CNN's Piers Morgan to be taken off air?

Immigration group targets cable-network anchor

WND:  In 2003, Rush Limbaugh lost his position as a NFL commentator because an observation about a black quarterback was construed as "racist."

In 2010, NPR's Juan Williams was fired for a comment about his concerns when boarding a plane with Muslim passengers.

In 2013, in the heated environment following the massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., CNN's Piers Morgan hosted a panel in which the idea of shooting an outspoken opponent of gun control with an "assault rifle" was approvingly discussed.

Piers Morgan still has his job.  Why??

These folks plan to change that.

WASHINGTON – Officials with the conservative group Americans for Legal Immigration are challenging CNN to take Piers Morgan off the air after a controversial debate on gun control with InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones.

Jones has been just one those Morgan has brought on the air over gun control in recent days.

Following the debate with Jones, which sparked a media firestorm, Morgan featured a panel on his program including Daily Beast sports columnist Buzz Bissinger, and commentator Abby Huntsman, daughter of presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, in which Buzz joked about how someone should “pop” Jones with an “assault rifle.”

To which Abby Huntsman laughingly responded, “I’d love to see that, in uniform!”

William Gheen, president of ALIPAC, called Morgan’s segment one of the worst he’s seen in his career.

“Monitoring the media is something I have done professionally for two decades now, and in that entire time I have never seen anything as outrageous as the Piers Morgan segment joking about killing one of their guests with an ‘assault rifle’,” Gheen told WND.

Morgan and Jones engaged in a heated debate over Americans’ rights to be armed, despite Morgan being British. The ever-controversial Jones discussed a New World Order and mentioned his fear of political assassination. Morgan’s decision to feature Jones as the face of the right wing gun control position outraged many conservatives including Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson who feared he would delegitimize their case.

The gun control debate has been put back on the forefront of American politics following the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting and Newtown, Conn., school tragedy.

Those representing Second Amendment advocacy including Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, and current NRA President David Keene, have received death threats – ironically involving guns – over social media.

ALIPAC also has launched a social media effort that has gained them 65,000 Facebook followers and has clogged up lines at CNN calling for Morgan to be taken off air.

“Please call CNN to demand that Piers Morgan be fired for advocating political murder with assault rifles on last night’s show. Free speech is one thing, but we cannot allow the liberal media to take things this far against those that oppose amnesty or support gun rights etc.. Call 404.827.1500 and wait for a human operator,” Gheen encouraged.

ALIPAC has posted a video clip online.  -  The clip in question for your review:

Piers Morgan and Guests Discuss Shooting Alex Jones  » Piers Morgan and Guests Discuss Shooting Alex Jones Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!  -  Please flood CNN with calls demanding that Piers Morgan be Fired for murder comments

The Washington Post reported that Morgan also interviewed gun-rights advocate John Lott and dismissed him by “scoffing at him.

Morgan then interviewed gun-rights advocate Larry Pratt and dismissed him by “insulting” him.

The report said Morgan was unable to control all of the interviews over guns. When Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of Breitbart.com was on the show, Morgan brought out Ronald Reagan.

He said, according to the Post, “One of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me.”

“Shapiro’s priceless retort: ‘So?’” the paper reported.

Morgan then said, “You genuinely believe your own government is going to turn on you in a way that you require an AR-15 to challenge them? You really believe that will happen in modern-day America? Is that what you think?”

Said Shapiro, “”They may not turn on me. They may not turn on my children. But the fact is this, history is replete with democracies going tyrannical. It has happened. It happened in France in the 19th century. It happened in Spain in the last century. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy. It happened in Japan.”

Related:

English Warning To Americans: DONT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!

Sandy Hook Planned: Video Tribute Video Uploaded Weeks Before Massacre

The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information

Former FBI Informant Says: Obama Will Destroy America Once He Has All The Guns… as Details of False Flag and Conspiracy in Connecticut Shooting Appear

NRA Releases List of Celebrities, Organizations that Support Gun Control

Pravda tells America: Keep your guns

Obama Would Call on Military to Disarm Americans During National Emergency

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

Gun Control Dictator Style – Tyrants Who Banned Firearms Before Slaughtering The People

Columbine Remembered — What a great speech!

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

Technorati Tags: Alex Jones,Info Wars,Piers Morgan,liberals vs conservatives,double standard,CNN,WND,NRA,second amendment,Bill of Rights,gun control,guns,right to keep and bear arms,standing up,saving America,Ben Shapiro,disarming America,dictator tactics,watch the other hand,globalist agenda,Progressivism,UN,Hillary Clinton,Obama's agenda,smoke and mirrors,Colorado,Connecticut,creating chaos,creating crisis,Wayne LaPierre,Newtown,Aurora,Columbine,manipulation of the public,control,dictators,Thomas Jefferson,liberal media,NWO

The movie that made Chuck Norris tear up: Last Ounce of Courage

New project earns highest accolades from legendary tough guy

WND:

A movie debuting Friday, “Last Ounce of Courage,” already is a one-of-a-kind as the only film ever to earn the “Chuck Norris Seal of Approval.”

The veteran martial arts champion, action movie and “Walker, Texas Ranger” star loves it so much it’s the only film he’s promoted, aside from the ones in which he appeared.

Actor Marshall Teague, who plays the lead in the movie, told WND that when he gave his longtime friend Norris a rough cut of the movie to review, he was hoping for some advice.

What he got from Norris was even more than an unqualified endorsement, as the legendary tough guy asked for permission to promote the film.

Read Drew Zahn’s review of “Last Ounce” that addresses Christians and soldiers, and get a sneak peak at reactions to the project.

How much did it impact Norris?

“When we finished the film, I must say Carlos was misty,” Teague told WND.

Wait, that can’t be. Chuck Norris Fact No. 16 says, “Chuck Norris never uses a stunt double, except during crying scenes.”

Or maybe what Teague was seeing was just the result of Fact No. 93, “Chuck Norris uses Tabasco sauce for eye drops.”

The movie, Teague tells WND, is about faith, family and freedoms.

“I’m talking about the freedoms we as a nation enjoy every day, speech, religion, the freedom to gather,” Teague said.

The story revolves around the mayor of a small town, where Bob Revere, played by Teague (“Roadhouse,” “The Rock” and “Armageddon”) is challenged by the apathy that is eroding America’s basic freedoms.

It’s bound to be a success.

“This is the only movie in my life that I’ve ever promoted that I’m not in,” Norris said in an interview about the project. “I just want to encourage … everyone to go see this movie. You will not be disappointed.”

See the interview:

Teague told WND that the U.S. is the greatest country on earth, but people have stopped noticing.

“Wake up people,” he said. “Take a moment of your day and realize what you have, what has been given to you by people, our forefathers. They saw in the future how great this country could be.”

In a commentary for WND, Norris wrote: “I will also let you in on a little secret about the movie: The mega-inspiring speech given by Marshall Teague’s character near the end of the movie from atop a downtown building was unscripted and flowed from his patriot passion in a way that rivals the best patriotic or faith orator.”

He continued: “There is no more perfect time than right now for the release of ‘Last Ounce of Courage,’ being roughly two months away from electing a new president. It can help us take back America. In particular, it can help motivate the 30 million evangelical Christians who stayed home during the 2008 election when Obama won the presidency by 10 million votes.

“This general election could be our last chance to save our republic as our founders created and knew it, and it’s going to take all of our last ounces of courage to do it.”

See the movie’s trailer:

Teague told WND there have been changes in the U.S., people converse via computer rather then speaking face-to-face, events are moving faster, and there are so many more deadlines and pressures.

But, he said, Americans “need to stop … and really take time and go meet your neighbor, and say hello.”

The mutual relationship that can result, he said, is called “respect.”

It’s needed now more than ever, because, as Ronald Reagan said, freedom is never more than one generation away from being lost, Teague said.

“Our country was formed by a people who saw the future,” he said. “It is our responsibility to keep this nation great and stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

He continued: “When one voice connects to another, and another, and another … what you end up with is a choir of voices that can be heard across the nation.”

Teague said the project also honors the nation’s military, whose sacrifices have continued to protect freedom, as well as the youth, through the character who challenges Teague in the movie.

It’s a Veritas Communications project by the film company dedicated to making films with a purpose.

In a statement released announcing the decision to award “The Chuck Norris Seal of Approval” to the movie, Norris said, “I neither star in, nor do I have an above-the-line credit on, or other affiliation with, ’Last Ounce of Courage. ‘

“Yet allowing the use of my ‘Official Seal of Approval’ is the least I can do to support a project so consistent with my core values and life principles. In addition to the film’s basic reminder that our precious freedoms are not always free, Marshall Teague gives the performance of his career as a small-town mayor who is inspired by his grandson to take a stand when a public religious display honoring his fallen son in Iraq is targeted for removal. No one should miss the message of this motion picture or his moving performance.”

Technorati Tags: Chuck Norris,movie,Christians,Walker... Texas Ranger,Chuck Norris Seal of Approval,Last Ounce of Courage,Courage,freedom,Ronald Reagan,WND,We the People

Obama Assembling De Facto Propaganda Ministry

By Steve Peacock – WND

The U.S. State Department is planning to “buy” media broadcasts, as the Obama administration assembles a de facto propaganda machine, according to documents that reveal the president’s plans moving closer to the 2012 election.

According to information WND located via routine database research, State’s Bureau of Public Affairs is soliciting the help of “global news coverage service providers” to create and disseminate department “news.”

The selected contractor will provide “full-time, 24/7 service,” the Statement of Work for the plan said.

“The department seeks a service provider for full, turn-key news-style global television coverage of ad hoc open press events featuring the Secretary of State and other officials across the United States and throughout the world,” according to the SOW, “and to send this content back to the department’s Washington headquarters…”

Upon receiving these privately packaged productions, the department, in turn, “will distribute this video content to media organizations through an array of traditional and new media platforms.”

Indeed, just as the department is awaiting contractor bids on the project, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s representative at the World Press Freedom Day in Tunisia heaped accolades upon UNESCO for hosting the annual event.

Read about how the U.S. mission at the United Nations works with reporters, and find out what the White House does with some of those raising questions.

In a “tweet” from Tunisia, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Esther Brimmer said, “I applaud the tireless, continuing work of #UNESCO in promoting the ideals of free and open media.”

Brimmer delivered remarks on behalf of the Obama administration during the opening ceremony, along with presenting a video speech from Clinton.

Referring to the Arab Spring demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa, Clinton said, according to a prepared statement, “Voice by voice, text by text, Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and many others have dared to say what they believe and stand up for their own rights.

“Many others have dared to report on what they see happening, even when their lives were at risk.”

The State Department plan is twofold: to hire a single contractor to provide television news crew services on the one hand, and to provide transmission/streaming services as a corollary service.

“The television news crew category is both one and two-person crews, and includes one and multi-camera productions,” the SOW pointed out. “The transmission category includes both traditional fiber, terrestrial and satellite-based as well as file-based and Internet delivery platforms.”

The use of such government- as well as industry-funded broadcasts, known as “video news releases,” or VNRs, has increasingly come under fire in the past decade.

VNRs “are segments designed to be indistinguishable from independently produced news reports that are distributed and promoted to television newsrooms,” according to Source Watch, a Center for Media and Democracy project that chronicles the intersecting of public relations and public policy.

The General Accountability Office – the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress – in 2005 declared that several federal entities, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, may have violated the law by disseminating VNRs as fact-based news reports.

Subsequent to the GAO’s findings, the “Stop Government Propaganda Act” was introduced to rein in and punish such activities; it died, however, after being introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Proponents of VNR distribution claim that use of the video products is wholly legitimate. The Public Relations Society of America is that a VNR simply is “the video equivalent of a press release.”

The organization does advocate that industry members abide by certain parameters to ensure the integrity of VNR usage:

1. Organizations that produce VNRs should clearly identify the VNR as such and fully disclose who produced and paid for it at the time the VNR is provided to TV stations.
2. PRSA recommends that organizations that prepare VNRs should not use the word “reporting” if the narrator is not a reporter.
3. Use of VNRs or footage provided by sources other than the station or network should be identified as to source by the media outlet when it is aired.

Despite congressional refusal to crack down on VNRs, the Federal Communications Commission issued a reminder to licensees of their sponsor-identification requirements under the Communications Act or 1934. Rather than holding liable the creators of the reports, the commission has placed the burden of disclosure on who ultimately airs the VNR.

“These rules are grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them with the programming offered over broadcast stations and cable systems,” the FCC said.

When such VNRs are aired, “licensees and operators generally must clearly disclose to members of their audiences the nature, source and sponsorship of the material that they are viewing.”

Although the FCC continues to enforce these rules, the penalties arguably have been light.

Last year, for instance, it issued a forfeiture order to Fox Television Stations, Inc. when station affiliate KMSP-TV of Minneapolis used – but failed to identify – a General Motors-provided VNR during a news broadcast.

The FCC fined Fox $4,000 for failing to disclose GM sponsorship of the report.

Among other VNR-related enforcement actions, in 2007 it imposed a $4,000 fine on Comcast Corp. for also violating the sponsorship disclosure rules. Comcast’s CN8 news affiliate in that case had aired a VNR produced on behalf of Nelson’s Rescue Sleep.

The FCC soon after separately slapped a $16,000 forfeiture against Comcast for airing two VNRs from General Mills and Allstate, respectively.

The State Department through May 21 is reviewing contractor proposals in response to the new solicitation. It did not disclose the estimated cost of the endeavor, for which it will award a year contract with four one-year options.

Anti-Glenn Beck group honors disgraced czar

Soros-funded organization charged former Fox News host with 'anti-Semitism'

A George Soros-funded leftist group that describes itself as a Jewish organization last night honored Van Jones at its annual dinner gala.

The Jewish Funds for Justice, or JFFJ, was the driving force behind a campaign to paint former Fox News host Glenn Beck as anti-Semitic after Beck used his show to air a special investigation into Soros.

WND previously found JFFJ is led by individuals associated with communist and socialist groups, the children of Soviet spies and a U.S. socialist organization that seeks to infiltrate the Democratic Party.

The group has been vocal in its support of the Occupy movement.

Together with the Progressive Jewish Alliance, the JFFJ held its annual “Pursuit of Justice” award gala last night. The event took place at the Paramount Studios in Los Angeles and was hosted by comedian Paula Poundstone.

The dinner honored Jones, President Obama’s infamous former “green jobs” czar who resigned after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and called for “resistance” against the U.S.

The gala also honored Steve Rohde, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

“Attending this event will be over 500 deeply committed, politically active, highly influential and progressive supporters which ally themselves with social justice issues. Join us!” read the JFFJ invitation.

It was Beck’s Fox News show that helped spotlight Jones’ radicalism, which was first reported by WND and by the New Zeal blog months before Beck took up the issue. The Fox News spotlight eventually led to Jones stepping down.

After Beck’s weeklong special on Soros, the JFFJ in January 2011 delivered a petition with 10,000 signatures to Fox News in protest of the Soros show in which Beck referred to the billionaire as a “puppet master.” JFFJ deemed the show anti-Semitic.

JFFJ also took out full-page ads in several newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, demanding that Beck be sanctioned.

JFFJ recently had defended the Occupy movement in the face of charges it had taken an anti-Semitic tone, as WND previously exposed.

JFFJ activists also reportedly led high-holiday services last year at New York City, Boston and Los Angeles Occupy sites, including prayers for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The group helped erect sukkot, or customary temporary booths, at Occupy sites during the Feast of Tabernacles.

JFFJ is led by an assortment of radicals.

The group says it is seeking to create a just, fair and compassionate America, with social and economic security for all citizens. The group believes that “by transforming leaders, we are better able to transform society” and “create a more just world.”

The group also promotes “green” jobs, immigration reform and was a champion of Obama’s health-care bill.

JFFJ is funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute.

In 2009, the Open Society provided a $150,000 grant to the JFFJ and its associated group, the Funder’s Collaborative on Youth Organizing.

In 2010, Open Society provided a $200,000 grant to last a period of two years.

JFFJ was founded by Si Khan, who serves on the board of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which seeks to aid the children of parents the group deems “targeted, progressive activists.”

“We also assist youth who themselves have been targeted as a result of their progressive activities.”

The group was founded by Robert Meeropol, whose parents Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were accused of passing crucial nuclear secrets to the Soviets and executed in 1953.

JFFJ board member Amy Dean, meanwhile, has keynoted a Communist Party event and was involved with a U.S. socialist party.

She keynoted the Chicago Communist Party USA’s 22nd Annual People’s World Banquet last December. At the event, CPUSA labor secretary Scott Marshall deemed Dean’s work visionary and innovative.

Dean reportedly used the address to call for “much more” to be done “to build up the movement to ensure the Obama agenda and progressive change is advanced in Congress.”

In November 2011, Dean keynoted the seventh annual Working Class Media & Democracy Forum in St. Louis, which the New Zeal blog reports was arranged by Communist Party member Tony Pecinovsky.

Dean also was involved with the New Party, a controversial 1990s political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

WND previously reported on evidence from the party’s own newsletter listing President Obama a member of the New Party.

Also, Marxist activist Carl Davidson recalled in a 2009 WND email interview that Obama participated in the New Party. He affirmed that Obama’s views overlapped with those of his party.

JFFJ board member Janice Fine was also a New Party leader and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, another socialist group.

JFFJ board member Donna Katzin is a former activist with the Cuba Resource Center.

New Zeal reported she is a donor to the Oakland, Calif.-based Data Center, which itself has close ties to Cuba.

JFFJ’s president and CEO, Simon Greer, previously worked as a labor and community organizer and social change leader for 15 years.

Greer previously wrote that he has had the “privilege of getting to know George Soros.”

“During our conversations, he made it clear that his experience surviving the Holocaust seared a simple but profound truth in his brain,” Greer said.

WND reported JFFJ runs a Selah Leadership Program, which provides community organizing training to local leaders. As of mid-2007, more than 200 leaders from 165 organizations had gone through the program.

Past participants include Heather Booth, founder of the radical Midwest Academy, which teaches the tactics of radical 1960s community organizer Saul Alinsky.

WND was first to report that the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit on which Barack Obama served as paid director alongside Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, provided money to Midwest Academy.

WND also broke the story that the executive director of Midwest Academy was part of the team that developed and delivered a group of volunteers for Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Another past participant in JFFJ’s training program is Working Families Party Executive Director Dan Cantor.

JFSJ was listed as an endorsing organization of the One Nation rally in Washington, D.C., in October 2010, which was meant to counter Beck’s Washington event in August of that year.

The group has worked with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR.

“We are proud to be associated with the work of CAIR,” declared Jeffrey Denko, JFSJ’s senior vice president.

By Aaron Klein - WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio - With research by Brenda J. Elliott. – h/t to our friends at New Zeal blog and the NoisyRoom!  - Get Aaron Klein’s Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America

Related: Radical Self-Avowed Communist Van Jones and Color of Change Attack ALEC… Attack Free Speech

Music legend faces boot over Obama's eligibility

Wow… Sure seems like a lot of fuss over a topic that the White House and Obama say is no longer an issue:

Eligibility Rulings Vanish from Net

Arpaio-Team Prosecutor Targeted in ‘With Hunt’

Media Blackout on Obama Eligibility Near-Total…

The faculty of a Michigan college is up in arms over the choice of singer, actor and author Pat Boone as commencement speaker for the institution’s 2012 graduation ceremony.

According to a report in the Toledo Blade, petitions protesting Boone’s selection and honorary degree have been circulating among students and faculty at Adrian College in Adrian, Mich., since the school announced the decision on April 2. The school’s faculty association even approved a resolution last week condemning the choice and demanding the school withdraw its invitation.

Janet Salzwedel, an officer with the faculty association, told the newspaper professors were upset with what she called Boone’s “inflammatory kinds of rhetoric.”

The Blade also cited objections over Boone’s willingness to question Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president and the legitimacy of the document the White House presented as Obama’s purported, long-form birth certificate.

“He is free to speak at other places,” Salzwedel said, “but this is about the students and their day, and [Boone] is not what Adrian College represents.”

According to the Blade, it’s Boone’s commentaries in WND that have “riled some people on the United Methodist Church-affiliated college campus.”

A Facebook page set up to “keep Pat Boone off of Adrian College’s campus” contends that Boone spends his time as a “political pundit, promoting his views of racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance” and then links to a press release put out by the Human Rights Campaign, a leading homosexual activism group.

The Facebook page, under the name of Adrian College junior Chelsea Blankinship, cites a 2008 Boone column in WND that she says “stepped outside the bounds of decency and morality” for “comparing LGBT activism with the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.”

Boone’s column specifically states that homosexual activists haven’t grown as violent as jihadi terrorists, but does point to “the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order … the hate seething in the words, faces and actions” of some of California’s Proposition 8 protesters, who took to the streets demanding the state’s voter-approved ballot initiative preserving marriage between one man and one woman be struck down.

“Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts,” Boone writes in the column’s pivotal paragraph. “And hate, unbridled, will eventually and inevitably boil into violence. How crazily ironic that the homosexual activists and sympathizers cry for ‘tolerance’ and ‘equal rights’ and understanding – while they spew vitriol and threats and hate at those who disagree with them on moral and societal grounds.”

Blankinship contends of Boone, “When someone makes their living declaring hate and intolerance, [he] has no place on a college campus that was founded as a campus that accepts diversity.”

College President Jeffrey Docking told the Blade that Boone was selected from a list of speakers forwarded by a committee, which included faculty, and that Boone has no intention of politicizing his commencement address.

But Docking also insists that colleges should not be in the business of screening out politically incorrect viewpoints.

“The original concept of a university was to create a venue in society where people with different points of view could come together to share and discuss them without fear of persecution,” Docking writes in a statement on the college’s website. “While Mr. Boone’s political views and social positions have raised healthy debate over the years, to suspend his commencement address based on arguments against his beliefs, opinions and ideology would be a form of intolerance that cannot be condoned.

“In truth,” Docking continues, “even while people can debate his position on controversial issues, his success as a musician, actor and businessman is undeniable. Mr. Boone’s professional success story is one worthy of the recognition he will receive on Commencement Day.”

Furthermore, Docking explains, Boone has graciously offered a representative of those opposing his speech an opportunity at the commencement itself to explain why he should be denied the opportunity to speak and to share his experiences with the class of 2012.

Senior Zachary Ritchie, president of the student group Adrian College Conservatives, has also come to Boone’s defense. Ritchie wondered whether the school’s faculty would be so active if politically conservative students objected to a more liberal speaker.

“Would the faculty react the same way?” Ritchie asked. “I don’t think they would.”

The Blade reports the college’s Institute of Ethics will hold a forum on April 24 from 6 to 7:15 p.m. at Downs Hall Theatre on Adrian College’s campus to discuss Mr. Boone’s selection, at the request of Docking.

Boone’s entertainment heyday was during the 1950s and early 1960s. In his long career, he has sold more than 45 million albums, had 38 Top 40 hits and appeared in more than 12 Hollywood movies.

ED Rush View on the Martin Case "When & Why Now"

by Erik Rush Email | Archive -  WND

Author of Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession

A commie president and the Trayvon tragedy

This past weekend I was asked by my friend and Fox News commentator T.J. McCormack to visit with him on his radio show and comment on a column he’d written concerning the Trayvon Martin shooting. Pretty much anyone with a forum (whether television, radio, online publications or social media) who’s commented on this issue has taken heat either from the right or the left. In this case, it was both.

T.J.’s take on the shooting, subsequent media feeding frenzy and rash of activism was a little different than most being bandied about. It was a sincere appeal for prominent parties on both sides of the issue to unite amicably in light of the incident’s grave potential repercussions.

“Coming together” for the good of the nation would certainly hold the moral high ground, but I opined that this was probably about as likely as my becoming a volunteer at the local Obama campaign office.

There are simply too many agendas in play to hope for such unity to manifest. The radicals are driving the discussion and the response, which in this case is analogous to the inmates running the asylum. Race-baiting career activists are fomenting anger and tension with the full complicity of the establishment press. The former seek continuing relevance and ongoing financial support, while the latter seeks ratings. Both are ideologically aligned with – or rather, part of – the radical element.

And the politicos? Well, Democratic leaders are obviously aligned with the radical element, particularly if they’re part of this administration, and the remainder are close enough. Republican leaders will be in trouble no matter what they do. If they remain silent, they’ll be called cowards; if they speak out and don’t call for George Zimmerman’s boiled severed head, they’ll be called racists. Most would rather have the coward label than the racist one, so have said nothing. Conservative commentators who weigh in are dismissed as party to perceived racist policies, and any reasonable liberal voices are being drowned out by the din of the far-left propaganda machine.

How do we go from a moment to a movement that creates fundamental change? If it’s a moment, we go home. If it’s a movement, we go to war.

– Rev. Jesse Jackson, March 12, 2012

It may surprise some people when I say that the hypocrisy and irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of career civil-rights activists are hardly the issue here. Neither is the alacrity with which the news media pounce on stories like this while ignoring the 2007 Tennessee gang-rape and mutilation slaying of a white couple by four black men, or the recent attempted immolation of a white Kansas City youth by a gang of black kids. The issue isn’t black Americans’ inability to discern that their political allies have accounted for exponentially more deaths of blacks via their policies than all the confirmed race-related killings of blacks over the last 40 years.

The issues upon which we should focus are the when and the why this is occurring in the way it is occurring. We may never know the truth of what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in the moments before the shooting, but if we examine the when and the why of its aftermath, the truth becomes eerily apparent.

When President Obama commented on the Martin shooting, some contended that he had “acted stupidly” in commenting on something he should have stayed out of for reasons of due process and presidential decorum. I contend that like nearly everything he does, it was quite calculated. While specious as well as gratuitous, Obama stating that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon” was nevertheless calculated to engender an emotional response. The reason it was calculated to engender an emotional response is the same reason many things are transpiring across the political landscape, all at the same approximate time.

That’s the when part … which is, quite clearly, right now.

The things to which I refer that are transpiring concurrently include the aftereffects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, violence on our border with Mexico, the Occupy movement, assaults on religious freedom and free speech by the administration and activists, and the implausible organization and mobilization of fringe malcontents into politically active groups. These developments can all be traced (as I’ve recently indicated) to Obama’s political roots, which are borne out by his policies, his associations and his affinity for such doctrines as Black Liberation Theology and Critical Race Theory.

The specter of a communist takeover of the U.S. still remains singularly preposterous to millions of Americans who would quickly come to arms if they actually believed it a possibility. I’m not entirely certain how President Obama proposes to suppress those who would rise up against him were his intentions to become widely apparent, but I believe that part of the plan is to factionalize us (such as is occurring over the Martin case and Occupy Wall Street). I believe he’s also counting on deepening economic adversity to heighten Americans’ collective stress. Another element might be to provoke concerned patriots into action that he could point to as a threat to domestic tranquility, thereby convincing a preponderance of Americans to accept fundamental compromises to their civil liberties.

In such a case, Obama could then employ some of the more traditional Marxist tactics, such as mass executions, as cohorts of his friend Bill Ayers once advocated. It’s already apparent that certain factions would be more than happy to aid him in that effort. Quite a few conservatives have pointed to the timeliness of Obama’s executive order of March 16 (on “National Defense Resources Preparedness”) as an overture to just such action. Called a mere “tweak” of the amended Defense Production Act of 1950, many have asked why the president saw a necessity to “tweak” a law with provisions that essentially give exclusive and unlimited power to the Executive Branch in the event of a national emergency, which would necessarily be declared by the president himself.

To those whose assessment of individuals is not predicated upon what comes out of their mouths and the mouths of their surrogates, the truth is clear: President Obama is a communist, laboring with like-minded comrades to actualize a long-embraced communist agenda – and their end game is fast approaching.

That is the why of it.

by Erik Rush -   a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. His latest book is "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession” In 2007, he was the first to give national attention to the story of Sen. Barack Obama's ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, initiating a media feeding frenzy. Erik has appeared on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances. More <- <-  Email | Archive

White Guilt

The Race Card: White Guilt, Black Resentment, and the Assault on Truth and Justice

Related:

Witness counters Trayvon Martin media narrative

Sarah Palin: I think the president’s comments on Trayvon Martin were orchestrated

What Happened to the Post Racial Dream and Promise?

‘If You’re Right Wing, You’re a Hate Group’

Photo Credit: Stretchy Bill Creative Commons

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is in the business to raise money. In order to do this, they must extend the definition of what it means to be a “hate group.” It’s similar to the phrase “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.” It all depends on who’s defining the terms.

Each year the SPLC issues a report on hate groups in America. Each year the list gets longer. “Last week, the group released its latest intelligence report, titled ‘The Patriot Movement Explodes.’ The listing includes the Tenth Amendment Center, Oath Keepers and WND.”

The SPLC has gone from tracking the movements of violent racists, skinhead groups, and a brief resurgence of the KKK that number in the hundreds to creating hysteria over mainstream value voters. If you believe in the Tenth Amendment, you must be part of a hate group. If you say President Obama is wrong on this or that issue, then you must be responding out of racial hatred. Am I exaggerating? You be the judge from this report by Jack Minor at WND:

Mark Potek, senior fellow with the SPLC and editor of the report, said the growth of what is described as the radical right was fueled by “economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories, the changing racial makeup of America, and the prospect of four more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.”

With its new definition of what constitutes a hate group, the SPLC has become a fund-raising machine. It’s no wonder that the SPLC is flush with cash.[1] Ultimately, the tactic is to strike fear in middle-America so the checks keep rolling in. Most communities don’t see skinheads or even KKKers, so the SPLC needs new visible enemies.

According to the SPLC, hate has gone mainstream, so you better send a donation before these “haters” come and get you, too! The SPLC is a fund raising industry designed to silence conservatives who want their country back, to hold elected officials accountable to their Constitutional oath, and to uphold certain moral values. There’s not much money in fighting real hate groups now that only a few of the real haters are still around, so the SPLC needs a bigger, more menacing group of haters — your next door neighbors who attend the church down the street! Muslim extremists who kill soldiers in the name of Allah on an army base or plan to blow up the streets of New York City to kill and maim Americans are of little concern when there are bigger fish to land.

h/t to Western Journalism  -   Read More at godfatherpolitics.com

On the Road to Armageddon – Moving Ragnarok to the Middle East

The headlines today are full of the Middle East spinning violently apart and threatening to take the entire planet with them. The Doomsday Clock is relentlessly ticking towards midnight and the nuclear Armageddon we have all dreaded our entire lives is about to become reality. And what does Obama do? Why, he gleefully helps it along of course. It suits his Marxist goals and brings chaos into the mix to hurry up a new, sinister utopia, while Israel sits with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in a solemn nod to the coming worldwide Caliphate.

We are perilously close to the point of no return on Iran’s nukes. Israel has managed to stave off their progress somewhat by taking down a plant in Syria and by unknown others taking out nuclear scientists and letting the Stuxnet Worm do its damage.

Israel will need to make a major move soon if they are to have a prayer of taking out Iran’s capabilities – in fact, it may already be too late. They have made the tactical error of listening to the radical Progressive leadership in DC and it may cost them everything. No American hero on a white steed will ride to the rescue this time. Panetta has made it abundantly clear – R2P for Syria is a possibility, but hands off Iran. Unless of course, Obama has to have an Iranian war for reelection, in which case, I believe that Panetta will make it as bloody as possible, with Israel being the sacrificial lamb on the Marxist altar of a New World Government. The elite leadership in the US is no longer a friend to Israel – or at least one they can count on. Sadly, they are on their own as they have always been and I believe the evil that is brewing across the globe is bearing down on them. We will all pay a horrible price if we let Israel be savaged by the Iranians and radical Islam, backed by Russia and China.

The Ayatollah came out today and last week through the Internet and in fiery speeches called again for the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews. The Iranian government has also laid out a legal and religious doctrine that includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

From WND:

Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

Because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a pre-emptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues.

And the rhetoric is heating up explosively day by day. This won’t go on much longer before something boils over. Tiny Israel will have no choice but to preemptively protect herself or try to save herself afterwards.

Take a look at the slew of events making headlines recently and ask yourself what they portend:

· 400 are slaughtered in Syria, while the UN tries to mandate a resolution. Russia and China block the resolution. And to sweeten the poison, Syria is close to having a civil war break out.

· Hard-line Islamists have taken control of Kuwait’s parliament in their elections, following in the footsteps of Tunisia and Egypt.

· Libya – whom we cheered on in the Arab Spring – had their militia torture their Ambassador to France to death after pulling out his toe nails. Yep, this is what democracy looks like.

· Iranian war ships have docked in a Saudi port. Iranian naval ships docked on Saturday in the Saudi port city of Jeddah on a mission to project the Islamic republic’s “power on the open seas.”

· Iran has begun mass production of an anti-ship cruise missile.

· Egypt on Sunday referred 43 NGO workers, including 19 Americans, to trial before a criminal court for allegedly using illegal foreign funds to foment unrest.

· Iran’s Revolutionary Guard began military exercises Saturday in the country’s south, the latest show of force after threats to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for tougher Western sanctions.

· Israeli facilities worldwide are on high alert against an attack from Iran, according to an internal security document obtained by ABC News.

From NewsMax:

“We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and ‘soft’ sites,” read a letter by the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States, ABC News reported. Guarded sites are government facilities like embassies and consulates; “soft sites” are Jewish synagogues, schools and community centers.

Police and intelligence officials in U.S. and Canadian cities — including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Toronto — have increased patrols at Israeli government locations and Jewish institutions, ABC News reported.

· Panetta believes Israel could strike Iran within months.

· Iran is warning of a coming ‘great event.’ Since they believe that 2012 is the return of the Mahdi, you do the math.

So, whether you call it Armageddon or Ragnarok, Iran wants to bring it on and fast. It’s the end of the world baby and they’re feeling fine. There is a reason the US does not show up in end times eschatology. Will we write our own future and defend God’s chosen people? Or, will we slink into oblivion and fall to the enemy? Billions are dying to know, or getting ready to any way.

Loki breaks free at the onset of Ragnarök (by Ernst H. Walther, 1897)

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - the NoisyRoom

Obama is a ‘vulture socialist’

Food for thought…

Exclusive: Roger Hedgecock asks, 'Is Mitt Romney the bad guy?'

Bernie Madoff is in jail for life for using other people’s money under false pretenses in a Ponzi scheme that fooled some of America’s most sophisticated investors. This is an example of fraud, not capitalism.

Raj Rajaratnam is in jail for 11 years for insider trading of securities of Galleon Group, the hedge fund he founded. This is an example of violating a law passed by Congress restricting capitalism. If Raj had been a member of Congress, which exempted itself from that insider trading law, he would not be in jail today.

Steve Jobs will be remembered forever as the American who envisioned products that didn’t exist and the world later found indispensable. His was American capitalism in the Edison, Bell, and Ford tradition. American innovative capitalism has changed the world. Jobs made Apple Inc., which he famously started at home, into a worldwide giant with a net worth greater than the country of Greece.

Mitt Romney and the investors in his private equity firm made a boatload of money buying risky failing companies and turning them around to profitability. Many companies failed anyway. Others became household names. Many employees lost jobs they were going to lose anyway; many more Americans found jobs in Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Brookstone, Sports Authority, etc.

What Mitt did goes by many fancy names today in MBA courses and in the business media, but it is still old-fashioned capitalism. Private investors risking their own money to make a profit.

To critics, it’s called “vulture capitalism.” This losing leftist rant has been validated by its adoption by Romney’s rival Republican, Newt Gingrich. (Perhaps something that the party as well as the country based on free market economics should seriously think about.)

If you are one of those critics (Republican or Democrat), what do you call what Barack Hussein Obama is doing?

Obama took money from Americans by force (did you think the IRS was voluntary?) and borrowed money from the Chinese when taxation did not yield enough money. Obama then applied the money to create/subsidize companies to make products he knew people didn’t want at prices they could not afford.

Bought a Volt yet? Not only more expensive (at $42,000) to the consumer than comparable hybrid cars from both domestic and foreign companies, the Volt’s real cost is estimated at $250,000 each when all the costs/subsidies are counted. Do you think the $56 billion “invested” by Obama in the Volt’s maker, General Motors, was really worth it?

Unless you are the United Auto Workers union, which received 17 percent of GM for nothing, the answer is no.

The irony here is that the total CO2 emissions from the manufacturing of the Volt, including the fire prone battery setup, are about the same as any other vehicle. Mother Gaia is not amused.

Then there were the green energy start-up companies.

Obama has been on a spending spree with you as the forced partner. Solyndra, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Spectrawatt and Eastern Energy are just a few of the dozens of companies that have received more than $6.5 billion in grants and loans to create the green energy of Obama’s fantasy future. Every one of these companies has either failed or is on the verge of failing, taking your money with it. Thousands of “good-paying, middle-class jobs” promised by Obama are evaporating.

Obama was hell bent on creating a brave, new, green world. By choking off the use of America’s natural bounty of coal, oil and natural gas, and by promising an even greater bounty from a world of “alternative energy” supposedly more pleasing to the planet, Obama embarked on the same government-knows-best program that has impoverished countries from Zimbabwe to Cuba to North Korea.

Afraid that Americans are catching on to his “vulture socialism,” Obama is already running TV ads for his re-election touting the creation of “2.7 million jobs” from “America’s clean energy industry.” Many of those jobs were already in place before Obama took office, and many more are now endangered by the fact that the market is not buying what Obama is selling. As happened in Spain, for every green job created, 2.5 jobs in existing manufacturing have been lost.

In a final irony, the same TV ad also brags that America’s foreign oil dependence has declined to below 50 percent of our daily need. That is true and has nothing to do with Obama’s force-fed green-energy program. The recession made worse by Obama’s policies has reduced consumer gasoline demand. The U.S. still uses twice the oil it produces and still tolerates a federal government that spends nearly twice what it takes in.

Using government force, Obama spends $10 billion per day (and borrows more than $4 billion of that per day) to keep the federal Leviathan on course to “utterly transform” our economy and erode American freedoms.

And Mitt Romney, the guy who specializes in turning around failing enterprises and would apply that expertise to the failing federal government, is the bad guy?

by Roger Hedgecock - a nationally syndicated talk-show host. Prior to his broadcasting career, he worked as an attorney and political leader. Hedgecock is a strong supporter of the military and founded Homefront. – Posted at WND

Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing

IS OBAMA PAINTING HIMSELF INTO A CORNER? IS THE NOOSE GETTING TIGHTER AROUND HIS NECK? BET HIS LEGAL BILLS ARE NOW 5 MILLION BUCKS

'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates' says White House

Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argtued that he should be exempted.

Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn’t apply to Obama, but the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

In Obama’s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would “interrupt duties” as president.

He also argues that the documents and testimony “is, on its face, unreasonable.” And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.

“The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ‘long form,’ making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,” the filing argues.

And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing explains.

Taitz’ supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Barack Obama

Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients’ arguments the testimony wouldn’t even be an issue.

His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of “natural born citizen,” does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

What the White House in April released was as an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

Source: WND

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Runs Again… Support the Posse

Time to support Arpaio's posse

Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications for the presidency have never been investigated by any law-enforcement agency. Until now. But that investigation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" could easily be derailed for lack of financial support coupled with attacks being launched against his office by Obama's Justice Department. That's why it is imperative for every American who questions the very legality of Obama's reign and his efforts at re-election to support Arpaio's probe in a tangible way – no matter how small. Let me tell you why I think it's important and why I am personally making a donation to this cause. On the very face of it, Obama is not eligible to be president. Every action he has taken under the color of authority as president should be repealed, negated and voided. If we take him at his word and accept at face value the evidence he has provided about his birth, he is simply not a "natural born citizen," as documented in Jerome Corsi's authoritative and best-selling book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" The man he claims as his father was a Kenyan national visiting student who would have conferred foreign citizenship upon his son. The very purpose and intent of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution's requirements for the presidency was to avoid any such perceptions of divided loyalty. Worse yet, there are very grave doubts about whether his biological father was who he claims. All of Obama's biographical tales about this relationship have been called into question by the actual evidence. Then we have the problem of Obama's apparent adoption by his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian foreign national. Obama's name was changed to Soetoro and he moved to Indonesia with his stepfather, registering for school as an Indonesian citizen. Such an adoption would have required the destruction of the original birth certificate and the issuance of a new one showing Soetoro as Obama's actual birth father. That's the way adoption law works in Hawaii and most other states. So why didn't that take place? Why was his adoption not recorded? And if it was simply never reported to Hawaiian authorities, does it in anyway change the facts? Click here to learn more about how you can help. Then we have the problem of the birth document itself. It was only released last April in response to the impending release of Corsi's devastating book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, which had hit the No. 1 best-seller position. But is it genuine? To date, there is nearly 100 percent agreement among qualified forensics investigators and document experts that it is not. What I am saying might be very shocking. It might even sound a tad bizarre given the fact that the national media treats it as such. But what I have stated here is completely factual and well documented. In other words, the man occupying the White House today and seeking re-election next year is a political enigma, an unknown quantity, completely unvetted and certainly not eligible to serve under the Constitution's simple, straightforward requirements for office. It is into this amazing and dangerous scenario that Sheriff Joe Arpaio fearlessly steps, backed only by his own "Cold Case Posse" of volunteer investigators. They represent what is probably America's last chance to salvage the integrity of the Constitution for all time. Trust me, both political parties consider the Constitution a dead letter on the matter of presidential eligibility right now and both are actively shopping candidates for president and vice president who are not qualified. No court has looked at this matter. No government agency has. No law enforcement agency has. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" is likely our last chance to get to the truth about Obama and to restore constitutional integrity to our political system. That's why I urge you to make a donation to this active investigation right now – no matter the amount. If everyone who reads this appeal gave the minimum amount of $5, it would raise millions, far more than the necessary resources to get the job done and the truth about Obama out. Can you make your contribution right now? Time is truly running out. Joseph Farah Editor and Chief Executive Officer WND.com Read Full Article: Sheriff Joe to Eric Holder: “Prove it!!”

Video ALERT!:  As Sheriff Arpaio's Investigation of Obama's Citizenship nears completion - D.O.J. SUES!

Arpaio running again for Maricopa County sheriff

He has toyed with running for governor, publicly speculated about running for U.S. Senate and even mulled whether he had a shot at being president, but Joe Arpaio's campaign says he'll instead once again run for Maricopa County sheriff in the 2012 election.

Arpaio, 79, has come under fierce criticism this past year from state, federal and local officials who have seized on an internal report that again reminded the public of hundreds of sex-crime cases that Arpaio's detectives botched and on U.S. Justice Department findings released last month that accuse Arpaio of running an agency that encourages deputies to discriminate against Latino residents.

Those findings have led some local politicians to call for Arpaio's resignation or consider staging a recall election targeting the sheriff.

But those calls for Arpaio to step down have not translated into opponents willing to tussle with the state's most publicized politician. Only Scottsdale police Lt. Mike Staufer has stepped forward as a candidate willing to take on the five-term sheriff. Stauffer's spokesman said last week that none of the politicians making public calls for Arpaio's resignation has offered to support Stauffer.

Arpaio's campaign manager expects the sheriff to have more than $6 million in campaign funds for the race, but Arpaio will be without the help of former Chief Deputy David Hendershott. Hendershott was the architect of many of Arpaio's prior campaigns but was fired from the Sheriff's Office last year.

AZ Central

On the Road to the White House 2012… Time for the GOP to Step Up

I watched Governor Mike Huckabee’s forum on Fox News this past weekend, as I have watched all the GOP debates so far. If you did not see it, here are a couple of good recaps by Jazz Shaw at Hot Air and Doug Mataconis at Outside The Beltway

Huck’s Forum was a positive event and perhaps the first time we have had to really see and hear, in some depth, what a few of the remaining candidates had to say… and say on an equal playing field. Each candidate took questions from 3-GOP State Attorneys General (Pam Bondi, Ken Cuccinelli and Scott Pruitt who are all part of the ObamaCare suit) with Governor Huckabee as the moderator. Each candidate received exactly the same amount of time and they were also each interviewed one at a time so the viewer saw each from the same perspective.

My focus here is primarily on the current state of the Republican primary race to examine the political strengths and weaknesses of the GOP field and what has to happen for the GOP to have the greatest chance to defeat President Obama. And Obama’s defeat is and must be the number one goal of all conservatives, independents and patriotic non-progressive Americans. (I also touch on the effects of the Presidential race on down-ticket campaigning that will be important for the GOP to solidify their control of the House and possibly gain control of the Senate.) I am not focusing on issues or the individual political beliefs of the candidates… on my preference(s).

This is now a two-man/person race and barring a miracle will remain a 2-man race. Wish all you want but Huntsman, Perry and Santorum are not going to win. Bachmann has a slight chance to catch on and Ron Paul, although second or third in many polls and even a possible winner in the Iowa Caucuses probably has also reached his saturation point because of some of his Libertarian views in certain areas, especially foreign policy and how it affects his approach to situations like Iran.

Posted: December 02, 2011 on WND

by Joseph Farah "Between the Lines"

Pray for a Michele Miracle

I like a lot of what Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have to say. I also have some problems with both of them. But if either of them got the nomination, I would support them enthusiastically. But neither one is going to get the nomination.

That leaves one other candidate – Michele Bachmann.

She's the real deal, folks. She's 100 percent. She's gaffe-proof. She's smarter than Newt, but doesn't brag about it (He’s already choosing his cabinet) half as much. She's honest. She's sincere. And she really believes in what she says.

What we need to pray for prior to the Iowa primary is a Michele Miracle.

Pray fervently for the future of this country – that it should be worthy of the blessings God has bestowed upon it for 235 years.

And ask God for a little miracle this year.

Ask Him to give us Michele.

To be honest… Bachmann and Santorum are the true consistent Conservative candidates and if evangelicals, constitutionalists and tea party members thought that was the highest priority, both their poll numbers would be a lot higher! So it will take prayer and a miracle to move Michele (or Rick) up in the polls.

But for our purposes here since the race is now between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, the focus needs to be on their strengths and weaknesses and what should be done by each of their campaigns immediately.

What I saw in the Huck Forum was both enlightening and a bit frightening at the same time. The panel asked some excellent even probing questions. And they pressed the candidates when appropriate for clarifications, as with Governor Perry when they tried to lead him away from his stand on repealing ObamaCare using Executive Order(s), that just wouldn’t be possible. (Something that Michelle Bachmann is very aware of and vocal about and has been ignored every time she has brought it up during the debate series.) The format overall turned out to be a winner giving viewers a good chance to learn more about each candidate.

However, given the reasonable ease for each campaign to anticipate the general areas of the questions that would be focused on, including the obvious questions that would probably be asked, it was disappointing to watch Romney fumble his way through a couple of his answers. And while Gingrich handled himself better he too could have been more on message and less bloated in his answers. I’ve heard some say that Newt’s performance outdistanced Mitt’s by a fair amount and others say they were pretty even, just a matter of style.

My thoughts then turned to the current state of each campaign’s organization and fund-raising performance. Here is where Romney has it all over Gingrich, and when it comes down to pure politicking Romney is still the odds on favorite to get the nomination.

I heard an interesting comment by liberal (and past campaign organizer) Bob Beckel say on Monday on the Five (Fox Cable News’ successful replacement for the former Glenn Beck slot where Beckel is a co-host) that what should happen is that Romney should convince Bachmann to pull out of the race, pay off her campaign debt (much like they did with Pawlenty) and have Bachmann endorse Romney so she can focus on her re-election to Congress campaign. (It would be a terrible shame for Bachmann and conservatives to not only lose for president but then to also lose her seat in the House! With Ron Paul not running for his House seat alongside his presidential run, Conservatives could lose two strong conservative voices in the House (who won’t be President).

Romney already has the organization in place to see his candidacy through the primaries and into the general, plus his campaign is well placed to down-ticket campaign to the betterment of his Presidential run and Congressional GOP candidates. He also is well-funded. The task at hand is that Mitt has to step up and elevate his game right now. He must get better prepped for debates, forums and interviews, and he must stop playing it safe. All candidates have bad weeks over the course of any campaign but the Romney organization has to step it up and insure their candidate does not suffer another debate like this last one, where people have a question who… he or Gingrich, did a better job at debating… but rather know that the only difference is just a matter of style.

The Gingrich campaign organization is weak and disjointed, and is playing catch up right now. They are also are not as well funded. The challenge is to establish a true national-level structure quickly and effectively, for without it Newt will ultimately come up short and lose any chance of getting the nomination, especially because of his old baggage. There are plenty of excellent political operatives out there, some of which may need to be lured from current jobs with lower level candidates. The Gingrich organization has to go on a talent search blitz immediately now that funds are coming in more readily. There’s barely a month until the Iowa caucus with the New Hampshire primary is a week later. Newt must elevate his organizational game considerably by early January 2012.

Considering the reality and gravity of what is at stake in this election, it is time for both Speaker Gingrich and Governor Romney to step up their game. And it is perhaps time for the other candidates, including Michele Bachmann to consider making their exists and especially if they lose in Iowa. What is an absolute is that the GOP candidates and those focused on replacing Obama must stop tearing each other apart and start focusing on the job at hand… beating Obama!

In several recent polls, although the numbers vary a little, there are some consistent votes no matter who is doing them:

Who will bring the most change: Newt Gingrich

Who is most likeable between Mitt and Newt: Mitt Romney

Best Debater : Newt Gingrich

Who is the most intelligent GOP candidate: Newt Gingrich

Who is most acceptable to moderates and independents (who end up deciding elections): Mitt Romney

** Who is most electable in the General Election: Mitt Romney **

Another factor is that the Democrats could not be making it more obvious that they consider Mitt Romney the greater threat and that they would much rather run against Newt Gingrich, even though Newt would probably make mince meat of Obama in the debates.

Both Mitt and Newt have done their share of flip-flopping but Newt Gingrich has a lot more baggage (affairs, 3-marriages and lots of turmoil as former Speaker of the House (which Pelosi has already threatened to expose… (of course that was yesterday) plus a more recent question involving money paid to Newt’s firm for his consulting on Fannie and Freddie) for the Democrats to attack. Mitt has led a pretty scandal free life and is much more the businessman verses the career politician. (The Mormon issue still surfaces now and again (Romney and Huntsman) in discussions about evangelical votes, but many of them are just as wary of Catholics.

Former Clinton advisor and strategist Dick Morris, now turned conservative and Fox News contributor, says that really Mitt’s only flip-flop that needs more explaining other than “facts have changed and I’ve adjusted and re-thought my position based on those new facts” is Mitt’s change on abortion or a woman’s right to choose… because those facts don’t change. But MItt has already said that he has always been pro-life personally and then when he was in office and it came to signing legislation that was pro-choice that he just couldn’t do it and changed his position as did Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Morris thought that explanation is sufficient and believes that RomneyCare was a state rights issue and ObamaCare is not and that Romney will over-turn ObamaCare.

Both men could win the nomination and both would be formidable candidates against Obama. So Gentlemen… “Start Your Engines and Step on the Gas Full Throttle! No More Playing it Safe!!”

The Road to the White House 2012

By Marion Algier

Related:

The interview: Glenn v. Newt

More accurately, it was Newt vs. Newt as Glenn played a series of past Newt quotes on the issues and the current frontrunner had to answer for them. He's known as an intellectual who enjoys a good debate -- did he acquit himself from himself? Take a listen and decide for yourself if Newt is a big government progressive or the right man for the job. WATCH (Transcript)

A Case Against Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy and a Rebuttal

Democrats Ramp Up Anti-Romney Ad Attack

Santorum Says Iowa Is Still Wide Open With One Month to Go

Perry TV Ad: I Can Defend Faith From Obama’s “War on Religion”

Donald Trump’s GOP Debate: Mitt Romney Becomes Third Candidate Who Won’t Participate

Trump-Huntsman Feud Heats-Up

Perry to Launch Massive Iowa Push

Sarah’s Shoes - Could There Be a Palin Reconsideration

Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and Chuck Baldwin have all been mentioned as possible 3rd Party Candidates. Beck even stated lately that he thinks a 3rd Party Candidate Could Win in 2012… Beck is someone I agree with most of the time in most areas, but not on this one… and neither does anyone else that is credible, that I’ve heard. A 3rd party run will split the Republican Party (like with Ross Perot in 1992) and guarantee an Obama re-election and pretty much bring the end of America as we know it. And not voting or writing in candidates will help do the same.

Obama and the Progressives will run a dirty campaign and you can bet that there will be a lot of fraud from their operatives, including the unions. Every single non-Obama vote and every patriot volunteer monitoring what is going is needed.

Ask Marion~