Politics

Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare: Hint — it’s not Bernie Sanders…


By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano…

Hillary Clinton’s nightmare is not the sudden resurgence of Bernie Sanders. It is the fidelity to the rule of law of the FBI.

The recent revelations of the receipt by Clinton of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage. Here is the backstory.

It seems that every week, more information comes to light about Clinton’s grave legal woes. Her worries are in two broad categories: One is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband’s charitable foundation. The FBI is currently and aggressively investigating both. What I will describe below is in the state secrets category. It is apparently not new to the FBI, but it is new to the public.

Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive.

SAP is clothed in such secrecy that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. Clinton — who ensured all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband’s server, a nonsecure nongovernmental venue — could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes. Those codes change at unscheduled times, such that she would need to inquire of them before inputting them.

The presence of the SAP-denominated email on her husband’s server, whether opened or not, shows a criminal indifference to her lawful obligation to maintain safely all state secrets entrusted to her care. Yet, Clinton has suggested that she is hopelessly digitally inept and may not have known what she was doing. This constitutes an attempted plausible deniability to the charge of failing to safeguard state secrets.

But in this sensitive area of the law, plausible deniability is not an available defense; no judge would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom, and no lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion.

This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.

Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute — it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution.

What type of data is typically protected by the SAP denomination? The most sensitive under the sun — such as the names of moles (spies working for more than one government) and their American handlers, the existence of black ops (illegal programs that the U.S. government carries out, of which it will deny knowledge if exposed), codes needed to access state secrets and ongoing intelligence gathering projects.

The crime here occurs when SAPs are exposed by residing in a nonsecure venue; it does not matter for prosecution purposes whether they fell into the wrong hands.

Clinton’s persistent mocking of the seriousness of all this is the moral equivalent of taunting alligators before crossing a stream. SAPs are so sensitive that most of the FBI agents who are investigating Clinton lack the security clearances needed to view the SAP found among her emails. Most FBI agents have never seen a SAP.

Shortly after the presence of the SAP-denominated email was made known, the State Department released another email Clinton failed to erase wherein she instructed her subordinates to take state secrets from a secure venue, to cut and paste and summarize them, and send them to her on her nonsecure venue. Such an endeavor, if carried out, is a felony — masking and then not safeguarding state secrets. Such a command to subordinates can only come from a criminal mind.

Equally as telling is a little-known 2013 speech that recently surfaced given by one of Clinton’s former subordinates. The aide revealed that Clinton and her staff regularly engaged in digital conversations about state secrets on their BlackBerries. This is not criminal if the BlackBerries were government-issued and secured. Clinton’s was neither. It was purchased at her instructions off the shelf by one of her staff.

Can anyone doubt that Clinton has failed to safeguard state secrets? If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she’d have been indicted months ago.

What remains of the rule of law in America? The FBI will soon tell us.

Categories: Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government Secrets, Obama, Politics, Strange News, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex-FBI Agent’s EPIC Open Letter To Eric Holder STUNS Obama Administration…..


This letter is posted in many places on the Internet. Red Flag News checked the authenticity at several fact-checking sites and none report it as a hoax or fraud. McCown has a LinkedIn page where his credentials are substantiated. We can find no posting where McCown himself denies writing the below letter. If we find out differently – we will let you know. For now, the letter appears to be genuine.

K. Dee McCowen

College Station, Texas

December 28, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

 

Dear Attorney General Holder,

It is unlikely that we met while I served in the FBI. That being said, we served at the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the same years and on the same “team” conceptually speaking. During my service in the FBI I worked with a number of U.S. Attorney Offices in the United States to include a tour at FBIHQ where I worked with the Department of Justice (Main) on a daily basis.

I begin my letter with this comment to highlight that I am not a bystander on the topic of law enforcement in the United States. I worked and managed a variety of federal investigations during my 12 years of service in the FBI, to include the management of several Civil Rights cases in the State of Texas. In fact, during my last tour in the Bureau, I was an FBI Supervisor responsible for managing federal investigations in nine (9) Texas counties, many of which were rural; in places where one would suspect racism to flourish given the narrative often pushed by Hollywood and urban progressive elites like yourself. I performed this mission diligently and under the close supervision of two FBI managers; an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) and Special Agent in Charge (SAC,) both of which happened to be African American and outstanding law enforcement professionals. I also performed this mission serving side by side with a variety of law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State and local level.

I have observed you closely during your tenure as Attorney General and notably during these last tumultuous years; watching you negotiate a number of controversial public matters to include the ATF Fast and Furious scandal, Black Panther Party intimidation at voting booths, IRS targeting of American citizens (citizen groups opposed to the Obama Administration,) the ignoring of US Immigration laws, DOJ criminal indictments of select news reporters and your management of several high profile criminal investigations involving subjects of race, notably African Americans.

Until today, I chose to hold my tongue. However, with the assassination of two NYPD Lieutenants last weekend (December 2015) in New York City, at the hands of a African American man with a lengthy criminal record, fresh from his participation in anti-police activities; coupled with numerous “don’t shoot, hands up,” and “black lives matter” anti-police protests (some of which are violent) occurring daily around the nation, I am compelled to write you this letter.

To be blunt Mr. Holder, I am appalled at your lack of leadership as the Attorney General of the United States and your blatant politicizing of the Department of Justice. Your actions, both publicly and privately, have done nothing to quell the complex racial issues we face in our country and have done everything to inflame them. As the “top cop” of the United States, you share in the blame for much of the violence and protests we are now witnessing against law enforcement officers honorably serving throughout our nation.

During one of your first public speeches as Attorney General you made it a point to call America “a nation of cowards” concerning race relations. That speech, followed by other public announcements where you emphatically opined that the odds were stacked against African Americans in regard to the enforcement of law, your intention to change the law and permit convicted felons to vote after incarceration, and your changes to federal law ending “racial profiling,” are poignant examples of how detached you remain from the challenges faced by law enforcement officers serving in crime ridden neighborhoods throughout the nation.

These opinions are also indicative of a man that lives and works in the elitist “bubble” of Washington D.C.

Your performance, as the nation’s Attorney General, during the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Florida and the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri clearly highlights your myopic view on this topic. Contrary to your embarrassing prejudgment in the Brown case and evasive post trial remarks on the Martin case, neither Brown nor Martin were targeted and/or killed because of their African American race.

Rather, as non-emotive investigations determined, both teens died as a consequence of their own tragic and egregious behavior; behavior that involved a violent assault on a law abiding citizen in the Trayvon Martin case, and a violent assault on a young police officer in the Michael Brown case. Yet you, as the number one spokesman for law enforcement in the country, blame the deaths of these men on years of institutional racism and the alleged epidemic targeting of African American men by police departments around the country; nothing could be further from the truth. Following the Michael Brown case Grand Jury decision all you could muster was the following comment: “The Department of Justice is currently investigating not only the shooting but also the Ferguson police department in what is called a “patterns and practices” inquiry to determine if the police department has engaged in systematic racism.”

So, let’s get this straight. At a decisive moment in history when our nation required a strong and unbiased voice from its’ senior law enforcement official, you Mr. Holder, made it your personal mission to join with other racial antagonist and politicize a tragic event, accusing a young white police officer of a racially motivated killing in what we now know was a justified self-defense shooting of a predatory felon. Your behavior is unbelievable. You sir, have sacrificed your integrity on the altar of political expediency. You, Mr. Holder, are the “coward” and hypocrite you so loudly denounce when speaking of broken race relations in America.

Further to this point Mr. Holder, law enforcement officers around the country remain dismayed and shocked at the counsel you keep; that being your close relationship with none other than Al Sharpton, a racist “shake down artist” who spreads hate, divisiveness and the promotion of anti-law enforcement sentiment throughout the country; a tax evading fraudster who has unbelievably visited the White House over 80 times in recent years. It is simply beyond my comprehension as a former federal law enforcement professional, that you, the Attorney General of the United States, joined arms in common cause with a charlatan like “the Reverend” Al Sharpton; and it speaks volumes to your personal character and lack of professional judgment.

Violent crime, out of wedlock births, drug abuse, rampant unemployment and poverty found in many low-income minority neighborhoods are not a result of racist community policing and racial profiling as you so quickly assert, and frankly most law abiding Americans are exhausted of hearing this false narrative repeated time and again by you and others in the racial grievance industry. While no one, me included, would ever suggest that African Americans have not suffered from institutional racism in the past, I would strongly argue that we no longer live in the Mississippi of 1965, nor do we live in a country that even closely resembles the “Jim Crow” South of yesteryear. Those days, thankfully, are in the past as are the generations of Americans that supported such egregious behavior and endured such suffering.

Rather, Mr. Holder, we live in a day and time where the root cause of many problems faced in our African American communities can be attributed to the breakdown of civil order due to the rejection of institutional and family authority and the practice of counter-culture values; and most notably, from the absence of strong male leadership in fatherless black families. The reason that our local police officers are so often entwined in tragic events in black communities is because it is the police that have filled the void in these communities that should be occupied by moral and strong black men leading family units with Godly values. You, Mr. Holder, especially, should be thanking the police rather than persecuting them for the gap they fill in these communities because if it were not for the intervention of local police many African American neighborhoods would be in a state of total anarchy.

Yet tragically, you and your race-baiting colleague Al Sharpton (a paid media personality under contract with MSNBC news) choose to remain silent because to publicly speak this self-evident truth threatens to not only alienate and offend the most loyal voting constituency of the Democratic Party but diminish your and Al Sharpton’s self-serving power base in these suffering communities. God forbid that you would suggest individual citizens accept responsibility for their own behavior and the collective failure of their communities; it is so much easier for you and others like you to make excuses, play the victim card, and pander rather than address the real root causes that plague many low income neighborhoods.

Mr. Holder, the public is aware of FBI statistics that tell a different story than the one you and Sharpton preach. We know that young African American males, representing a tiny fraction of the U.S. population, are by far the greatest perpetrators of violent crime in America when compared to their peers in other ethnic groups, and, we know that citizens of African American descent overwhelmingly make up the majority of their victims. We also know that incidents where white police officers shoot and kill black perpetrators are rare and on the decline. We know further that although there are legitimate and bona fide Federal Civil Rights investigations in the United States worthy of pursuing, they are miniscule when compared to the false narrative portrayed by you, President Obama and Sharpton declaring rampant discrimination against African American men by police officers throughout the country. You are just plain wrong.

In closing Mr. Holder I will leave you with this thought; you were given a rare opportunity to lead with integrity during a variety of divisive and controversial issues during your tenure as the 82d Attorney General of the United States and rather than be a man of moral courage you chose instead to cower, further inflame racial tensions, advance false narratives and play progressive political activist.

Time and again you chose to “politicize” the mission of the Department of Justice rather than pursue justice and now, tragically, we are witnessing the fruits of your irresponsible behavior in the murder of two innocent police officers in New York City, assassinated by a man motivated by the flames of racial hatred that you personally fanned. How many more police officers will be injured or die in the coming days because of the perilous conditions you helped create in this nation. You, President Obama and Al Sharpton own this problem lock, stock and barrel and now it is your legacy.

As thousands of NYPD officers turn their collective back on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, another dishonest politician and Sharpton disciple, so too do countless Federal law enforcement officers turn our backs on you.

K. Dee McCown, FBI (1997 – 2008)

 

CC: Senator Mitch McConnell

Senator John Cornyn

Senator Ted Cruz

Senator Harry Reid

The Honorable Bill Flores

The Honorable John Boehner

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Categories: Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government Secrets, gun control, Illegals, Immigration, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized, Unlawfull | Tags: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

You decide after reading…..DHS INSIDER: EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE WAITING FOR SOME BIG, HISTORY MAKING EVENT…


DHS Insider: Everyone seems to be waiting for some big, history making event

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” “We’ve all been threatened”, says one DHS insider recently to a writer from Canada Free Press.

“According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.”

The insider is retiring along with many others inside DHS who don’t like what the agency is, in his words “DHS and other organizations have become the private army of the Oval Office.”

Under the cover and amid the distraction of the Christmas bustle, I had my last “official” contact with a source inside the Department of Homeland Security known as “Rosebud” in my writings. My source is leaving his position, retiring along with numerous others choosing to leave this bureaucratic monstrosity.For this contact, my source took unprecedented measures to be certain that our contact was far off the radar of prying government eyes and ears. I was stunned at the lengths he employed, and even found myself somewhat annoyed by the inconvenience that his cloak-and-dagger approach caused. It was necessary, according to my source, because all department heads under FEMA and DHS are under orders to identify anyone disclosing any information for termination and potential criminal prosecution.

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” he said, referring to the search for leaks and leakers. And the warden is obsessed. Ask anyone in DHS. No one trusts anyone else and whatever sources might be left are shutting up. The threats that have been made far exceed anything I’ve ever seen. Good people are afraid for their lives and the lives of their families. We’ve all been threatened. They see the writing on the wall and are leaving. It’s not a joke and not hype.”

The following is a narrative from my source, prefaced with the instructions to “take it or leave it,” and “disregard it at your own peril.” He added that it’s now up to each American to act on the information themselves or suffer the consequences. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most [Americans] will never be convinced of the reality that is taking place right in front of them.”

THE PLAN EXPLAINED

“According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.”  But why?

“‘It’s the economy, stupid,’” he began, paraphrasing a campaign slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign.  “Just as I disclosed in our first meeting, the crisis will be rooted in an economic collapse. I told you last year, at a time when gold and silver were setting record highs, one specific indicator that time is very short. It is the final ‘smack down’ of the metals, gold and silver, that will presage the orchestrated economic collapse that is being planned by the bankers of Wall Street. Everybody needs to understand that this is a deliberate collapse of the U.S. economy with the oversight of the White House and the full knowledge of the Justice Department.  Everyone seems to be waiting for some big, history making event that will signal the start of the collapse. The fact is that the collapse has already started. It’s incremental, like a snowball rolling down a hill. It gets bigger and rolls faster. Well, this snowball is well on its way down the hill.”

“I don’t mean to sound repetitive, but I can’t stress this enough. Contrary to what you hear, we’re already in an economic collapse, except that most people haven’t a clue. The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated,” he stated.

“I’ve seen documentation of multiple scenarios created outside of DHS. Different plans and back-up plans. Also, please understand that I deliberately used the word ‘created,’ as this is a completely manufactured event.  In the end it won’t be presented that way, which is extremely important for everyone to understand. What is coming will be blamed on some unforeseen event out of everyone’s control, that few saw coming or thought would actually happen. Then, another event will take place concurrent with this event, or immediately after it, to confuse and compound an already explosive situation.” I asked for specifics.

“As I said, there are several scenarios and I don’t know them all. I know one calls for a cyber-attack by an external threat, which will then be compounded by something far removed from everyone’s own radar. But it’s all a ruse, or a pretext. The threat is from within,” he stated. “Before people can regain their footing, a second event will be triggered.” Again, I asked for specifics.

“I’ve seen one operational plan that refers to the federal government’s response to a significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Information at these levels is compartmentalized. I don’t have specifics, just plans for the response. The response will be controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our lives, especially gun ownership and speech that incites people against the government. I guess some people would call it Martial Law, and they would not be incorrect. But understand that this will be a process deployed in stages. How quickly of a process remains to be seen.”

THE MECHANICS EXPLAINED

As I said, people continue to look for something big to happen first, followed by a militaristic response by the federal government against U.S. citizens. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe it will happen this way, although there is one unthinkable exception. That exception would involve a ‘decapitation’ of our leadership, but I’ve seen nothing even remotely suggestive of that. But I’ve heard and even read articles where that is mentioned. Frankly, though, that’s always been a threat. I suppose that if the leadership is deemed useless, or becomes a liability to the larger agenda in some manner,  it could happen. The precedent exists. Let’s pray that it’s not the case now.”

“I don’t think anyone except the initiated few know the precise series of events or the exact timing, just a general overview and an equally general time period. I think we’re in that period now, as DHS has their planned responses finalized. Also, the metals are important because it’s real money, not Ponzi fiat currency. The U.S. has no inventory of gold, so the prices are manipulated down to cause a sell-off of the physical assets. China is on a buying spree of gold, and other countries want their inventory back. The very people causing the prices to drop are the ones who are also buying the metals at fire sale prices. They will emerge extremely wealthy when the prices rise after the U.S. currency becomes wallpaper. A little research will identify who these people and organizations are.”

“I’d like to add a bit of perspective that might help explain the events as I described. Do you remember former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announcing that the Pentagon was unable to account for $2.3 trillion in the defense budget? That was on September 10, 2001, the day before the attacks of 9/11. Some suggest that 9/11 was orchestrated, in part to cover up the missing money, which is ludicrous. The result, however, was that suddenly the accounting issue took a back seat because of the attacks. The result will be the same. That’s a perfect example of the mechanics of what we are about to experience. It’s going to take years to sort out, and when it’s finally sorted out, the damage will have long been done.”

“Please note a few final things. The relationship that exists between DHS today and the executive branch is well beyond alarming. DHS and other organizations have become the private army of the Oval Office. The NSA, and I’ve got contacts there, is taking orders from the Oval Office. The IRS is under the virtual control of the Oval Office in a manner that would make Nixon cower. Even though all roads appear to lead to the Oval Office, they lead through the Oval Office. It’s not just Obama, but the men behind him, the people who put him there. The people who put him there are the ones who created him.” I asked who created him.

“First, ask yourself why there was such an all out effort to marginalize anyone talking about Obama’s eligibility in 2008. Even so-called conservatives pundits fell for the lie that such questions were nothing more than a diversion. They were following a specific drumbeat. That should tell every rational adult that he is a creation of the globalists who have no allegiance to any political party. He is the product of decades of planning, made for this very time in our history. He was selected to oversee the events I just disclosed. Who has that ability? He’s a product of our own intelligence agencies working with the globalists. He should be exhibit ‘A’ to illustrate the need to enforce the Logan Act. Need I say more?”

As often said by another of my sources, the U.S. is a captured operation. The lie is bigger than most people realize or are willing to confront. That is, until there is no other option. By then, it might be too late.

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Big Brother Spying, Bill of Rights, CIA, Constitution, Government Secrets, gun control, NSA, Obama, One Government, Politics, revealing information, Uncategorized, world control | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fact Check: Top 10 Lies in Obama’s State of the Union…..


President Barack Obama promised his final State of the Union address would be short. Dana Bash of CNN called it “low-energy.” One thing it was not was accurate–or honest. Here are Obama’s top ten lies, in chronological order.

1. “[W]e’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.”This is pure fiction. Obama has doubled the national debt, and it’s not because he cut the deficit. Rather, he spent staggering amounts of money in his first months in office–which he assigns, dishonestly, to the previous fiscal year, under George W. Bush. He “cut” (i.e. spent more gradually) from that spending, but only under protest, after Republicans took the House in 2010.

(Update: It is true that Obama’s 2015 budget deficit was about 25% of his 2010 deficit. But he referred to “deficits,” plural. Until last year, all of Obama’s deficits were worse than all of Bush’s deficits except for the last two.)

2. “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.” With that line, Obama took a shot at his would-be Democratic successors, as well as his Republican critics. But the truth is that despite the slow recovery–the slowest since World War II–labor force participation is the lowest it has been in decades. Wages are stagnant, household incomes still have not recovered from the recession, and young people see a bleak future.

3. “That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage.”That is a cruel joke, given that Obamacare canceled insurance coverage for millions of Americans who did not change jobs. It also raised deductibles and premiums so high that many insurance companies are leaving the Obama exchanges totally.

4. “Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did.” Actually, food stamp recipients, metaphorically speaking, were indirectly responsible–as well as Wall Street sharks. Obama leaves out the government’s role, under the Community Reinvestment Act, in pushing mortgages on people who could not afford them, and in backing the derivatives based on those mortgages that ultimately burst the whole bubble.

5. “We’ve protected an open internet…”. Obama’s policy of Net Neutrality has turned Internet service providers into public utilities under an ancient regulatory regime. The result has been a sharp decline in broadband investment and a much less free and open system. In addition, the Obama administration is rushing to shift control of ICANN to the international community, which will ensure that the Internet is less free, and subject to overseas censorship.

6. “Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results.” It is laughable that Obama would claim his failed clean energy spending–think Solyndra–led to the fracking-fed energy boom we have enjoyed for the past several years, especially when the administration did all it could to stop oil and gas development. He also nixed the Keystone pipeline and started a plan to kill coal plants.

7. “No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.” Of all the lies in Obama’s speech, this was undoubtedly the worst, coming hours after Iran seized two U.S. Navy boats and ten sailors. Obama did not even mention those Americans in captivity at any point in his speech, declining the chance to reassure the nation that they would come home safely. It is an omission that will define this address in history.

8. “As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time.” Obama does not attend most of his daily intelligence briefings, preferring instead to read intelligence reports–so he claims–on his iPad, a stark contrast to the attentive approach of his predecessor. Late last year, even as Obama claimed that there was little risk from attack, radical Islamic terrorists carried out brutal attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino.

9. “We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria [from Islamic State].” The Obama administration’s attempt to train and arm Syrian rebels has been a disaster. Belatedly, the administration has helped Kurdish peshmerga forces, and the Iraqi military has made gains lately, but Obama has not made a serious effort to defeat the Islamic State, and is even giving up on regime change in Syria.

10. “Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America.” And a year of appeasement has not promoted democracy, either. The Castros remain firmly in power, and we are not helping the opposition. Worse, the Cuban regime continues to arrest thousands of political dissidents, to cozy up to enemies like Iran and North Korea, and to carry out provocative acts–such as stealing a U.S. Hellfire missile.

Towards the end of his speech, Obama told one important truth: “There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide…”.

An unusual, but overdue, admission of guilt.

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Banking, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Government Secrets, gun control, Illegals, Immigration, Muslims, Obama, Obamacare, Politics, Syria, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Obama Got Wrong in the State of the Union….


Heritage Foundation experts weighed in on the policies President Barack Obama mentioned in his last State of the Union address. Here is what they had to say after the president’s speech.

Economy

The Economy Is Far From Booming

President Obama boasts America is in the “middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.” On paper, he is right. But the economy is far from booming.

While the labor market has improved, it remains much weaker than before the recession hit.

As Obama noted, the unemployment rate has fallen and the economy has added jobs. Unfortunately, much of this improvement comes from Americans dropping out of the labor force. People not looking for work do not count as unemployed.

Yet, they still lack jobs.

The employment rate for 25-54 year olds remains over 2 percentage points below pre-recession levels. Most of the hiring the president touted was simply job creation keeping pace with population growth.

Those Americans who did lose their jobs still have a hard time finding new work. The average unemployed worker has spent over six months jobless. That is longer than any time between the end of World War II and Obama’s inauguration. Workers have good reason to feel anxious about the economy.

– James Sherk, research fellow in labor economics

Obama’s Backwards Thinking on Economic Value of Renewable Energy

President Obama boasted that “On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills and employs more than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.”

Proponents of renewable energy consistently argue that renewables create more jobs per kilowatt hour and thus are a good investment. If that’s the recipe for job creation and economic growth, we can scrap using machinery to pave roads and grow crops.

By Obama’s logic, we can create more jobs by giving people shovels to perform those duties. That would certainly create jobs, but it would also significantly reduce productivity. If we can produce more energy with less labor, that frees up human resources to be productive elsewhere in the economy.

Importantly, there are several key omissions from Obama’s statement. Heavy-handed regulations devoid of any meaningful environmental benefit are driving out coal as an important, reliable energy source and destroying jobs in the process. Solar benefits from generous taxpayer-funded subsidies and while the costs are coming down, solar still remains one of the priciest ways to generate electricity.

If Obama wants to tip his hat to something, he should point to that fact that market-driven small drilling technologies have put money back into the wallets of families. According to the government’s own Energy Information Administration,

“Wholesale electricity prices at major trading hubs on a monthly average basis for on-peak hours were down 27 percent-37 percent across the nation in 2015 compared with 2014, driven largely by lower natural gas prices.”

As Obama said, “I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy.” The oil and gas boom is but one shining example.

Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow

It’s Obama’s Economy, Not the Robots, Workers Should Fear

The President argued that automation has become uniquely challenging for American workers. It’s a strange problem to highlight, for two reasons. First, economists have found no historical relationship between automation and employment rates. In the past, workers who lost their jobs because of technology always found new work. Automation only seems like a threat because finding new jobs in Obama’s recovery has been historically difficult.

Chart2

Second, the rate of automation has slowed sharply since 2003. Employers are finding fewer new ways to automate labor in this decade than they did in the last. Increased automation increases labor productivity; it allows employers to produce their goods with fewer man hours (and more machine hours) than before. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds labor productivity has slowed for the past decade. Automation has become a smaller challenger for workers than it was in the past.

The economy faces many challenges. Robots broadly eliminating the need for human labor is not among them.

 – James Sherk, research fellow, labor economics

Government Policies Caused the Financial Crisis and Made the Recession Worse

No, recklessness on Wall Street did not cause the financial crisis, a host of terrible government policies did.

President Bill Clinton’s National Partners in Homeownership set a completely arbitrary goal of increasing home ownership, and it turned out most qualified homebuyers already owned homes. All the additional lending helped to create a housing bubble and increased consumer debt, and the capital requirements that federal regulators imposed on the financial system spread risky loans throughout the markets.

The ever-increasing socialization of losses, by both implicit and explicit government guarantees, added fuel for the fire. The system that gave us the crisis – affordable housing goals, shaky underwriting standards and Fannie and Freddie – remains largely in place.  If we want to prevent another crisis,these policies need to be reversed.

Norbert Michel, research fellow in financial regulations

We Dont Need Government ‘Investments’ in Energy

Energy is one of the last sectors of the economy that needs help from the federal government or a centralized plan. The laws of supply and demand work quite well. We have an abundance of resources, and a great deal of suppliers producing energy from a mix of energy sources. The global market for energy is a multi-trillion dollar opportunity.

One energy consulting firm estimated that in 2011, world expenditures for energy totaled more than $6 trillion – 10 percent of global Gross Domestic Product and the second largest expenditure behind health care.

The International Energy Agency projects that that tens of trillions of dollars of energy investment will be necessary to meet global energy demands over the next twenty years. Any company that has a viable technology will not need any help from the taxpayer or a government program. Profits will reward innovative ideas and promising technologies.

Nicolas Loris, Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow

Obama-Era Regulations Cost Taxpayers $80 Billion a Year

President Obama tonight stated that “there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there’s red tape that needs to be cut.”

He is right. But he has said that many times before. And, despite all the talk, his administration has done virtually nothing to reform or repeal the unnecessary red tape. Instead of rooting out outdated rules, he has added on record numbers of new ones.

Overall, according to our annual “Red Tape Rising” report on federal regulation, 184 major new rules have been imposed on the American people since Obama took office, costing some $80 billion each and every year. The number of such rules pared back: only 17. So much for cutting red tape.

Rather than the careful assessment of new and old rules the president spoke of, in practice his regulatory policy has been a one way ratchet toward ever more rules from Washington governing the lives of Americans.

James Gattuso, senior research fellow in regulatory policy

Squeezed Earnings Happened Under Obama’s Watch

President Obama talked about long-term economic trends squeezing workers. He should have made it clear this squeeze is a recent phenomenon.Congressional Budget Office data shows that workers at every income level prospered between 1979 and 2007.

During that period non-elderly households in the middle quintile saw their labor market earnings rise by a third. Households in the poorest quintile saw their labor market income rise well over 50 percent. From the Reagan Presidency until the Great Recession, American economic opportunities expanded up and down the income ladder.

Chart

Since the Recession and the slow Obama recovery that has changed. Between 2007 and 2011 (the most recent data available) labor income for non-elderly households in the middle quintile dropped roughly 10 percentage points.

No wonder Americans are down on the economy. But these problems have predominantly occurred on Obama’s watch. That should make Americans skeptical that doubling down on his preferred policies would fix them.

James Sherk, research fellow, labor economics

No Presidential Leadership on Entitlement Reform

President Obama stated in the State of the Union tonight that “Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them.” Beyond catering to his political base, Obama offered no details on how he would strengthen these programs.

Obama failed the nation during his term thus far when it comes to reforming Social Security and Medicare. Despite his 2009 promise that “some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else,” we’ve seen very little action from the president on accomplishing this feat. Unsustainable, poorly conceived cuts to Medicare from Obamacare and a bailout of Social Security’s disability program can hardly be counted as entitlement reform.

One of every $10 produced by the U.S. economy in fiscal year 2015 was spent on only three federal programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

These three programs alone consume more than half of all federal spending and they are growing rapidly. The next president must lead on entitlement reform upon entering office.

Romina Boccia, deputy director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Grover M. Hermann Research Fellow

When Job Training Hurts, Not Helps

The Hippocratic oath enjoins doctors to “first, do no harm.” The president should keep that in mind with his job training proposals. He suggested sending unemployment insurance recipients through federal job training. But evaluations find one of the major federal job training programs makes it harder for workers to get jobs.

The federal government funds “Trade Adjustment Assistance” benefits for workers who lose their job to foreign trade. The program includes generous federal subsidies and free job training. You might expect this to improve displaced workers’ incomes. But when Mathematica evaluated the program, it found participants made $27,000 less than workers outside the program.

What happened? Trade Adjustment Assistance encouraged jobless workers to enroll in federal job training programs instead of looking for new work immediately. But the job training didn’t improve their job prospects. So they wasted over a year they could have spent job hunting in a training program employers didn’t value. Workers never fully recovered from missing those potential job opportunities. Even the federal subsidies only partially made up their losses. The unemployed workers would have made more money skipping the training program, even if it meant forgoing the federal subsidies.

Congress should think carefully before creating another federal job training program. They could easily wind up hurting the workers they want to help.

James Sherk, research fellow, labor economics

The Same Tired Line on Federal Infrastructure Spending

Once again, President Obama made a cursory mention of infrastructure in his State of the Union, claiming that if only the federal government would spend more taxpayer money (gleaned from higher taxes on fossil fuels), the government can “put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.” But as innocuous as this agenda sounds, it fundamentally misses the mark.

Using government spending to stimulate job creation was a cornerstone of the Obama stimulus plan that ultimately failed to produce the “shovel ready” jobs the president promised. A big problem is that infrastructure projects take a long time to plan and require highly-skilled labor, meaning that spending on these projects is ineffective at creating new jobs for recently unemployed Americans (most of whom lack the necessary job skills). The federal government has a very poor track record as a job creator, and spending on infrastructure is no exception.

Instead, transportation infrastructure should focus scarce resources on enhancing mobility and relieving congestion so that American workers, businesses, and travelers all over the country can get where they need to go. At this, the top-down federal transportation program has been ineffective. The federal gas taxes that were originally intended to maintain the Interstate Highway System – a true national priority – are diverted to various special interests by Congress and federal bureaucrats. Over a quarter of gas taxes are siphoned to projects that are not proper federal priorities, such as local transit and bike-share programs, while a mere six percent goes to the actual construction of major projects.

Due to perennial overspending on transportation projects, the federal Highway Trust Fund has required over $140 billion in bailouts since 2008. And even though the president pledged that we should not “subsidize the past”, the federal government spends millions in subsidies incentivizing cities to build cumbersome and expensive streetcar projects, which last saw their heyday in the early 20th century.

Federal promises of job creation and effective infrastructure investment have floundered. Rather than continuing the one-size-fits all approach out of Washington that has left millions of Americans stuck in traffic, the federal government should get out of the way to empower the states and private sector–who can best gauge local priorities–to truly build a 21st century transportation system.

Michael Sargent, research associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Presidents Obama vs. President Reagan on Trade

In his final State of the Union Address, President Obama suggested the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would “open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership.”

The key factor for Congress to evaluate will be whether TPP really doespromote open markets and economic freedom. If it does, workers and the environment will benefit. The latest rankings of trade freedom around the world in the Heritage Foundation’s forthcoming 2016 Index of Economic Freedom confirm that citizens of countries that embrace free trade are better off than those in countries that do not. The data continue to show a strong correlation between trade freedom and a variety of positive indicators, including economic prosperity, low poverty rates, and clean environments.

Obama missed an opportunity to explain the benefits of trade when he said, “Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise.” In fact, the global economy brings enormous benefits to workers, both through importsused by American manufacturers to compete, and through jobs provided to nearly 6 million workers thanks to foreign investment in the United States.

As President Ronald Reagan observed in his final State of the Union address: “One of the greatest contributions the United States can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs.”

Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel senior policy analyst

Education

President’s Preschool Push Entangles Washington in the Care of the Youngest Americans

President Obama’s suggestion that government should become further entangled in the education and care of the youngest Americans would not serve children or taxpayers well.

Washington already has a poor track record engaging in K–12 education, with federal spending more than doubling over the past three decades while academic achievement and attainment has languished, particularly among low-income students.

Further federal intervention in preschool and childcare will crowd out the private provision of care, increase costs for taxpayers, and will fail to create lasting academic benefits for children, as recent evaluations of state and federal programs have demonstrated. A large-scale evaluation of the federal Head Start program found the program had no impact on the academic outcomes, social-emotional well being, health outcomes, or parenting practices of participants.

A recent evaluation of Tennessee’s voluntary pre-K program (TN-VPK) had similarly unimpressive outcomes. Researchers from Vanderbilt found that in Tennessee’s program, which is lauded as a model of state preschool programs by proponents, by second grade,

the [experiment and control] groups began to diverge with the TN-VPK children scoring lower than the control children on most of the measures. The differences were significant on both achievement composite measures and on the math subtests.

More federal intervention in preschool and childcare will also fail to address deeper social issues while being largely duplicative of existing efforts, as nearly three-quarters of four-year-olds are already enrolled in some form of preschool.

Lindsey Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education at The Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity

More Federal Subsidies Will Not Solve the College Cost Problem

The president’s proposal to provide “free” community college is not the solution to the college affordability problem. Students who are low-income already have access to federal student aid such as Pell Grants, which can be used to finance the cost of attending community college. So the proposal will serve as little more than a federal handout to the community college system. Community colleges also face their own challenges, with less than 20 percentof first time students enrolled in community colleges graduating within three years.

America’s $1.2 trillion student loan tab presents a serious problem in our economy. Americans would be better served by policies that actually help to lower higher education costs, making higher education an engine of upward mobility for American who choose to pursue it. That goal requires broad reforms to accreditation, reforms to federal student aid programs, and streamlining and reducing burdensome regulations and requirements that permeate higher education today.

Mary Clare Reim, research associate in education policy 

Foreign Policy and National Security

No Strategy, Only Spin When It Comes to Fighting ISIS

A few years ago President Obama described ISIS as the “JV team.”

Today, the terror group poses more of a threat to the world than ever before. As recent Heritage Foundation research pointed out, in the past two years ISIS has established a presence in 19 countries. Foreign fighters are flocking to the wannabe caliphate in droves.

In Syria and Iraq, ISIS controls territory the size of Maryland and rules over a population equivalent to Virginia’s. Although ISIS was recently kicked out of the Iraqi town of Ramadi, it still occupies Mosul—Iraq’s second largest city of almost 2 million people.

Obama’s remarks tonight reaffirmed what everyone already knew: that there is no strategy to defeat ISIS and he cannot wait to pass the buck to his successor.

Even though the U.S. dropped 22,110 bombs against ISIS in 2015 (by comparison, during the first 30 days alone of the 2003 Iraq invasion the U.S dropped 29,000 munitions) the air campaign has achieved minimal success on the ground. The administration’s program to train and equip so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels has been a complete failure—to the tune of $500 million. More importantly, the U.S. has failed at drumming up more support on the Arab Street to take on ISIS.

Sadly, the next U.S. President will inherit a mess in the region.

Luke Coffey, director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy

A Delusional National Security Review

When it came to national security issues, President Obama’s State of the Union address veered from delusional to dishonest. He presented the American people with a series of false choices, straw arguments and inaccurate assessments regarding his track record.

Regarding Islamic State (ISIS, or ISIL), Obama tried to downplay the existential threat they posed. The president has past form on this. It was, after all, his complacency towards the gathering strength of the group in 2013/14 (when he referred to them as a “jayvee team”) that helped ISIS grow into the threat it now truly is. Rather than learning this lesson, he instead focused his ire on those who “build [ISIL] up”.

Obama went on to provide a list of initiatives that the U.S. was spearheading in the war against the group, which included efforts to “cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology.” These were unusual examples to cite, because on every count, these efforts have failed. ISIS is stocked with foreign fighters, its ideology has spread across the globe, it has launched attacks in mainland Europe and it remains financially strong.

Obama also dismissed the idea that theology could be at the heart of ISIS’s appeal, dubbing them simply “killers and fanatics”. Yet a refusal to acknowledge the religious component to ISIS’s activities is counter-productive. It is only by understanding the group’s appeal and its beliefs that we can subsequently cut off the sources of its recruitment.

Obama constructed another straw man by claiming that “the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq” was that the U.S. cannot “try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis”. This was particularly absurd. No one seriously believes that the U.S. could or should take on such a role. It also ignores the fact that what Obama claims to be his “smarter” approach has led to disasters in Libya, Syria and Yemen, to name but three. Attempting to argue that his “patient and disciplined” strategy meant the U.S. was “leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace” in Syria was a particularly deluded attempt at recasting the situation there as anything other than an utter disaster.

Robin Simcox, Margaret Thatcher Fellow

US Lacks a Grand Strategy to Deal With Russian Aggression

Almost seven years later, the so-called Russian ‘reset’ policy is now a Russian regret. Russia still occupies 20 percent of Georgia’s territory. Moscow’s imperialism has resulted in the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea and a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Russia is testing NATO in the Baltics, rebuilding its military bases in the Arctic, and has intervened in the Syrian Civil War with no regard to the consequences.

Since taking office President Obama and many of those around him have assumed that Vladimir Putin is someone you can do business with, that Europe is no longer important, and that military power no longer buys the same influence on the world stage as it once did. These assumptions have led to bad policy decisions (such as the removal of 10,000 U.S. troops from Europe and drastic cuts to the U.S. military) by this White House that has emboldened Russian aggression and tested the transatlantic alliance to its limits.

During the State of the Union address Obama glossed over Russia’s aggression. Astoundingly, the upcoming NATO Summit in July 2016, Obama’s last, did not even get a mention in the Commander in Chief’s 5,438 word long speech. In fact, the word NATO was not said at all.

Just because a problem is ignored does not mean it will go away. As Heritage Foundation experts have pointed out, the U.S. needs a comprehensive grand strategy to deal with Russia. Unfortunately, it looks like America and her allies will have to wait for 2017 because this becomes a possibility. No doubt Putin will be taking advantage of the situation during the meantime.

Luke Coffey, director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy

A Disconnect on Middle East Policy

President Obama remained in denial about the disastrous nature of his Middle East policy throughout the small parts of his state of the union speech that dealt with foreign policy.

He said that: “Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks.” That certainly was not the case in his last state of the union speech, which was the first that did not mention al-Qaeda since George W. Bush’s 2002 speech. He glossed over the uneven results of his half-hearted, slow-motion incremental response to the rise of ISIS and fumbling responses to the deepening crisis in Syria, where his administration has been consistently behind the curve.

His optimism on defeating these two terrorist networks would be reassuring if he wasn’t the same misinformed person who told Americans that the war in Iraq had ended, that ISIS was a “J.V. team” and that ISIS was contained the day before it launched the Paris terrorist attacks that killed 130 people.

He also made no mention of Iran’s terrorist network, which is sure to be boosted when Tehran collects up to $100 billion in sanctions relief under his risky nuclear deal. But perhaps he believes that Iran’s theocratic dictatorship will swayed by his optimism that “the unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”

– James Phillips, senior research fellow for middle eastern affairs

Yet Another ‘Close GITMO’ Promise

Once again, President Obama used his State of the Union speech to urge Congress to work with him to close the terrorist detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO). But it is worth reminding everyone that GITMO is open for one reason and one reason only: because Obama failed to close the facility when the stage was set for him to do so.

In 2009-2010, Obama’s own party held a 59-41 majority in the Senate, and a 257-178 advantage in the House of Representatives. If the president needed any legislation to close Guantanamo—a debatable point—or simply the political backing of the majorities in both houses of Congress, the stars were aligned for him to do so.

But instead of working with Congress to close GITMO in 2009-2010, the administration engaged in a series of controversial moves that caused a bi-partisan uproar, resulting in the Democrat-controlled congress passing legislation that each year since 2009 has made it more difficult to close GITMO.

Failing to lead has serious consequences. The window to close GITMO has come and gone.

Today, the threats from al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, ISIS and associated forces are very real. Transferring some of the 103 remaining detainees and moving the rest to the United States – in direct violation of a congressional statute passed with Democratic support – is not prudent.

Changing the zip code of where we keep terrorist detainees will not alter the terrorists’ hatred for and attempted attacks against the United States one bit.

– Cully Stimpson, manager, national security law program and senior legal fellow

Obama’s Failed Cuba Policy

The facts clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of President Obama’s radical new Cuba policy. Diplomatic recognition and increased commercial opportunities to the Castro regime have emboldened the military dictatorship. This has directly resulted in historic levels of repression against the anti-Castro opposition.

It’s also resulted in a continuation of hostility against U.S. national security interests.

Despite a year chock full of unilateral concessions, Havana continues undermining the U.S. and our interests. Dissidents have suffered historic levels of repression, even during Pope Francis’s visit to the island.

Recently, it was discovered the regime has been in possession for over a year of an inert U.S. Hellfire Missile, which was shipped from Spain to the island. The administration has not been able to answer how it got there, or if other hostile countries have obtained sensitive defense technology from it.

We must also keep in mind that it was only two summers ago when the Cuban government violated U.N. Security Council sanctions by clandestinely shipping weapons to North Korea.

It was incredibly shameful for the president to laude his overtures to Havana as a “success.”

– Ana Quintana, policy analyst, Latin America and the Western Hemisphere

A Presidential Lecture

Perhaps one of the most petulant presidents in modern history, lectured the country during the State of the Union not to assume that people who disagree with them act with malice. And this same president, known for a slew of controversial executive actions on such important issues as immigration and the right to bear arms, grumbled that he could not act alone, but needed Congress.

Yes, just three months after pouring invective on governors and congressmen who disagreed with him on refugees as not simply leaders with whom he disagreed; they were “un-American” and “shameful,” President Barack Obama said in the State of the Union message that “democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic.”

Obama appeared close to coming to grips with the fact that his peevish, sullen approach to politics has made things worse in Washington. “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency – that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide,” said Obama.

But then, Obama added, “But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task – or any president’s – alone.” Tell that to a Congress that keeps complaining that Obama does go alone whenever he doesn’t get his way on Capitol Hill.

Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy

Obama Tries to Downplay ISIS Threat (Again)

First President Obama called the Islamic State a “JV Team,” then he said they were “contained,” just before an ISIS inspired terrorist attack. Now Obama has characterized ISIS as “masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks” during the State of the Union address.

The president’s most recent characterization of ISIS again tries to downplay the terrorist group’s capabilities, suggesting it is something far less formidable than it actually is.

ISIS is, however, armed to the teeth with tanks, Humvees, surface-to-air missiles, and artillery. It fields a conventional force that has routed a far-larger Iraqi military that was trained and equipped by the United States. It still controls swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria, and millions live under its subjugation. It is carving out a presence in Libya, and making a push to control that country’s lucrative oil fields.

ISIS lost approximately 14 percent of its territory in 2015, but it is far from defeated. It is certainly not a ragtag band of second-tier terrorists, which is how Obama too frequently portrays the group. During the State of the Union, the President decried the mistrust between Republicans and Democrats. Frequently mischaracterizing the ISIS danger that is obvious to most Americans is precisely the sort of thing that breeds the very suspicion the president laments.

Luke Coffey, director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy

A False Foreign Policy Alternative 

President Obama offered his usual false alternative between occupying and rebuilding “every country that falls into crisis” (an option that literally no one is proposing), or agreeing with his foreign policy. Putting it that way is a cheat, not a choice.

But let’s take the president at his word, which is that he wants the U.S. to “help remake” the international system that the U.S. built after 1945.

Even he doesn’t seem sure about this, because a few lines later, he suggests instead that we should be seeking to strengthen that order, not remake it. And a president more grounded in history might wonder if it’s wise to want to remake the order: from 1815 to 1918 to 1945 to 1991, the system has been at its most flexible after the world has been exhausted by a major war, which isn’t what any of us want.

Nor did the president suggest a single measure that would genuinely re-make the world order: from fighting terrorism to complaining about ungoverned spaces to lecturing Russia to talking about trade deals, his proposals (or rather, his applause lines) were all old hat. But yet, if his goal really is to remake the order, he’s actually doing a good job of it. That order was grounded on U.S. pre-eminence – but from Ukraine, to Syria, to Iran, it’s American weakness, not its strength or its leadership, that’s on display.

A world order without American leadership would indeed be a new one. But it’s not one that most Americans, or most people around the world, would like.

Theodore R. Bromund, senior research fellow in Anglo-American relations

Climate Change

Reasons You Should Not Feel Lonely If You’re Questioning Whether Climate Change Is a Problem

President Obama said feel free to question the science behind climate change but doing so will leave you “pretty lonely” because “you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

This “problem” of climate change is hardly one at all. Natural variations have altered the climate much more than man has. Proponents of global action on climate change will argue that 97 percent of the climatologists agree on climate change. There is significant agreement among climatologists, even those labeled as skeptics, that the Earth has warmed moderately over the past 60 years and that some portion of that warming may be attributed to manmade carbon dioxide emissions. However, there is no consensus that temperatures are increasing at an accelerating rate and we’ve seen them plateau for nearly two decades now.

Even studies that have attempted to refute the 18-year pause in global warming show that the temperature trend is much less than that projected by climate models. And even though man-made greenhouse gas emissions have increased, the world has not experienced trends in the increased frequency or magnitude of extreme weather events.

Heritage research has shown that the statistical models that the administration relies on to quantify the economic impact of climate change are heavily dependent upon certain assumptions and extremely sensitive to very reasonable tweaks to these assumptions.  In fact, under some assumptions one of the models that the administration relies on suggests that there may even be net benefits to global warming. That’s right: benefits.

The climate data simply does not suggest that man-made global warming should be at the top of the list of public concerns. Most importantly, even if you do believe the planet is heading toward catastrophe, the Obama administration’s climate agenda will drive up energy costs by driving out affordable energy sources for no meaningful climate reduction. We could grind all economic activity to a halt, hold our breaths forever, and cut carbon emissions to zero in the U.S. — and still only wind up lowering average temperatures by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

Politicians might want to start listening to those “lonely” climate voices and have an objective, scientific debate on climate change.

Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow

Kevin Dayaratna, senior satistician and research programmer

Obama’s Climate Agenda Will Cost the Economy, Not Grow It

When discussing taking action on climate change, President Obama said that it doesn’t really matter if you believe in climate change because “why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?” He went on to say, “But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve – that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.”

But the reality of a government-forced shift away from carbon-emitting natural resources such as coal, oil and natural gas will be a net cost to the economy – not a net gain. And the math isn’t even close. At a time when 80 percent of America’s energy needs are met by these carbon-emitting energy sources, restricting their use will drive up costs for households and businesses.

Carbon dioxide cutting policies will do nothing but kill jobs and stifle the American economy for years to come. Heritage research has found that the policies associated with these carbon cutting regulations will reduce aggregate gross-domestic product (GDP) by more than $2.5 trillion and kill hundreds upon thousands of jobs over the course of the next decade—all for a negligible impact on global temperatures. Manufacturing employment throughout the country will be hit particularly hard.

Obama’s climate agenda is all pain, no gain.

– Kevin Dayaratna, senior statistician and research programmer

Nicolas Loris, Herbert & Joyce Morgan Fellow

Agree or Disagree With Catastrophic Global Warming, There Are Serious Problems With Obama’s Approach

President Obama continues to distract from the legitimate disagreements Americans and their representatives in local, state, and federal levels of government have with this administration’s global warming agenda. Obama focused on painting a picture of “lonely” opponents who are anti-science. But even people who believe that global warming is a problem have disagreed with the President on how he has attempted to address it.

Most notably, the cornerstone of Obama’s agenda – a pair of greenhouse gas regulations known as the Clean Power Plan – fail to meet the standards of the American system of government. The Clean Power Plan rules require states to meet carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals for existing power plants and to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from new power plants to levels that are so low as to effectively prevent any coal power plant from running without carbon capture and sequestration technology (technology which has yet to be proven feasible).

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, put it eloquently in saying that representative government, not the pros and cons of addressing climate change, is at issue:

“At its core, the issue the Clean Power Plan presents is whether EPA is bound by the rule of law and must operate within the framework established by the United States Constitution. … Accordingly, EPA’s gambit would mean citizens surrendering their right to be represented by an accountable and responsive government that accords with the postulates of federalism.”

As Obama said, “Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.” But that system breaks down when decisions normally left to states and individuals are centralized in Washington.

Regardless of political party or position on climate change or global warming, there are serious problems with the climate agenda that the Obama administration has attempted to push through.

– Katie Tubb, research associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

The Energy Investments ‘We’ Made

President Obama boasted during his State of the Union address that “Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.”

The trouble isn’t investing in alternative technologies like wind and solar; as with other energy resources, these should have the opportunity to compete in a truly free market of energy choices. The problem is who Obama means when he says “we.”

Rather than leaving energy choices to American families and businesses, “we” has consistently meant forcing taxpayers to subsidize politically preferred energy technologies. And here are some of those results:

  • Americans footed the bill for billions of dollars in federal energy spending under the Obama stimulus package, which increased federal energy spending by over 2,000 percent. And yet politicians keep buying into the same mentality that got us Solyndra, which cost American taxpayers millions.
  • $23.8 billion in tax credits will go to subsidize wind, solar, and other renewables over the next decade by the yet-again extension of production and investment tax credits for these energy sources. The wind production tax credit has been extended, re-extended, and retroactively extended 10 times, and the solar investment tax credit as it’s known today has been around since 2005 (though it goes back to the 1970s).
  • As Obama pointed out, jobs in the solar industry have increased and solar energy is becoming more affordable. The same can be said for wind. And yet these industries have become dependent on federal support in the form of loan guarantees, targeted tax favors, and government programs. In the long run, targeted subsidies only hurt the industries they’re intended to help.
  • Even the president’s stated goal of impacting global temperatures cannot be listed as among the benefits of forcing taxpayers to subsidize green energy technologies. According to the National Academy of Science, eliminating the tax credits would increase greenhouse gas emissions by only 0.3 percent. In fact, if the president were truly concerned about environmental impacts, he might consider that a very efficient wind farm would need 260 times the amount of land to produce the same amount of electricity as a typical nuclear power plant requires, the latter which produces virtually no emissions.

Instead of defining the rules of the game as the government should do, the president’s vision for “all of the above” energy choices has consistently meant special treatment for his politically preferred energy resources.

– Katie Tubb, research associate, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Health Care

Less Competition and Less Access to Doctors

President Obama and his allies in Congress said that the Affordable Care Act would increase competition. In fact, there is no evidence that the law has increased the number of carriers in the insurance market. The absence of competition at the county level is stark.

Another Heritage Foundation analysis of health plan participation at the state level shows that in 2013, there were 395 individual market carriers, and in 2015, under the exchange, there were 310, a 21.5 percent reduction.

The president also said that if a person liked their doctor they would be able to keep their doctor. In fact, the law has made that access increasingly difficult. Insurance plan changes, and the loss of previous coverage, often resulted in a loss of physician or health care provider networks. For example, in April 2014, analysts at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the exchange plans had much narrower networks than they anticipated.

While the narrowing of networks reduced plan costs and thus the cost of the government insurance subsidies, the effect has been to constrict enrollee access to medical providers.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Public Opinion on Obamacare

President Obama claims his health care law is a success. Yet public opinion does not follow. According to the Real Clear Politics average, the health care law has yet to see approval outweigh opposition. In its latest average, from November to January – public support flounders at 43.3 percent while opposition is at 51.7 percent.

– Nina Owcharenko, director of the center for health policy studies

Health Insurance Costs

President Obama and his allies in Congress sold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a measure to lower health care costs for individuals, businesses and the federal government. The president even stated, repeatedly, that his version of health reform would lower health insurance premiums for the typical family by $2,500 per year.

The exact opposite of what the president promised has occurred. Beginning in 2014, as Heritage has shown, the first full year of Obamacare, premiums in the individual market sharply increased in most states. In some states, the increases were dramatic; for 50-year-olds alone, there was a premium increase of 50 percent or more in 13 states. The administration likes to emphasize that premium subsidies are available to paper over the premium costs; but no person with an annual income above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $47,000) is eligible for those subsidies. This is a big hit on the middle class.

In 2015, there was indeed a moderation of premium increases, but insurance deductibles continued to skyrocket: for the “silver” plans in the exchange – the benchmark plans – the average deductible was $2,927 for an individual and $6,100 for a family plan. In comparison, employer-based plans had traditionally low deductibles.

The biggest “rate shock” hit those persons transitioning from employer to exchange coverage. (The average deductible in employer based health insurance – nationwide – is a little over $1,200 for individual coverage). As with premiums, there are also government subsidies to paper over the costs of these high deductibles.

But no person with an annual income above 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($29,425) is eligible for those subsidies, and moreover, that assistance is only available if they enroll in a “silver” exchange plan – not bronze, gold or platinum plans. This is another big hit on the middle class.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Health Plan Enrollment

While the law has increased some insurance coverage, enrollment has fallen well short of the robust official projections. For 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that there would be 21 million in the exchanges. More recently, the Obama administration conceded that the enrollment would be much less: a little more over 10 million.

Based on previous experience, there is every reason to be skeptical of projections. In the Spring of 2014, the administration claimed that over 8 million persons selected plans on the government website. It later corrected itself and reported that the number of those selecting plans was 7.3 million. Toward the end of 2014, around the time of the Christmas holidays, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the correct number at 6.7 million.

For 2015, CBO projected 13 million people in the exchanges. But then, HHS said that 11.7 million signed up. HHS later announced that between 9 to 9.9 million were expected to enroll by the end of 2015. About 17 percent of 2014 enrollees, HHS projected, would not renew in 2015.

Enrollment depends on a variety of things: how people felt about their experience, the cost the deductibles, the networks, their satisfaction with their coverage in the exchange, the opportunities to re-enroll in employer-based coverage, and various other factors.

Projections are, of course, a poor substitute for raw data. Examining the final data for 2014 confirmed the ACA’s enrollment pattern due mostly to expansion of coverage through Medicaid, a poorly performing welfare program, where roughly one in three enrollees have trouble finding a doctor to care for them is hardly progress toward an expansion of quality care.

At the time of passage of the Affordable Care Act, the president  also insisted, routinely, that if persons like their current plan, they would be able to keep their current plan. That also turned out to be untrue. Heritage research showed that for the first three quarters of 2014 while Individual private market coverage in the exchanges grew by over 6.3 million, the number of persons with employment based coverage declined by 4.9 million. So, based on the raw data, concern over a loss of employment based coverage was justified.

Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Alternatives to Obamacare

While not raised tonight, the president and his allies in Congress repeatedly charge that congressional opponents have no alternative health plans.

This charge is flat out false. Republican Sens. Hatch, R-Utah, and Burr R-N.C., and Rep. Upton, R-Mich., produced a health plan replace blueprint. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and members of the Republican Study Committee have authored comprehensive health plans. Before that Speaker Paul Ryan included major health reforms in his “Road to Prosperity” proposal.

Meanwhile, conservative public policy institutes including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Goodman Institute, and many others, have outlined comprehensive plans to reform the health care system. All are united on common objectives: the reform of the tax treatment of health insurance, reform of Medicare and Medicaid, the reduction of federal regulation and the creation of open markets driven by consumer choice and competition.

 – Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Taxpayer Costs

President Obama has previously said that no taxpayer making less than $250,000 would face increased taxes. This was also clearly untrue. In fact, as Heritage Foundation analysis has shown, the bulk of the taxes imposed through Obamacare would directly impact middle or low income persons or be passed on to them in higher health care costs. This is particularly true of the tax penalties that accompany the individual and employer mandate, the medical device tax, and the federal health insurance fees. Taxes imposed on companies such as the so-called “Cadillac Tax” on high value health plans, the elimination of the employer deduction for Part D drug subsidy will also directly affect middle income citizens.

– Robert Moffit, senior fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies

Legal

The President is Correct to Support Criminal Justice Reform

At the beginning of his speech, President Obama voiced his support for bipartisan criminal justice reform. The President is correct that this does present an opportunity. Indeed, Republican and Democratic governors have been leading that reform effort throughout the country, as incarceration rates have continued to fall due to innovative approaches to fix our criminal justice system.

Congress will have the opportunity to consider bipartisan proposals such as the Smarter Sentencing Act, the Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Enhancement Act, as well as much-needed mens rea (criminal intent) reform, all designed to make our criminal justice system more fair and more effective for all Americans. Proposals along these lines merit serious consideration.

– Alden Abbott, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and deputy director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

The President has the Wrong Perspective on Campaign Finance

The president stated that “we have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections – and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution.” This statement ignores the fact that individuals have a First Amendment right to spend their money to engage in political speech, as the Supreme Court has recognized.

Moreover, the notion that “a handful of families and interests” bankroll our elections is inaccurate and misleading. Put simply, there is no need “to find a real solution” to a supposed campaign finance “problem” that does not exist.

– Alden Abbott, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and deputy director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

The President’s Discussion of the Voting System is Misguided

The president stated that “we’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. And over the course of the year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do.” There is simply no credible evidence that voting is unnecessarily hard, nor that undefined “reforms” are needed to “modernize” it.

Rather, to the extent there are problems associated with voting, they arise out of the hundreds of cases of criminal voter fraud that have been documented and published on the Heritage Foundation’s website.

To deal with this problem, election officials should seek to guarantee the sanctity of the ballot box by taking steps to prevent fraud, including in particular cleaning up voter registration rolls and verifying voter IDs.

– Alden Abbott, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and deputy director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Life and Marriage

Expansion of EITC for Single, Childless Adults Would Increase Welfare System’s Marriage Penalties

President Obama talked about fighting poverty by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless adults. It’s a strategy that, as the President noted, has also been promoted by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.

However, increasing EITC for single, childless adults would increase marriage penalties already rampant in the government’s means-tested welfare system. Absent fathers and other single individuals would only be eligible for the expanded tax credit until they married. Marriage is the greatest protection against child poverty.

Children in married-parent homes are 80 percent less likely to be poorcompared to their peers in single-parent households. Tragically, more than 40 percent of children are born outside of marriage every year. Rather than increase marriage disincentives in the government’s massive welfare system, policymakers should look for ways to reduce these penalties and strengthen marriage.

– Rachel Sheffield, policy analyst in policy analyst in the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society 

Categories: Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, gun control, Liberals, Middle East, Muslims, Obama, Obamacare, One Government, Politics, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Terrorists, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Grandpa Carries a gun…..


478958_377775065590126_103594823008153_1147845_1460009017_o.jpg-20-20Charlton-20Heston-20Quote-20on-20GunsWhy Grandpa carries a gun. The quintessential reason why Grandpa carries a gun. Please take time to read this and pay particular attention to “A Little Gun History” about half way down –   staggering numbers!   Why Carry a Gun?

 My old Grandpa said to me, “Son, there comes a time in   every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts   bustin’ caps and usually it’s when he becomes too old to   take a whoopin’.”   I don’t carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep   from being killed.   I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the World.   I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.   I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry; I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.   I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I   carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.  I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.   I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.   I don’t carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.   Police protection is an oxymoron: Free citizens must protect themselves because police do not protect you   from crime; they just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a whoopin’!

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY PLEASE  DON’T THINK  FOR  A  MOMENT,  THAT     THIS COULDN’T HAPPEN IN  OUR COUNTRY  ALSO !!!!!!

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control: · From 1929 to 1953,  about 20 million dissidents,   unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

In 1911, Turkey established gun control: · From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Germany established gun control in

1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were   unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend    themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Uganda  established gun control in 1970: · From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,  unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

Cambodia established gun control in 1956: · From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

———————–

56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the

20thentury because of gun control.

———————–

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.   Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely  affect only the law-abiding citizens.   With guns, we are ‘citizens’; without them, we are ‘subjects’.   During WW II, the Japanese decided not  to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Gun owners in the USA are the largest armed forces in   the World! · If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun   control message to all of your friends.   · The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible   victory in defense.

The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES A GUN TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD! SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT IN THE USE OF A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!   IT’S A NO BRAINER!  DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT   WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN  EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS  AN EASY TARGET.

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!  If you are too, please forward this.

If you’re not a believer, please reconsider the true facts.  This is history; not what’s being shown on TV, sanctioned by our illustrious delusional leaders in Washington .

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Execution, Germany, gun control, Nazi Germany, One Government, Politics, Uncategorized, world control | Tags: , , , , , | 8 Comments

Lies and deception…..Texas Judge Delivers Blistering Rebuke of Obama Admin Immigration Lawyers’ Misbehavior..


In an order issued late Tuesday, federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen refused to lift the preliminary injunction he had previously issued stopping the implementation of the immigration amnesty plan announced by President Obama last November.

And in a second order, an obviously infuriated Judge Hanen said that the “attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts” to the court.

Judge Hanen issued his injunction on Feb. 16 in the lawsuit filed by 26 states in a Texas federal court. On Feb. 23, the Justice Department filed a motion asking Hanen to stay his injunction pending an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 3, the Justice Department filed an “Advisory” with Hanen, informing him that between Nov. 20, when the president announced his new plan, and Feb. 16, when the injunction was issued, the Department of Homeland Security had begun implementing part of the president’s plan by issuing three-year deferrals to over 100,000 illegal aliens.

Justice Department Had Said Obama’s Immigration Plan Hadn’t Been Implemented

This despite the fact that the Justice Department had assured Judge Hanen on numerous occasions–both in court and in written pleadings–that no part of the president’s plan would be implemented until late February.  In the Advisory, the Justice Department did not admit it had misled the court; it was just trying to clear up any “confusion” that might have occurred.

Judge Hanen obviously saw things differently.

In Tuesday night’s order on the injunction, Hanen said that he remained “convinced” that his original findings and rulings were correct and that for a number of reasons, “the decisions reached previously by this Court have been reinforced.”

For example, Hanen had based his injunction in part on the “abdication” by the administration of its duty to enforce federal immigration law.  Hanen pointed out that “recent actions taken by the Government confirm that it has abdicated enforcement.”

One of those actions cited by Hanen was Obama’s reaction at a town hall meeting held after the injunction was issued to an individual upset over a deportation order.  Obama said that any Border Patrol agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who didn’t follow his new immigration plan that halts deportations against those who qualify under his new plan would be punished: if “they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it.”

Barack Obama - Amnesty Case

Obama (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

According to Hanen, Obama’s message to federal law enforcement officials and the nation “is clear.”  First, federal immigration laws that “officials are charged with enforcing, are not to be enforced when those laws conflict” with the president’s plan.  Second, “the criteria set out in [the president’s plan] are mandatory.”  Third, if Department of Homeland Security officials “fail to follow the specified criteria, there will be consequences for this failure–just as there would be consequences if they were in the military and disobeyed an order from the Commander in Chief.”

In summary, “the chief Executive has ordered that the laws requiring removal of illegal immigrants that conflict with [the president’s plan] are not to be enforced, and that anyone who attempts to do so will be punished.”

Hanen also dismissed the government’s claim that it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not lifted.  He concluded that “there is no pressing, emergent need for this program” and “the scales of justice greatly favor the States.”

Justice Department Lawyers Showed ‘Distinct Lack of Candor’

In the second order over the Advisory filed with the court, Judge Hanen presented a scathing analysis of the Justice Department’s misbehavior in misleading him over the implementation of the president’s amnesty plan:

“This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths.  That is why , whatever the motive for the Government’s actions in this matter, the Court is extremely troubled by the multiple representations made by the Government’s counsel – both in writing and orally – that no actionwould be taken … until February 18, 2015.”

Hanen said the representations made by the Justice Department lawyers “indicates a distinct lack of candor.”

The Justice Department lawyers may even be in trouble for their delay in telling Hanen about this problem: “the explanation by Defendants’ counsel for their conduct after the fact is even more troublesome for the Court.”

The Department told  Hanen they were unaware there was a problem until they read his Feb. 16 injunction order, and that they then took “prompt” remedial action to inform the court, but Hanen said that “assertion is belied by the facts.”  The Advisory was not filed until March 3, so for two weeks after the Feb. 16 injunction order, “the Government did nothing to inform the Court of the 108,081” deferrals that had been issued.

Instead, on Feb. 23, the government filed its “Motion to Stay” the injunction with Hanen, saying absolutely nothing in that motion about this problem.  Instead, “mysteriously, what was included” in the Justice Department’s motion was a request that Hanen issue a decision by Feb. 25, within two days:

“If this Court had ruled according to the Government’s requested schedule, it would have ruled without the Court or the States knowing that the Government had granted 108,081 applications … despite its multiple representations to the contrary … Yet they stood silent.  Even worse, they urged this Court to rule before disclosing that the Government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals … despite their statement to the contrary.”

Hanen goes after the Justice Department lawyers even harder, especially their claims that they acted “promptly” to clear up any “confusion” they may have caused: “But the facts clearly show these statements to be disingenuous.  The Government did anything but act ‘promptly’ to clarify the Government-created ‘confusion.’”

Judge: Justice Department Lawyers Didn’t Follow Professional Ethics

Hanen cites Section 3.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the corresponding section of the Texas Rules, which require complete candor by a lawyer in his or her dealings with a court:

“Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.”

Because of the government’s misconduct, Judge Hanen considered striking their pleadings, and indicated that “under different circumstances,” he might “very well do so.”  But he didn’t because, he said, that would effectively end the case.

Because the issues at stake “have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits,” Hanen concluded that “the ends of justice would not be served by striking pleadings in this case.”  He warned the Justice Department, though, that his decision “does not bar such a sanction in the future should the facts and law warrant that action” and that his decision does not leave him “impotent to fashion an appropriate remedy” for the government’s misconduct.

In addition to granting the states’ request for early discovery, Hanen ordered the Justice Department to produce “any and all drafts of the March 3, 2015 Advisory” including all “metadata and all other tangible items that indicate when each draft of the document was written and/or edited or revised” as well as the names of any person who knew about the Advisory or the Department of Homeland Security  activity, or reviewed it, and the date that occurred.  He ordered that no documents, emails, computer records, hard drives or servers that have any information about this Advisory be “destroyed or erased.”  And he gave the Justice Department only until April 21 to supply all of this information.

That is a tall order, but Judge Hanen is clearly determined to find out who knew about this deception, and may well consider personally sanctioning those lawyers or other officials who were involved once he gets that information.

This is another big loss for the government and gives the states the ability to question the credibility of the government in the appeal now pending.  The Justice Department will go into the upcoming hearing before the Fifth Circuit with what the legal profession calls “unclean hands,” which is when lawyers engage in professional and ethical misconduct.  That certainly will not help the government win its case.

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

Categories: Immigration, Obama, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America (1782) July 16, 1782…..


Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782.

The King having been pleased to attend to the requests made to him in the name and on behalf of the united provinces of North America for assistance in the war and invasion under which they had for several years groaned; and His Majesty, after entering into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the said confederated provinces on the 6th of February, 1778, having had the goodness to support them, not only with his forces by land and sea, but also with advances of money, as abundant as they were effectual in the critical situation to which their affairs were reduced; it has been judged proper and necessary to state exactly the amount of those advances the conditions on which the King made them, the periods at which the Congress of the United States have engaged to repay them to His Majesty’s royal treasury, and, in fine, to state this matter in such a way as for the future to prevent all difficulties capable of interrupting the good harmony which His Majesty is resolved to maintain and pre- serve between him and the said United States. For executing so laudable a purpose, and with a view to strengthen the bands of amity and commerce which subsist between His Majesty and the said United States, we, Charles Gravier de Vergennes, etc., Counselor of the King in all his Councils, Commander of his Orders, Minister and Secretary of State, and of his Commands and Finances, vested with full powers of His Majesty to us given for this purpose-

And we, Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of North America, in like manner vested with full powers of the Congress of the said States for the present purpose, after duly communicating our respective powers, have agreed to the following articles:

ARTICLE 1

It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit:

1. 28 February 1778 750,000
2. 19 May do 750,000
3. 3 August do 750,000
4. 1 November do 750,000
Total 3,000,000
5. 10 June 1779 250,000
6. 16 September do 250,000
7. 4 October do 250,000
8. 21 December do 250,000
Total 1,000,000
9. 29 February 1780 750,000
10. 23 May do 750,000
11. 21 June do 750,000
12. 5 October do 750,000
13. 27 November do 1,000,000
Total 4,000,000
14. 15 February 1781 750,000
15. 15 May do 750,000
16. 15 August do 750,000
17. 1 August do 1,000,000
18. 15 November do 750,000
Total 4,000,000
19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000
20. 1 July do 1,500,000
21. 5 of tbe same month 3,000,000
Total 6,000,000
Amounting in the whole to eighteen milIions, viz 18, 000, 000

By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent per annum.

ARTICLE 2.

Considering that the payment of so large a capital at the one stipulated period, the 1st of January, 1788, may greatly injure the finances of the Congress of the United States, and it may perhaps be even impracticable on that footing, His Majesty has been pleased for that reason to recede in that respect from the tenor of the receipts which the Minister of Congress has given for the eighteen million livres tournois mentioned in the foregoing article, and has consented that the payment of the capital in ready money at the royal treasury be in twelve equal payments of 1,500,000 livres each, and in twelve years only, to commence from the third year after a peace.

ARTICLE 3.

Although the receipts of the Minister of the Congress of the United States specify that the eighteen million of livres above mentioned are to be paid at the royal treasury, with interest at five per cent per annum, His Majesty, being willing to give the said United States a new proof of his affection and friendship, has been pleased to make a present of, and to forgive the whole arrears of interest to this day, and from thence to the date of the treaty of peace; a favor which the Minister of the Congress of the United States acknowledges to flow from the pure bounty of the King, and which he accepts in the name of the said United States with profound and lively acknowledgments.

ARTICLE 4.

The payment of the said eighteen millions of livres tournois shall be in ready money at the royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris, in twelve equal parts and at the terms stipulated in the above second article. The interest of the said sum, at five percent per annum, shall commence with the date of the treaty of peace, and shall be paid at every period of the partial payments of the capital, and shall diminish in proportion with the payments; the Congress of the said United States being left, however, at liberty to free themselves sooner from this obligation by anticipated payments in case the state of their finances will admit.

ARTICLE 5.

Although the loan of five millions of florins of Holland, agreed to by the States General of the United Provinces of the Netherlands on the terms of the obligation passed on the 5th of November, 1781, between His Majesty and the said States General, has been made in His Majesty’s name and guaranteed by him; it is never the less acknowledged by these presents that the said loan was made in reality on account and for the service of the United States of North America, and that the capital, amounting at a moderate valuation to the sum of ten millions livres tournois, has been paid to the said United States, agreeably to a receipt for the payment of the said sum, given by the undersigned Minister of Congress the seventh day of June last.

ARTICLE 6.

By the convention of the said 5th of November, 1781, the King has been pleased to promise and engage to furnish and pay at the general counter of the States General of the Netherlands, the capital of the said loan, with the interest at four per cent per annum, without any charge or deduction whatever to the lenders; so that the said capital shall be wholly repaid after the space of five years, the payments to be made in ten equal periods, the first of which to commence the sixth year from the date of the loan, and afterwards from year to year to the final payment of the said sum; but it is in like manner acknowledged by this act that this engagement was entered into by the King at the request of the undersigned Minister of the United States, and on the promise by him made in the name of Congress and on behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be reimbursed and paid at the royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris, the capital, interest, and cost of the said loan, according to the conditions and terms fixed by the said convention of the 5th of November, 1781.

ARTICLE 7.

It is accordingly agreed and settled that the sum of ten million livres tournois, being by a moderate computation the principal of the loan of five millions of Holland florins above mentioned, shall be reimbursed and paid in ready money at the royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris, with the interest at four per cent per annum, in ten equal payments of one million each, and in ten terms, the first of which shall be on the 5th of November, 1787, the second the 5th of November, 1788, and so from year to year till the final payment of the said sum of ten millions, the interest lessening in proportion with the partial payments of the capital. But in consequence of the King’s affection for the United States, His Majesty has been pleased to charge himself with the expense of commissions and bank for the said loan, of which expenses His Majesty has made a present to the United States, and this their undersigned Minister accepts, with thanks, in the name of Congress, as a new proof of His Majesty’s generosity and friendship for the said United States.

ARTICLE 8.

With regard to the interest of the said loan during the five years preceding the first term of payment of the capital, as the fling has engaged to pay it at the general counter of the States General of the Netherlands, at the rate of four per cent yearly, and every year, counting from the 5th of November, 1781, according to the convention of that day, the Minister of Congress acknowledges that the repayment of that is due to His Majesty by the United States, and he engages in the name of the said United States to cause payment thereof to be made, at the same time and I at the same rate, at the royal treasury of His Majesty; the first year’s interest to be paid the 5th of November next, and so yearly during the five years preceding the first term for the payment of the capital, fixed as above on the 5th of November, 5 1787.

The high contracting parties reciprocally bind themselves to the faithful observance of this contract, the ratifications of which shall be exchanged in the space of nine months from this day, or sooner if possible. In testimony whereof we, the said Plenipotentiaries of His Most Christian Majesty and of the thirteen United States of North America, in virtue of our respective powers, have signed these presents and it hereunto fixed the seal of our arms.

Done at Versailles the sixteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two. GRAVIER DE VERGENNES [Seal]

B FRANKLIN [Seal]

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Politics | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms July 6, 1775…..


A declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of North America, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause. Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. — Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies. — Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. — From that fatal movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. — The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and then subduing her faithful friends.

These colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder. — The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. — Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the “murderers” of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can “of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.” What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.

Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. — This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty’s speech; our petition, tho’ we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that “a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts- Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty’s subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature.” — Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to general Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. — equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. — The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.

The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to “declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supercede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.” — His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carleton, the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. — The latter is our choice. — We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. — Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. — We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. — Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. — We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it — for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Politics, revealing information | Tags: , , | 2 Comments

Tennessee terrorist camps positioned to strike our key cities…..


Tennessee terrorist camps well positioned to strike key cities

In Uncategorized on February 15, 2015 at 9:08 AM

Tennessee terrorist camps well positioned to strike key cities

2/15/15
0903 am
Two possibly three terrorist camps have been discovered in Dover, Paris and Shelbyville TN.

The three camps in TN are intertwined with a string of other camps, some say as many as 37, scattered throughout rural America, maybe more.

Muslims of America claim 107 business entities or charities in America according to the IRS, which leads one to think many more terrorist camps are on the way or are yet to be discovered.

The camps have a common theme. They are  linked to one person, one terrorist group. They are a tight network tied to Sheikh Mubarrack Al Gilani, Muslims of America and Jamaat Al Fukra.

Gilani has know associations to Al-Qaeda.

He has also trained jihadists to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

Gilani attended a 1993 jihadist conference in Sudan along with members of Hamas, Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden himself.

You may have heard of Gilani because of his close association to the murder of an American journalist Daniel Pearl. After investigating US terrorist camps Pearl was invited by Sheikh Gilani to interview him in Pakistan. On his way to the interview with Gilani in 2002 he was brutally murdered. The sheikh denies any involvement in Pearl’s killing. This is the person in charge of all the known terrorist training camps in the USA and up to 3 camps in Tennessee. This terrorist Sheikh has reportedly made many trips to TN to “break bread” with his camp leaders.

Gilani runs the group from Lahore, Pakistan. He is also a former member of the Pakistani military.His father was one of the founding fathers of Pakistan and he has great connections to Pakistani intelligence, the ISI.

Gilani is the founder of Muslims of America which serves as a cash cow for Gilani and Jamaat Al-Fuqra. Gilani runs all these camps in America and Canada. Individual “Captains” run each of the camps.

Each member of MOA/Jamaat Al Fuqra is required to send 30 percent of their income to Gilani.  Each Captain reports directly to Gilani and funnels up that 30 percent to him with frequent trips to Pakistan to deliver the money. The FBI is aware of these happenings and are reportedly watching these activities.

Much of this money in Tennessee is federal or state money that comes from food stamps, unemployment or disability income collected from camp members. Reportedly very few work in these camps as evidenced by even fewer IRS claims from these addresses. Most are on the governments teat and are sending great portions of their taxpayer subsidized incomes to
Pakistan to fund terrorism. This must stop.

This money has been tracked to Sheikh Gilani and then dispersed to the Taliban and other terrorist groups around the world and no one to date has offered to stop this funding of terrorist groups.

Muslims of America also known as Soldiers of Allah  compounds are filled with ex-cons from rough backgrounds. Many black Americans converted to Islam while in local prisons. Many of these violent offenders are the first you will meet if you attempt to visit the camps in Tennessee.

Many of these camps are reportedly fortified with heavy weapons, ammo and bomb making equipment as evidenced by a recent raid at a Colorado terrorist  camp, This camp run by Gilani was searched by warrant when neighbors complained of loud noises and gun fire from the compound.

The 3 terrorist camps in TN are just a stones throw from  I- 24 allowing fast access to major road ways. The camps are nestled along the north, northwest TN border near Nashville. The Dover and Paris camps are about a 30 minute drive apart and about equal time to Nashville. The newly reported Shelbyville camp is approximately 90 miles from Chattanooga and about 57 miles south, southeast of Nashville.

These camps are well positioned near the heart of Tennessee and two of it’s biggest cities and population areas. Terror attacks could easily be carried out in our state with dire consequences. Oak Ridge is just a short drive from these camps and are strategically close to a number of nuclear reactors.

Recent reports of suspicious activity at a local water plant in Nashville left many with the impression that the activity conducted in these camps could ignite violence and terror in Tennessee and it’s major cities. Putting millions at risk and in great danger.

The recent influx of Somali and Iraqi Kurds by the Obama Administration into the Murfreeboro area has surely spawned this reported terrorist camp activity. Dumping 60,000 plus into a rural area will definitely harbor criminal and terroristic activity in TN and across the USA. Child trafficking has become a huge business and has prompted the state legislature and local law enforcement to act upon this surge in child endangerment and pass laws to protect our children and women.

Many videos have confirmed paramilitary training in these camps and law enforcement, the FBI and DHS seem to ignore these camps and their activity while filing reports on their potential danger and activity.

As the world watches the Copenhagen and recent Paris attacks by jihadis, it makes you wonder why we are not more vigilant in stopping or squelching this type activity in our country, in our state.

I challenge TN State  legislators, local law enforcement, Senators and our Governor to investigate these camps. Do a welfare check with warrants. Look underground for buried munitions. Examine the welfare of the women and children surely subjected to Sharia Law and the atrocities that accompany that.

“Observers” in and around the Tn Terrorist camps are reporting alot of activity and military type movement. There is a stir in camps under observation by vigilant patriots that something may be impending in the near future. Chatter has reportedly increased and as those reports become visible, we at BCN will notify you.

Some of their most active camps in the USA are:

– Trout Creek Pass, Colorado (over 100 acres)
– Red House Virginia (over 120 Acres)
– Mecca Circle, Wayne County, GA
– Islamber, NY (considered their headquarters)
– Holy Islamville, SC (another huge compound and extremely active)
– Baladullah, CA (Huge and also extremely active)
– A new one PA (Wayne County)
– Fairfax, VA
– York, SC
– Hancock, NY
– Deposit, NY
– Springfield, MA
– Philadelphia, PA
– Hyattsville, MD
– Bethany, WV
– Meherrin, VA
– Dover, TN
– Paris, TN
– Shelbyville, TN
– Commerce, GA
– Jessup, GA
– Marion, AL
– Talhina, OK
– Houston, TX
– Coldwater, MI
– Buena Vista, CO
– Oak Hill, CA
– Onalska, WA

Only you can create change. Only you can make our local and federal law enforcement officers to act and break these camps up. Challenge them to just do a welfare check on the kids and women who under Sharia Law are abused, raped and in constant danger.

You are at danger at this point! You can stop this. Apply the appropriate pressure, give your rep a call and demand an investigation. Otherwise, our silence is our consent.

Sources of info:

http://mrconservative.com/2014/05/40604-muslim-extremist-training-facilities-exposed-in-the-u-s/

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/islamville-tennessee

Video of camps

https://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#

Jamaat Al-Fuqra

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat_ul-Fuqra

http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2012/10/25/twilight-in-america/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/know-neighbors-live-next-jamaat-ul-fuqra-camp/#Cm7B5RdSpyFgwDhA.97

Categories: Obama, Politics, revealing information, Strange News | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

mayanexplore.com

Riviera Maya Travel Guide

Cajun Food, Louisiana History, and a Little Lagniappe

Preservation of traditional River Road cuisine, Louisiana history & architecture, and the communities between Baton Rouge & NOLA

Jali Wanders

Wondering and Wandering

Southpaw Tracks

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

what's the formula?

Nurturing awesomeness: from the parents of celebrities, heroes, trailblazers and leaders

Tarheel Red

A Voice of Conservatism Living in Carolina Blue

cancer killing recipe

Just another WordPress.com site

dreamshadow59

A great WordPress.com site

Mike's Look at Life

Photography, memoirs, random thoughts.

Belle Grove Plantation Bed and Breakfast

Birthplace of James Madison and Southern Plantation

Letters for Michael

Lessons on being gay, of love, life and lots of it

Sunny Sleevez

Sun Protection & Green Info

Backcountry Tranquility

A journal about my travels and related experiences :)

LEANNE COLE

Art and Practice

Lukas Chodorowicz

Travel, culture and lifestyle experienced on my adventures around the world. All photos taken by me. Instagram: @colorspark

BunnyandPorkBelly

life is always sweeter and yummier through a lens. bunnyandporkbelly [at] gmail [dot] com

%d bloggers like this: