides, keeping in mind that there was an armistice between Lincoln and Jefferson that Lincoln violated to unconstitutionally grab power and raise a union army.
An Honorable Defeat
, the last days of the Confederate government, William C. Davis, Harcourt, ISBN 0-15-100566-8
CR H; covers the last four months of the Confederacy
States’ Rights and the Union
, Imperium in Imperia 1776 – 1876, Forrest McDonald, University Press of Kansas, ISBN 0-7006-1040-5
MR H&P; and you thought that I was kidding when I wrote that the 1787 Constitution was pretty much died by 1880 and that the killing was done in 1861.
The Road to Disunion
, Secessionists at Bay 1776 – 1854, William W. Freehling, Oxford, ISBN (Vol. 1) 0-19-507259-6
MR H&P; a necessary read for the events and politics from Jefferson to Tyler to Lincoln
ISBN (Vol. 2) 978-0-19-505815-4 Secessionists Triumphant 1854 — 1861
The Union Divided,
party conflict in the Civil War North, Mark E. Neely, Jr., Harvard, ISBN 0-674-00742-5
MR P; remember what I said about politicians and their subjects, the bureaucracy? And what I said about Lincoln and the unconstitutional goings on?
Reconstruction
, America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863 – 1877, Eric Foner, Perennial Classics, ISBN 0-06-093716-5
MR H; if you want to have any understanding of today’s South, you’ve got to understand the two reconstructions, the presidential and the congressional, and their effects on an entire culture.
The Death of Reconstruction, race, labor, and politics in the post-civil war North, 1865 – 1901,
Heather C. Richardson, Harvard, ISBN 0-674-00637-2
MR H; Bill O’Reilly keeps saying that it’s not about race, it’s about money, and he’s right. This is a must read to understand why the racist policies of today shouldn’t be.
The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims,
Prometheus Books, ISBN#1-59102-307-6
MR H, the title says it all, and it ain’t pretty. For those of you who, especially on the left, think that you’ll survive the loss of the War on Terror, you’d better read this one very carefully, because, you’ll be the first to go, since me and mine will already be dead. And, for all of you women who have gone beyond the 8th Grade, and don’t want to be FGM’d, this is an absolute must read.
Warriors at Suez,
Eisenhower takes America into the Middle East, Donald Neff, Linden, ISBN 0-671-41010-5
CR H&P; a good read on how we came so involved in the Middle East, and the foundation of how and why we’ve been so bad for both them and us.
The World is Flat,
a brief history of the twenty-first century, Thomas L. Friedman, Farrar, ISBN 0-374-29288-4
OI H; a discussion of the phenomena of global economics is playing out, from an elitist viewpoint, completely ignoring both Faith and that it is all local. Also, you’ll note that this was published before the 2008 Financial crash, which was caused by Clinton’s abuse of The Community Recovery Act, and his unconstitutional manipulation of both Fannie & Freddie. For more, pp 193 – 360 of William D. Cohan’s, House of Cards.
The Sword and the Shield
, the Mitrokhin Archive and the secret history of the K. G. B., Vasili Mitrokhin & C. Andrew, Perseus, ISBN 0-465-00312-5
SR H&P; you think the Rosenbergs weren’t spies? McCarthy was wrong? Here’s how a bureaucracy, the Czar’s Cheka or secret police, has survived to put one of its own, Putin, on the Czar’s throne. Mitrokhin was a K.G.B. Colonel and operative and files clerk and he brought tons of material out of Russia when the U.S.S.R. collapsed. An MR if your interest goes past 1880 and you really want to see how a bureaucracy works only at the whim of its political owners and how both the 3:00 and 9:00 operate
No Simple Victory
, Norman Davies, Viking, ISBN 978-0-670-01832-1
SR H&P. For many years I have commented to anyone who would listen that the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan were far worse tyrannies than Nazi Germany, yet for various reasons, historians and the press have ignored this. Now, famed historian Norman Davies, (and yet another Brit speaks honestly and openly, why are they not afraid of the truth?) has written the first of what will hopefully be many books on reality. He starts by asking the reader to answer several questions, of which few can be answered by anyone with a normal college education. This would be a must read if we were dealing only with history, however, because we’re more interested in the political side of things, I’m making this a should read.
The Universe in a Nutshell
, Stephen Hawking, Bantam, ISBN 0-553-80202-X
OI H; have a dictionary ready, but this is important because, and you won’t believe this, it will give you a better understanding of everything and the importance of science and engineering, and the relationship between science and God, and, maybe, religion/ religious practices
The God that Failed
, why six great writers rejected communism, Gide, Wright, Silone, Spender, Koestler, & Fischer, Bantam, F 2011 1 (another pre-ISBN book)
SR H&P; why we don’t go past socialism, the 9:00 position, on the political clock.
Democracy in America,
Alexis de Tocqueville, Library of America, ISBN 978-1-59853-152-7
Two volumes to this, Edited by Zunz, it is the Goldhammer translation.
MR H & P. Probably the best work on ante-bellum U.S.A. Thanks to Mark Levin, Kevin Gutzman, and me, it’s making a resurgence. It’s another book that you’ve got to read to believe. It is a snapshot of everything that you want to know of the United States between The War of 1812 and The War of 1861. His conclusions are sheer genius.
The Party:
The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers, Richard McGregor, ISBN 978-0-06-170877-0
OI SR P H, this, and the next book, are necessary if you want any idea of not only what’s going on in China, but why they are the way that they are TODAY, and why we should be very leery of all contact with them.
Red Capitalism:
The Fragile Financial Foundation of China’s Extraordinary Rise, Walter & Howie, ISBN 978-0-470-82586-0
OI-SR-P-H, this is actually a MR, and why we should require quality control (Demingism) for ALL imports. Not only does it point out the two AMC’s (see other blog postings), but suggests the other two shadow AMC’s, for a total of 4 AMC’s, but it includes the facts surrounding the milk scandal, dog food scandal, and various real estate bubbles.
Injustice:
Exposing the Racial Agenda of The Obama Justice Department, J. Christian Adams, Esq., ISBN 978-1-59698-277-2
OI SR P H, it’s an exposé by a whistle blower of the corruption in the DoJ, and by extension, the entire O administration.
There are several books that I’ve loaned out and they haven’t been returned. These two are important:
Wrong on Race,
Bruce Bartlett
Throw them All Out,
and I don’t remember who wrote it. They are both important as Mr. Bartlett’s book, read in conjunction with Prof. Thomas’ The Slave Trade, puts so much in perspective as well as pointing out that the racist party is on the left. Throw them All Out, is a compilation of just how corrupt congress is, both parties, and how so many of them went from zero net assets to becoming millionaires through political shenanigans. Remember, Pelosi had zero net assets before entering politics, and now, ‘magically’, has a net worth of over $25,000,000.00.
Now, if you’re interested in what can be done to re-establish the ideals of the first American Revolution of 1776, you should purchase
The Albany Plan Re-Visited,
available through Barnes & Nobles eBooks. For those of you who don’t know, Lt. Colonel Benjamin Franklin, Ph.D., PA Militia, was very upset with how the colonies participated in The French & Indian War, a.k.a., The Seven Years War, which was the first global war. He created a constitution that addressed all of the problems of confederation, and came up with The Albany Plan, which for the time and place, was the, in my personal opinion, best format for a democratic style republic. The author used it for the basis for The Heartland Plan, which is included in the book. Whereas Franklin’s wrote in the 1750’s, that is, before electricity, industrial, steam, birth control, &c., The Heartland Plan takes all of these into account as well the expansion of education to everyone, not just those who could pay for it.
Justplainbill's Weblog 
Recommended Video/ United Nations and Civil Rights vs Women
Embed: Human rights travesty
cut and paste if necessary, must see video
http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/embed/eng