Friday, February 27, 2015

"We have a man occupying the White House that seems absolutely determined to stretch the limits of presidential power as far as they can possibly go."

The War On Preppers: Obama Bans Ammo For The Most Popular Rifle In America

Michael Snyder

Because he can’t get Congress to approve the things that he wants to do, Barack Obama has apparently decided to rule by decree for the rest of his time in the White House. One of Obama’s latest moves is to try to ban some of the most popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Previously, the Obama administration attempted unsuccessfully to ban the AR-15. That didn’t work, so now Obama is going after the ammunition. This is yet another example of the war on preppers that is going on all over the nation. Whether you are a gun owner or not, this assault on our constitutional rights should disturb you greatly. Barack Obama has promised to try to squeeze as much “change” as possible out of his last two years, and in the process he is “fundamentally transforming” America. But what will our country look like when he is done?

At the top of the Drudge Report today, there was a story from the Washington Examiner detailing this ammo ban…

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

And here is more on this ammo ban from the NRA…

As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.

In an effort to thwart BATFE’s attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.

According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.

The crazy thing about all of this is the fact that this ammunition has never met the legal definition of being “armor piercing”. So what the Obama administration is attempting to do is outside the law.

A recent Infowars article broke this down…

The ATF is trying to ban M855 AR-15 ammunition by declaring it “armor piercing,” despite the ammo containing lead which exempts it from the classification according to law.

To be considered “armor piercing” under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17)(B), a bullet must have an entirely metal core or have a jacket weighting more than 25% of its weight, which wouldn’t include M855 roundsbecause their bullets are partly lead.

The definition in full:


(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means- (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

Needless to say, this ban is creating quite a bit of panic among gun owners.

Many gun owners are stocking up on this ammo while they still can…

Word of ATF’s proposal sparked a run on ammo at some Springfield gun stores, and steep price spikes for steel-tipped military surplus ammo at some online ammo dealers. Rounds that sold for 25 to 30 cents apiece tripled at some some stores after BATF posted its proposal on its web site.

“We sold out of what we had in stock,” said Ryan Cook, manager of Eagle Armory in Springfield. “We didn’t have a lot in the store but I might have sold four or five cases after ATF’s statement came out. I called our suppliers but they said there was none available to order. It’s like the ammo shortage before. People are going to panic.”

Like I said earlier, even if you are not a gun owner you have got to be extremely concerned about this erosion of our constitutional rights.

We have a man occupying the White House that seems absolutely determined to stretch the limits of presidential power as far as they can possibly go.

And at this point he has become so arrogant that he doesn’t even care if Congress believes that what he is doing is legal. Just consider what he said during one recent speech…

Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”

This is how republics die. When one man starts grabbing more and more power and nobody stops him, eventually a dictatorship is born.

This is not what our founding fathers intended. If they could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves.

And a lot of Americans are getting fed up.

In fact, according to one recent survey only 47 percent of Americans still believe that Obama loves this country…

While the creepy #ILOVEOBAMA continues to trend on Twitter, fewer than half of American adults, 47 percent, say they believe that the president loves his country.

According to a survey conducted by Huffington Post/YouGov and released this week, a whopping 35 percent of Americans, more than one in three, believe that Obama doesn’t love the United States, while 17 percent said they weren’t sure.

The poll was conducted in the wake of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani telling a gathering in Manhattan that “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.”

So what do you think?

Do you believe that what Obama is trying to do is legal?

And do you believe that Obama actually loves this country and everything that it is supposed to stand for?

Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…


Human tissue used in 23 vaccines...

MMR vaccines contain cells from aborted human babies
by: Julie Wilson

The recent hysteria propagated by the dinosaur media regarding the latest measles outbreak is beyond illogical and simply based on a patchwork of lies and misinformation. News of the recent "Disneyland measles outbreak" has brought forth a sudden myriad of self-proclaimed "experts" on measles and vaccines, particularly the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella).

Aside from expressing a know-it-all attitude, vaccine proponents have viciously attacked and threatened anyone in favor of, or even on the fence about, not vaccinating. One of the most classic (and also completely unreasonable) threats insist that parents who choose not to vaccinate should be arrested and charged with child abuse, a concept that infringes not only on natural health freedom but freedoms rooted in the framework of a true democracy.

All of this anger, hate and debate over a disease that hasn't taken a life in the U.S. since the early 2000s? Anyone with remotely any intelligence can sense that this issue goes much deeper than what's being reported on TV.

As with any emotionally charged issue, the measles debate has quickly turned political, being used as a tool to influence voters, as well as eliminate more freedoms through forced vaccinations.

For such a heated debate, little true information is being provided. For one, those only following mainstream media may not realize that people who have been vaccinated for measles may be more dangerous than those who haven't.

As Natural News' Jonathan Benson recently reported, numerous published studies show that people who have received the MMR vaccine shed the diseases for weeks, or in some cases even months. This means that the vaccinated could potentially be infecting others, as the virus is very contagious, making vaccinated individuals very dangerous, especially around those with compromised immune systems.

Benson's report continues to note that nearly two decades ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention realized this phenomenon when they tested urine samples collected from newly vaccinated 15-month-old children as well as young adults and found that nearly all of them had detectable levels of the measles virus inside their bodies.

If I had to bet, I doubt emerging self-proclaimed "experts" on the MMR vaccine and measles aren't privy to this information, making their accusations even more unfounded.

MMR vaccine contains human DNA from fetal cells linked to autism?

Another important tidbit of information that's being completely ignored on a national level is the possible link between the MMR vaccine's ingredients and autism. A study released in 2011 called "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review," considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that suggest a possible connection between vaccines and autism.

The study's lead researcher, Helen Ratajczak, a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm wrote:

"Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."

Human tissue used in 23 vaccines

One of Ratajczak's biggest concerns is the human DNA used in vaccines, including cells from the fetal lung tissue of aborted babies. Around the time vaccine makers removed thimerosal (mercury) from most childhood vaccines (except for the flu shot), they began making vaccines using human tissue to grow viruses, including measles and chicken pox.

Ratajczak observed a correlation between the introduction of human DNA to the MMR vaccine and autism, suggesting a possible link. She also notes an additional spike in autism in 1995 after vaccine makers began growing the chicken pox vaccine in human fetal tissue.

In regard to why human DNA could possibly cause brain damage, Ratajczak said that the DNA in vaccines is taken up by human cells and recombined into their genome. She further stated:

"That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."

Learn more:

Another Bush war-monger...

Jeb Bush wouldn’t hesitate to start ‘third Bush war’
by Tribune News Service

Jeb Bush may be his own man, but that would not stop him from starting a war in the Middle East like his father and brother before him.

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show on Wednesday, Bush said that his family legacy would not be a factor in how he would handle potential military conflicts if the safety of the American people were at risk.

Asked by Hewitt whether he would be “overly cautious about using force for fear of having a ‘third Bush war’ occur,” Bush was resolute.

“No, that’s an interesting question, and I’m glad you asked it. It wouldn’t, if I was, if I decide to go forward with a race and I’m fortunate enough to go through that whole process, and God willing, win, then I would have a duty to protect the United States,” Bush responded, adding, “I wouldn’t be conflicted by any legacy issues of my family. I actually, Hugh, am quite comfortable being George Bush’s son and George Bush’s brother. It’s something that gives me a lot of comfort on a personal level, and it certainly wouldn’t compel me to act one way or the other based on the strategies that we would be implementing and the conditions that our country would be facing.”

Hewitt followed up by asking whether conservatives should worry that the former governor would be reluctant to use U.S. military power in the Muslim world.

“I don’t think there’s anything that relates to what my dad did or what my brother did that would compel me to think one way or the other. I think that history’s a good guide for our country. And the simple fact is you start with the premise that America’s role in the world is a force for good, not for bad things to happen, you’ll have, lessen the likelihood of having to use military force around the world.”

Bush’s answers echoed sentiments he’d expressed in a speech last week at the Chicago Foreign Affairs Council.

“As you might know, I’ve been fortunate to have a father and a brother who helped shape America’s foreign policy from the Oval Office. I recognize as a result that my views will often be held up in comparison to theirs,” Bush said in Chicago. “In fact, this is a great fascinating thing in the political world, for some reason, sometimes in contrast to theirs. Look, just for the record, one more time, I love my brother. I love my dad. I actually love my mother, I hope that’s OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make, but I’m my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences.”

On Wednesday, Hewitt was able to draw out some of the most specific answers on Bush’s views on engaging in military conflict by asking whether the presumptive candidate would “hesitate to use ground forces in substantial numbers in Iraq a third time” in order to combat the Islamic State. This gave Bush a chance to put the blame for the ongoing conflict on the man who succeeded his brother in the White House.

“Well, had we kept the 10,000 troop commitment that was there for the president to negotiate and to agree with, we probably wouldn’t have ISIS right now,” Bush asserted. “So to reflect on this, there is a, by putting all these preconditions, the president has really weakened our hand. And so look, I can’t speculate about the size of a commitment going forward. It may not be necessary. But it looks to me like the president is currently building up some military support in Iraq. It may actually get back to the level that had he kept the 10,000 there, we wouldn’t have had the mess to begin with.”

In regards to the Democrat that Bush could likely face if he prevails in the Republican primary, Hewitt poised another question that, once again, hit on the question of legacy.

“And then the last question, Governor, what’s the message to the newly emerging democracies, that the world’s oldest democracy keeps recycling Bushes and Clintons and Clintons and Bushes?” Hewitt asked. “Does it send the wrong message to the Nigerias and the Indias of the world about dynasty?”

“If the campaigns are about, if the campaign’s about a dynasty, I’m not sure that that’s’ going to work,” Bush replied. “If it’s about how you advance ideas that will help people rise up, then it will be an inspiration for others. And that’s what we need to do. We need to be talking about the future by fixing a few really big, complicated things, to allow the middle to rise, and for people stuck at the bottom to rise up as well. And we can do it. That’s the good news, is the inspiration of America is going to be when we start growing at 4 percent per year rather than 2 percent per year. We will inspire the world to emulate us.”


Ultimately, we’ll end up with the Ministry of Information issuing “blogging licenses.”

The truth of ‘net neutrality’ and Obama’s Internet takeover
by Ben Crystal

The deadline for this column fell before the Federal Communications Commission’s historic vote on so-called “net neutrality.” However, barring an unforeseen “global warming” catastrophe, the Democrat-dominated, yet supposedly independent-by-statute, regulatory agency will have voted, probably 3-2, that the federal government should envelop the Internet in its smothering embrace. In a world where the Internet is freely and easily employed by everyone from President Barack Obama to the lowliest jihadi warming the bench for the “junior varsity” Islamic State, the Democrats have decided that they need to step in, lest “@AkbarUlulates4Allah” has to wait an extra millisecond to post to his Twitter feed.

Through a misinformation campaign conducted with almost breathless expertise, Obama, backed by groups funded by nearly $200 million of George Soros and Ford Foundation resolve, has managed to convince an inordinate number of Americans that a lack of so-called “net neutrality” will result in evil, faceless telecom companies forcing you to wait hours to upload the family Kwanzaa pics to Instagram, while evil, faceless telecom executives can log on to in the blink of an eye. Of course, anyone who is reading this is rolling down the information superhighway at speeds that were unimaginable just a few years ago. Those speeds, which would presumably continue to improve on the same curve they’ve followed since the days of AOL dial-up, are possible only because of the continued improvements made by the same companies that are now being accused of throttling the life out of the Web. As FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai noted earlier this week, net neutrality is “a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

“Net neutrality” isn’t what you think it is. It won’t “level the playing field.” It will introduce government regulation to a nearly flawless model of free-market growth. Telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon and content providers like Netflix push an almost geometrically higher amount of traffic onto broadband than they accept. As a result, the broadband providers have responded by raising rates and/or lowering speeds (aka “slow-laning”) some content. Essentially, monster telecoms and content providers — Netflix is the most famous example — are demanding first-class seating in a 747 while paying jump seat-in-a-Piper prices. And they’ve managed to convince millions of people — not to mention the Democratic Party — that they’re the proverbial little guy, standing up to the corporate fat cats. Having successfully played themselves into the hearts and minds of every selfie-posting hipster from Brooklyn to Berkeley, they’ve further pushed the idea that the FCC should force the broadband providers to adhere to a federally structured framework of service and fees. Gigantic content delivery networks (CDNs) will now be able to dictate the terms of their agreements to broadband providers upon pain of civil — or even criminal –prosecution.

Think of it this way:

You run a courier service. You charge customers a rate to run documents across town. As often as not, those documents need to be signed and returned — also a part of your service.

One day, one of your customers, a massive operation many times the size of your company, adds something to the outgoing deliveries. But it’s not a letter; it’s a package weighing close to 20 pounds. The next week, you deliver a few files; the massive operation sends out a filing cabinet’s worth, then a storeroom’s worth and then a warehouse’s worth. All this time, you’re using the same delivery vehicle. As the customer’s outgoing load increases in volume, your delivery times begin to lag. The customer immediately complains. Your slower delivery times are causing its customers headaches. You inform the customer that in order for you to prioritize its increasingly large deliveries — which are also increasingly larger compared to its incoming service — you’re going to have to buy a bigger truck. In order to do so, you’ll have to raise its rate. The only alternative is slower delivery times, a consequence of its (ab)usage.

Rather than either agree to contend with slower — but still extremely quick — deliveries, buying its own vehicles and handling its own courier needs, or paying a higher fee, your customer joins with some of your other heavyweight customers and a consortium of exceptionally well-funded and tax-exempt activist groups to lobby the government to declare your courier “common carriage,” set your fee schedule to benefit the customer and threaten you with fines — or worse — if you fail to comply. And their push is effective, because the top regulator for your industry used to be one of their lobbyists.

Six months later, you’re out of business; and the customer ends up signing with UPS, which had the resources to move in and grab up the local business after “courier neutrality” stomped it out of existence — for a much higher rate anyway.

Or, think of it this way:


That is “net neutrality.” It’s the ultimate globalist fantasy: corporations and government working together to dictate the flow of a vital resource. in this case, it’s the most vital resource of all: information. By the time this is published, the FCC, chaired by former telecom lobbyist and Obama campaign flack Tom Wheeler, will have voted its version of net neutrality in regulatory existence. Consequentially, and only consequentially, the public will finally have access to the somewhere between 300 and 350 pages that comprise the misleadingly monikered bureaucratic monstrosity. Prior to the vote, Wheeler, who was appointed to his position by Obama, stubbornly refused to allow the public access to Obama’s vision of “free and open.” Furthermore, he refused to discuss it publicly with the people’s elected representatives in Congress. In fact, Obama-by-Wheeler refused to let anyone other than Internet superpowers like Google, which reportedly exerted direct control over some of the final language, see this magical Internet takeover plan until after it was approved without congressional or public oversight. Of course, we all remember how well “pass it to see what’s in it” worked out for us last time.

Net neutrality as imagined by Obama and Wheeler will not result in faster Internet speeds, an expansion of Internet service provider choices available to home consumers, a lowering of fees or even a reduction of lag times for those of you playing “Call of Duty” online. It will add government oversight where it is neither needed nor wanted. In actuality, by reclassifying the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, net neutrality will add little more to your online experience beyond added fees (federal “common carrier” status always includes federal taxes). Down the road, those taxes fees will indubitably increase, as will government involvement with content. Ultimately, we’ll end up with the Ministry of Information issuing “blogging licenses.” But hey, at least you won’t have to deal with buffering the next time you watch “House of Cards” on Netflix.


"So, that’s what the fight with ISIS is all about: It’s not over whether Muslims or the Koran are good or bad, but rather over the “authority” of the U.S. Empire to bring death and destruction to Middle East countries in the name of bringing them “freedom” versus those in the Middle East who say: Stop your death and destruction and get out of our part of the world and go home."

ISIS and the National Security Scam
by Jacob G. Hornberger

U.S. national-security officials are scratching their heads over the decision by young people from around the world to join ISIS. Totally befuddled, U.S. officials just don’t understand why anyone would do such a thing.

At the same time, of course, hardly any American is traveling to Iraq to fight on other side — the anti-ISIS side — by joining up with the Iraqi army, notwithstanding the fact that U.S. officials continue to loudly proclaim that ISIS poses a grave threat to national security.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials are putting out new scare alerts about how ISIS terrorists are planning to attack shopping malls in the United States.

Let’s put this all together.

The reason that young people are joining up with ISIS is that they are sick and tired of the death and destruction that the U.S. Empire has wrought on people in the Middle East, most of whom are Muslims. They’ve seen the bombings, the shootings, the night raids, the round-ups, the detentions, the torture, the brutality, the destruction of homes and businesses, and the massive number of deaths, injuries, and maiming at the hands of the Empire.

In sum, they want to rid the Middle East of the U.S. Empire. They want the Empire to exit the Middle East and return to the United States.

That’s why they are joining up with ISIS — to help send the U.S. Empire back home.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. national-security state — i.e., the military establishment and the CIA — will not permit such a thing to happen. In their minds, they have brought freedom, order, and stability to Iraq. After all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? Well, if that’s what it’s called, then that’s what it must be, right? And after all, that’s what the Empire is all about — freedom, right?

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq was about bringing freedom to Iraq, U.S. officials maintain, the Iraqi people had no right to resist the Empire. Every Iraqi should have immediately succumbed to the invasion, deferred to the authority of the Empire, and knelt down in praise and gratitude for the sacrifices that the U.S. troops were making for Iraq. After all, as far as the Empire is concerned, the U.S. government could have chosen any number of other countries for a freedom regime change — e.g., North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and more. Therefore, Iraq should have been honored to have been chosen to be the recipient of U.S. imperial goodness.

But that’s just not the way the world works sometimes. There are people in the world who hate empires and will do everything they can to rid their countries of foreign imperial occupation.

Indeed, think of the British colonists living in America in 1776. They didn’t think too much of empires either, including the British Empire, which they were living under as British citizens when they decided rid the New World of the British Empire. Not surprisingly, their government considered them to be terrorists because they were killing British troops with the aim of ousting the British Empire from America.

So, that’s what the fight with ISIS is all about: It’s not over whether Muslims or the Koran are good or bad, but rather over the “authority” of the U.S. Empire to bring death and destruction to Middle East countries in the name of bringing them “freedom” versus those in the Middle East who say: Stop your death and destruction and get out of our part of the world and go home.

What about those terrorist threats to American shopping malls? Anyone who has been reading our perspectives here at FFF know that such a threat should come as no surprise. We have long been telling Americans to get prepared for retaliation for what the Empire is doing in the Middle East. What surprises me is that so many Americans are surprised that victims of U.S. imperialism over there might not limit their retaliation to U.S. troops over there and instead choose to retaliate over here.

After all, we all know that the 9/11 attacks were done in retaliation for what the Empire had been doing before that, including the deadly sanctions that destroyed Iraq’s economy and, more important, contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of (innocent) Iraqi children. There were also the blowback from U.S. foreign policy that came in the form of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in East Africa. And there are all terrorists and would-be terrorists who have been prosecuted since 9/11, all of whom have cited the death, destruction, and mayhem that the Empire has brought to the Middle East as their motivation for retaliation.

As I have long written, if you’re going to have an Empire that is engaged in killing, torturing, and maiming people in the name of bringing them “freedom,” just be prepared for retaliation. It’s a cost of doing empire.

Moreover, the notion that the troops were over there killing everyone before they could come over here and retaliate was foolish from the beginning. Imperial troops are not a magnet and people seeking revenge for imperial wrongdoing are not iron filings. People seeking revenge can choose to inflict that revenge in any way they choose, including on U.S. shopping malls, which the troops are obviously unable to defend. Don’t be surprised if it happens, just like it did on 9/11. Again, just consider retaliation a cost of living under a national-security state empire.

Finally, there is the interesting question as to why American citizens are not traveling to Iraq to join the Iraqi army to fight ISIS. After all, U.S. national-security state officials are very clear: ISIS poses a grave threat to U.S. national security. And since they are obviously lots of people traveling over there to join ISIS, why aren’t there hardly any Americans traveling over there to fight ISIS? Don’t Americans care about national security? Don’t they love their country? Why are they sitting here at home?

I suppose part of the reason is that Americans look at the Empire as their daddy or, even worse, their god. They say, “Let the troops protect national security. I have better things to do.”

But I’d like to think there is another reason — that Americans are finally figuring out, even if on a subconscious level, what a racket the entire national-security state is.

After all, consider all the NSA records that Edward Snowden released detailing the NSA’s secret surveillance scheme on the American people. U.S. officials steadfastly maintained that the release of all those records threatened “national security.”

Really? How? The records were released and the United States is still standing. Nothing happened. And the same is true on every single national-security state secret that has ever been disclosed.

Maybe people are finally figuring out that the entire concept of “national security” is all just a crock, a way to keep what the Empire is doing secret from the American people in order to keep the racket going, a racket that necessarily depends on continuous, perpetual warfare in order to keep the national-security state and its vast army of “defense” contractors busy producing new war plans and new bombs, missiles, bullets, tanks, planes, etc. After all, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, if all that armament isn’t used up on a constant, ongoing basis, it will be difficult to keep all those “defense” contractors keep their employees and sub-contractors busy.

If a sufficient number of Americans finally realize what a racket all this is, the days of the Cold War-era national-security establishment might well be numbered. Just think how everyone except the national-security establishment will be so much better off without a U.S. national-security state apparatus.


Thursday, February 26, 2015

Net Neutrality Explained. Simply and Accurately!

Cartoon of the day...

"What a racket. It’s amazing that so many Americans continue to fall for it."

The National-Security State’s ISIS Racket
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The official enemy de jour that has everyone all riled up and scared is ISIS. If U.S. forces don’t bomb ISIS, the argument goes, ISIS will take over Iraq, and Syria, and Lebanon, and Europe, and Asia, and Latin America, and then the United States. If the bombs don’t fall on ISIS, before long Americans will be speaking Arabic and their children will be studying the Koran in America’s government schools.

It’s all just one great big racket — a racket based on “national security,” a term that isn’t even found in the Constitution and that doesn’t even have an objective meaning. The only way that the U.S. national-security state apparatus — i.e., the vast military establishment and military empire, the CIA, and the NSA — can justify its continued existence is by ginning up crisis after crisis with the aim of keeping the citizenry filled with fear, anxiety, and depression. The apparatus then becomes people’s sedative, assuring them that everything is going to be okay because the apparatus is the only thing keeping them safe.

Never mind that the national-security apparatus produces the very threats it then uses to scare people with. After all, did anyone hear of ISIS before the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq, a country that had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so?

No. That’s because there was no ISIS before the apparatus invaded and occupied Iraq. It was the invasion and occupation, along with other interventions by the apparatus, such as in Syria and Libya, that has produced ISIS, the new, scary enemy of the day.

But of course, no statist wants to hear that. The national-security state is akin to a god, one that is keeping them safe from all those scary creatures thousands of miles away from American shores, creatures that are brought into existence by the very policies of the apparatus itself.

With its ongoing, perpetual crises and wars, the apparatus is also serving as a fount of taxpayer-funded largess for the vast armies of “defense” contractors who are feeding at the public trough on a permanent basis.

As an aside, have you noticed that while some young people are traveling to the Middle East to join ISIS, hardly any Americans are traveling to Iraq to join up with the Iraqi army to fight ISIS. I suppose one possibility is that most everyone is a coward and won’t fight to protect our “national security.” Another possibility, the more likely one in my opinion, is that deep down everyone knows that this is all a crock.

The perpetual crises and fear-mongering are not a new phenomenon. We saw it throughout the Cold War, when the same fear-mongering was being done about communists that is now being done about ISIS, terrorists, and Muslims.

If we don’t stop the communists from infiltrating Latin America, we were told, it won’t be long before Americans are speaking communist. Cuba is a communist beachhead, they repeatedly said, one that was determined to turn the rest of Latin America and then the United States Red.

That’s why the national-security state installed and supported brutal military dictatorships in Guatemala and Chile, entered into a partnership with the Mafia to assassinate Cuba’s president Fidel Castro, participated as a partner in the international torture and assassination ring based in Latin America known as DINA, and much more — all to ensure that the communist-socialist infection didn’t spread to Latin American countries, especially by democratic means. Democracy had to be destroyed, we were told, in order to save democracy.

The tens of thousands of people who were rounded up, tortured, raped, disappeared, executed, and assassinated, were considered an societal inoculation — like a vaccine — to ensure that Latin American regimes and then the United States didn’t go Red.

That’s what arming the Contras and starting an extremely brutal, deadly, and destructive civil war in Nicaragua was all about — to oust the communist-socialist regime of Daniel Ortega. It was also what the invasion of Grenada was all about.

The idea was that if the radical leftists were to gain the reins of power in Latin American countries, especially through democratic elections, the United States as we know it would cease to exist.

It was all a Cold War, national-security state, fear-mongering racket, one that was keeping the national-security state apparatus in existence and, equally important, keeping all those “defense” looters and plunderers in high cotton.

The fact is that it wouldn’t have made any difference at all, insofar as the United States was concerned, if every Latin American country went Red.

How do we know that? Because after the national-security state lost communism as its official enemy, many of those Latin American regimes have ended up with socialist presidents, many of them duly elected by their citizenry. Consider: Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, and more.

In fact, check out this Wikipedia entry entitled “Pink Tide.” It states “In 2005, the BBC reported that out of 350 million people in South America, three out of four of them lived in countries ruled by ‘left-leaning presidents’ elected during the preceding six years.”

Yet, as everyone knows, the United States is still standing. The United States wasn’t the final domino that fell to the communists. Oh sure, we’ve got our own welfare state, which is no different in principle from the socialism that all those Latin American socialist regimes believe in, but that’s just because Americans believe in socialism as much as Latin Americans do, not because Latin American regimes have gone socialist.

It won’t make any difference to the freedom and well-being of the American people if ISIS takes over Iraq, Syria, Libya, or any other area of the Middle East, any more than it has made a difference that socialists and communists have taken over countries in Latin America. It’s all just a fear-mongering racket, one designed to keep the cancerous tumor known as the national-security state, along with its vast army of “defense” plunderers and looters, attached to the body politic, where it is sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.

What a racket. It’s amazing that so many Americans continue to fall for it.


Merchants of death...

Meet The Big Wallets Pushing Obama Towards A New Cold War

By Christian Stork

There’s a familiar ring to the U.S. calls to arm Ukraine’s post-coup government. That’s because the same big-money players who stand to benefit from belligerent relations with Russia haven’t forgotten a favorite Cold War tune.

President Obama has said that he won’t rule out arming Ukraine if a recent truce, which has all but evaporated, fails like its predecessor. His comments echoed the advice of a report issued a week prior by three prominent U.S. think tanks: the Brookings Institute, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Atlantic Council. The report advocated sending $1 billion worth of “defensive” military assistance to Kiev’s pro-Western government.

If followed, those recommendations would bring the U.S. and Russia the closest to conflict since the heyday of the Cold War. Russia has said that it would “respond asymmetrically against Washington or its allies on other fronts” if the U.S. supplies weapons to Kiev.

The powers with the most skin in the game—France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine—struck a deal on Feb. 12, which outlines the terms for a ceasefire between Kiev and the pro-Russian, breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine. It envisages a withdrawal of heavy weaponry followed by local elections and constitutional reform by the end of 2015, granting more autonomy to the eastern regions.

But not all is quiet on the eastern front. The truce appears to be headed the route of a nearly identical compromise in September, which broke down immediately afterward.

Moscow’s national security interests are clear. Washington’s are less so, unless you look at the bottom lines of defense contractors.

As for those in the K Street elite pushing Uncle Sam to confront the bear, it isn’t hard to see what they have to gain. Just take a look below at the blow-by-blow history of their Beltway-bandit benefactors:

No Reds Means Seeing Red

Following the end of the Cold War, defense cuts had presented bottom-line problems for America’s military producers. The weapons dealers were told that they had to massively restructure or go bust.

Luckily, carrots were offered. Norm Augustine, a former undersecretary of the Army, advised Defense Secretary William Perry to cover the costs of the industry mergers. Augustine was then the CEO of Martin Marietta — soon to become the head of Lockheed Martin, thanks to the subsidies.

Augustine was also chairman of a Pentagon advisory council on arms-export policy. In that capacity, he was able to secure yet more subsidy guarantees for NATO-compatible weapons sales to former Warsaw Pact countries.

But in order to buy the types of expensive weapons that would stabilize the industry’s books, those countries had to enter into an alliance with the U.S. And some members of Congress were still wary of shelling out money to expand a military alliance that had, on its face, no rationale to exist.

Enter the NATO Expansion Squad

Enter the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Formed in 1996, the Committee wined and dined elected officials to secure their support for NATO enlargement. Meanwhile, Lockheed buttressed its efforts by spending $1.58 million in federal contributions for the 1996 campaign cycle.

The Committee’s founder and neocon chairman, Bruce Jackson, was so principled in his desire to see freedom around the globe that he didn’t even take a salary. He didn’t have to; he was a vice president at Lockheed Martin.

By Clinton’s second term, everyone was on board. Ron Asmus, a former RAND Corporation analyst and the “intellectual progenitor” of NATO expansion (who would later co-chair the Committee to Expand NATO), ended what was left of the policy debate in the State Department. He worked with Clinton’s diplomatic point man on Eastern Europe, Strobe Talbott.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were all in NATO come 1999. The Baltic States would soon follow. By 2003, those initial inductees had arranged deals to buy just short of $5 billion in fighter jets from Lockheed.

Bruce Jackson began running a new outfit in 2002. It was called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

(36 F-16s are currently slated for delivery to Iraq at an estimated $3 billion.)

Read the rest here:

"Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation."

Forced Blood Draws, DNA Collection and Biometric Scans: What Country Is This?

By John W. Whitehead

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.

Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

For example, David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, during which a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

Close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. However, because they cannot be used as the basis for arrest, breathalyzer tests are still required. And for those who refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, there are forced blood draws. One such person is Michael Chorosky, who was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.

Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now the police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone. That’s what is called an end-run around the law, and we’re seeing more and more of these take place under the rubric of “safety.”

The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. When faced with a request for a DNA sample by police during a mandatory roadblock, most participants understandably fail to appreciate the “voluntary” nature of such a request. Unfortunately, in at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. The remaining states collect DNA on conviction. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Indeed, the United States has the largest DNA database in the world, CODIS, which is managed by the FBI and is growing at an alarming rate.

Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.

Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.

As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”

As these police practices and data collections become more widespread and routine, there will be no one who is spared from the indignity of DNA sampling, blood draws, and roadside strip and/or rectal or vaginal searches, whether or not they’ve done anything wrong. We’re little more than economic units, branded like cattle, marked for easy identification, and then assured that it’s all for our “benefit,” to weed us out from the “real” criminals, and help the police keep our communities “safe” and secure.

What a bunch of hokum. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, these databases, forced extractions and searches are not for our benefit. They will not keep us safe. What they will do is keep us mapped, trapped, targeted and controlled.

Moreover, what if you don’t want to be forced to trust the government with your most intimate information? What if you don’t trust the government to look out for your best interests in the first place? How do you protect yourself against having your blood forcibly drawn, your DNA extracted, your biometrics scanned and the most intimate details of who you are—your biological footprint—uploaded into a government database?

What recourse do you have when that information, taken against your will, is shared, stolen, sold or compromised, as it inevitably will be in this age of hackers? We know that databases can be compromised. We’ve seen it happen to databases kept by health care companies, motor vehicle agencies, financial institutions, retailers and intelligence agencies such as the NSA. In fact, 2014 was dubbed the Year of the Hack in light of the fact that over a billion personal data records were breached, leaving those unlucky enough to have their data stolen vulnerable to identity theft, credit card fraud and all manner of criminal activities carried out in their names.

Banks now offer services —for a fee—to help you in the event that your credit card information is compromised and stolen. You can also pay for services to protect against identity theft in the likely event that your social security information is compromised and misused. But what happens when your DNA profile is compromised? And how do you defend yourself against charges of criminal wrongdoing in the face of erroneous technological evidence—DNA, biometrics, etc., are not infallible—that place you at the scene of a crime you didn’t commit?

“Identity theft could lead to the opening of new fraudulent credit accounts, creating false identities for criminal enterprises, or a host of other serious crimes,” said Jason Hart, vice president of cloud services, identity and data protection at the digital security company Gemalto. “As data breaches become more personal, we’re starting to see that the universe of risk exposure for the average person is expanding.”

It’s not just yourself you have to worry about, either. It’s also anyone related to you—who can be connected by DNA. These genetic fingerprints, as they’re called, do more than just single out a person. They also show who you’re related to and how. As the Associated Press reports, “DNA samples that can help solve robberies and murders could also, in theory, be used to track down our relatives, scan us for susceptibility to disease, or monitor our movements.”

Capitalizing on this, police in California, Colorado, Virginia and Texas use DNA found at crime scenes to identify and target family members for possible clues to a suspect’s whereabouts. Who will protect your family from being singled out for “special treatment” simply because they’re related to you? As biomedical researcher Yaniv Erlich warns, “If it’s not regulated and the police can do whatever they want … they can use your DNA to infer things about your health, your ancestry, whether your kids are your kids.”

These are just a few of the questions we should be asking before these technologies and programs become too entrenched and irreversible.

While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking.

Once again, technology has outdistanced both our understanding of it and our ability to adequately manage the consequences of unleashing it on an unsuspecting populace. As for all of those databases being sold to you for your safety and benefit, whether or not they’re actually effective in catching criminals, you can be assured that they will definitely be snatching up innocent citizens, as well.

In the end, what all of this amounts to is a carefully crafted campaign designed to give the government access to and control over what it really wants: you.


What if???

What if the Government Fears Freedom?

By Andrew P. Napolitano

What if the current massive spying on Americans began with an innocent secret executive order signed by President Reagan in 1986? What if Reagan contemplated that he was only authorizing American spies to spy on foreign spies unlawfully present in the U.S.?

What if Reagan knew and respected the history of the Fourth Amendment? What if the essence of that history is the colonial revulsion at the British use of general warrants? What if general warrants were issued by a secret court in London and authorized British agents in America to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found? What if the revulsion at this British government practice was so overwhelming that it led to the Revolutionary War against the king?

What if the whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to outlaw general warrants? What if the Fourth Amendment specifically guarantees the right to privacy to all in America in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

What if, in order to emphasize its condemnation of general warrants, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant from a judge before invading the persons, houses, papers or effects of anyone and lays down the preconditions for the issuance of such warrants? What if those preconditions are individualized suspicion and articulated evidence of crime — called probable cause — about the specific person whose privacy the government seeks to invade?

What if these principles of constitutional fidelity, privacy and probable cause and the unlawfulness of general warrants have been regarded universally and publicly as quintessentially American values, values that set this nation apart from all others?

What if the administration of President George W. Bush was so embarrassed that 9/11 happened on its watch that it fought a useless public war in Iraq — which had nothing to do with 9/11 — and a pernicious private war against American values by unleashing American spies on innocent Americans as to whom there was no individualized probable cause so that it could create the impression it was doing something to keep America safe from another 9/11-like attack?

What if the Bush folks took Reagan’s idea of spying on foreign spies and twisted it so that they could spy on not just foreign spies, but also on foreign persons? What if they took that and leapt to spying on Americans who communicated with foreign persons?

What if they then concluded that it was easier to spy on all Americans rather than just those who communicated with foreign persons? What if they claimed in secret that all this was authorized by Reagan’s executive order and two federal statutes, their unique interpretations of which they refused to discuss in public? What if the Reagan order and the statutes authorized no such thing?

What if The New York Times caught the Bush administration in its massive violation of the Fourth Amendment, whereby it was spying on all Americans all the time without any warrants? What if the Times sat on that knowledge during, throughout and beyond the presidential election campaign of 2004? What if, when the Times revealed all this, the Bush administration agreed to stop spying? What if it didn’t stop?

What if President Obama came up with a scheme to make the spying appear legal? What if that scheme involved using secret judges in secret courts to issue general warrants? What if the Obama administration swore those judges to secrecy? What if it swore to secrecy all in the government who are involved in undermining basic American values? What if it forgot that everyone in government also swears an oath to uphold the Constitution? What if Edward Snowden violated his oath to secrecy in order to uphold his oath to the Constitution, which includes the Fourth Amendment, and spilled the beans on the government?

What if all this spying by the feds has spawned spying by the locals? What if more than 50 local police departments now have received false cell towers from the FBI, but have sworn not to tell anyone about them? What if these towers trick cellphone signals into exposing the content of cellphone conversations to the police? What if the police have done this without the knowledge of the elected representatives who are their bosses? What if they do this without any warrants? What if the Supreme Court last year outlawed police invading cellphones without warrants?

What if both Bush and Obama have argued that their first job is to keep America safe, and they will twist, torture the plain meaning of and even break laws in order to accomplish that job? What if the presidential oath is to enforce all laws faithfully, including ones the president may hate?

What if Bush and Obama have been wrong about the priority of their constitutional duties as president? What if the president’s first job is to preserve the Constitution? What if that includes the Fourth Amendment? What if the president keeps us safe but unfree?

What if invading our freedoms keeps us less safe? What if the president has failed to keep our freedoms safe? What if the government doesn’t like freedoms? What if the government is afraid we will exercise them?


Wednesday, February 25, 2015


Anyone surprised???

Guantanamo In West Chicago...

A Secret "Black Site" Revealed In Chicago: "When You Go In, You Just Disappear"

Located in a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side is where, according to the Guardian, one can find the domestic equivalent of a CIA "black site" - an illegal, off-the-books interrogation compound used by Chicago special police units, one which renders "Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside"; a place whose former occupants say is where you end up when you are "disappeared"; a place which confirms that when it comes to the eternal "who is better - us or them" debate, there really is no difference: "It brings to mind the interrogation facilities they use in the Middle East. The CIA calls them black sites. It’s a domestic black site. When you go in, no one knows what’s happened to you.” It's a Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib rolled into one. In short: it is a place where the US constitution and basic human rights have absolutely no access.

And it may be located in a building just down your street.

According to an exclusive piece by the Guardian that is sure to send not only shivers down the spine of those who are still paying attention, but ripples across the "land of the free", not least because if there is one dark site on US soil, there are countless more - places where every single constitutional right of US citizens is trampled on - the secretive warehouse known as Homan Square is the latest example of Chicago police practices that echo the much-criticized detention abuses of the US war on terrorism. However, there is one huge difference: while those abuses impacted people overseas, Homan Square – said to house military-style vehicles, interrogation cells and even a cage – trains its focus on Americans, most often poor, black and brown...

Read the rest here:


Global Warming Can Still Burn a Heretic or Two

by John Hayward

To appreciate the psychology of the global-warming cult, one must understand a few contextual details. Most importantly, these are times of panic for the Church of Global Warming. Science has failed them. The global warming they predicted is going into its third decade of not happening. Polar ice and sea levels aren’t doing what they predicted. Much of their seminal research has been exposed as academic fraud, based on cute little games like ignoring large periods of history that don’t conform to their man-made climate change models, fudging temperature measurements, and changing the methodology for recording and estimating global temperatures at during different historical periods. Their recent attempts to scare up a few headlines favorable to the movement, such as the big media fuss about 2014 being the “hottest year in history,” have collapsed under scrutiny as exaggerations or outright falsifications.

Secondly, this is a movement about social status and pseudo-intellectual culture, as much as it’s ever been about science. That’s why so much of Big Climate’s behavior is cultish in nature, including its conspiracy-theory paranoia, and its savage treatment of heretics and blasphemers — they’re not shy about comparing skeptics to Holocaust deniers or 9/11 truthers, as seen in the Daily Beast’s hyperventilation over the story of skeptic Wei-Hock Soon’s corporate funding. Belief in global warming is a cultural marker, an aspect of the same vapid credentialism that gives leftists the vapors when someone who doesn’t have an Ivy League degree considers running for President.

Of course, this obsession with credentials evaporates when it comes to global-warming believers. From the Daily Beast:

Willie Soon, for example, should never have been given much credence in the first place. Like nearly all of the Climate Truthers’ scientists, he is not a climate expert. He’s not even an astrophysicist, as he is often presented. As The New York Times revealed, “He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.”

This is par for the course. The Heartland Institute, one of the leading Climate Truther think-tanks, put together a poster of “58 experts [who] don’t believe global warming is a crisis.”

But a review of those “experts” by The Daily Beast found that only three of the 58 actually have any credentials in climatology or atmospheric science. (16 are conservative political pundits, 11 are meteorologists, six are conservative economists, and the rest a hodgepodge.)

What’s not par for the course is Soon’s history of non-disclosure regarding his funding from the fossil-fuel industry, which was only revealed because, as an employee of the Smithsonian, the funding documents were covered by the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace obtained those documents and made them public.

To his funders, Soon called his scientific papers “deliverables.” To the scientific community, in violation of professional standards, he said nothing about having been paid to produce the “deliverables” by fossil-fuel interests, including the Southern Company (a utility holding company) and the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

Also not “climatologists:” Leonardo di Caprio, Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Rajenda Pachauri, the U.N. climate honcho currently sliding down the global-warmist memory hole due to sexual harassment allegations. Before that, Pachauri was noted for straight-up science denialism and making hilariously inaccurate doomsday predictions, but nobody in the Church of Global Warming seemed concerned about his lack of climatology credentials. Incidentally, Pachauri described climate change as his “religion” on his way out the door.

Finally, there’s the intimate connection between the global-warming cult and its patrons in collectivist politics, who view climate change as an indispensable opportunity to seize money and power — a claim in which politicians get to represent the Earth itself against the grubby little people they’re not terribly fond of, even when they’re not trying to promote a scary story about aerosol deodorant, cow farts, air conditioners, and automobiles unleashing the apocalypse.

This is reflected in the climate-change movement’s belief that their money is clean and pure, while the funding of skeptics is pure concentrated evil, especially if it comes from the hated fossil-fuel profiteers. A dollar from environmental activist Tom Steyer is as sacred as a communion wafer, while a buck from the (gasp!) Koch Brothers is supercharged with world-destroying menace, like the little piece of David Warner sitting in the microwave at the end of “Time Bandits.” Don’t you dare even ask about how much money Al Gore has made off climate alarmism.

Most pure and luminous of all are compulsory tax dollars extracted from the rubes and poured into Big Climate, a funding stream so transcendent that it’s supposed to be invisible – that’s how climate change, one of the biggest industries on the planet, pretends to be an order of selfless monks living hand-to-mouth while they mount a brave resistance against the well-tailored minions of Big Oil.

Disclosure standards are matters of fact, set by each publication and made known to its contributors; it is fair enough to complain about violations, as Soon is accused of doing in at least 11 cases over the past six years, according to the New York Times. Of course, the Church of Global Warming gives itself unlimited discretion to violate academic standards, and has been known to endorse all sorts of hoopla (such as Hollywood fantasies about climate apocalypse) that it knows are ridiculous, because it’s considered worthwhile to “raise public awareness” by any means necessary. It’s also interesting to note how the Times tap-dances around the fact that everyone in the climate change movement knew perfectly well where Dr. Soon got his money from, and incessantly complained about it. The amount in question, $1.2 million, is chump change by the standards of Big Climate. There seems to be a good deal of revulsion about how he viewed himself as a contractor with a job to do.

While we enjoy the spectacle of those who blew off the Climategate revelations of academic fraud shrieking that Soon didn’t properly disclose the corporate funding they always knew he had, we might reflect on the funny thing about actual science: it doesn’t really care who funds you, or how noble your intentions supposedly are. Science welcomes skepticism from all sources; what does not kill a good theory makes it stronger. The Church of Global Warming is reduced to blaming corporate saboteurs for tricking the public into doubting a sacred “scientific consensus” that was never even remotely true, because that illusion of faith is all they have left. But then, faith in collective judgment — and submission to collectivist politics — is what this was always about. Meanwhile, climate change still isn’t happening, and the true believers still can’t explain why it’s not.


"Decades of D.C. and globalist meddling in education have turned American schools — and students — into a national crisis of epic proportions."

Citing Federal Control, Critics Slam Education Bill in Congress
Written by Alex Newman

Rather than abolishing harmful and unconstitutional federal involvement in education, Congress is considering passage of the “Student Success Act” that would, among other provisions, re-authorize much of the No Child Left Behind and Elementary and Secondary Education boondoggles until 2021. While some conservative organizations have highlighted portions of the legislation that would supposedly diminish the giant Washington, D.C., boot print on government schools, critics are warning that other elements of the bill essentially represent a further takeover of education by the federal government. Several other education-related bills that would not end unconstitutional federal involvement into state and local education are also being considered by lawmakers.

With public outrage against the Obama administration-backed Common Core (basically a plan to nationalize K-12 schooling) reaching a fever pitch across the political spectrum, the GOP-led Congress is under tremendous public pressure to rein in the White House and its radical education plans. However, critics warn that none of the education bills currently being considered would do away with the unconstitutional and dangerous takeover of education standards. Making matters worse, a broad range of education experts and policy analysts are warning that the 600-plus pages of legislation keep many of the worst elements of unconstitutional federal meddling — along with creating new dangers.

The Student Success Act, which passed out of House committee without any Democrat support on February 11, is expected to be voted on soon by the full House of Representatives. If approved, it will cost taxpayers over $23 billion per year.

However, analysts say the worst amendments to the bill were successfully defeated, and that there may be some positive elements to the legislation. For example, according to an analysis of the bill by Dr. Karen Effrem, president of Education Liberty Watch, which opposes it, the legislation prohibits the secretary of education from “incentivizing” or “coercing” states into adopting standards or tests. “It is important for preventing future disasters like Common Core,” Effrem said.

Another provision of the bill would reportedly prevent D.C. from vacuuming up private data on students if it is “personally identifiable” — something that was already illegal but which the Obama administration did anyway by lawlessly re-writing privacy protection laws and bribing states.

Separately, one section of the Student Success Act (HR5) would apparently attempt to quash a broad array of intrusive schemes from No Child Left Behind such as “early childhood mental health programs” and funding for propaganda TV programs aimed at manipulating children. The new bill also eliminates requirements on “yearly progress” for schools — impossible requirements that were exploited by the Obama administration to impose Common Core through the issuance of lawless “waivers” from compliance with NCLB to states that imposed Obama’s agenda.

“The Student Success Act helps provide American families the education system they deserve, not the one Washington wants,” argued sponsor Representative John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the education committee. “I want to thank all my colleagues for engaging in a robust debate and offering their ideas to improve education. We have a lot of work ahead, and we will continue to move forward in a manner that is open, transparent, and fair. America’s parents, teachers, and students have waited long enough for a new law that helps every child in every school receive an excellent education. This important bill will move us closer toward that goal, and I look forward to continuing the debate in the weeks ahead.”

But praise for the bills is far from across the conservative board. Critics contend that the lawless federal data-gathering and data-mining schemes will continue unabated, including “research on social and emotional learning.”

Education Liberty Watch and a broad coalition of other organizations are also sounding alarm bells about HR5 and urging a “no” vote by the full House. Among other concerns, critics say the bill continues to unconstitutionally mandate that states use dubious “cookie cutter standards” and assessments that bypass the authority of local officials elected by parents and communities. The legislation also purports to continue ordering states to test students every year as part of what is almost universally acknowledged to be a failed federal accountability scheme — in reality, a scheme to usurp control over education by dictating what is on tests, and thereby what is taught.

One of the most alarming new developments in the bill is the “portability” provision. That provision is one that on the surface would seem to provide parents with the ability to send their children to high-performing schools by providing school choice.

"Portability" refers to the portability of federal funding. Under the Republicans' system, federal funding would “follow” individual students and could be used to put students in “charter schools” or other government schools. (The money could not be used to send children to private schools — yet.) While there are plenty of well-meaning conservatives and libertarians who support the “school choice” mantra, experts warn that there are numerous severe dangers associated with it. Among the chief concerns: The federal government eventually could expand the “portability” scheme to include private schools and then foist Common Core or something similar on private and religious schools by tying the money to adherence to government programs. As well, when it comes to charter schools, education experts warn that they lack accountability to the voters who fund them through their taxes.

Another provision that has generated widespread alarm appears on page 552 of the bill. While marketed as a tool to restore state sovereignty, critics say it may do just the opposite, outlining the process in which states explicitly surrender their constitutional authority over education to the federal government in exchange for U.S. taxpayer funding and grants. The legislation does note the obvious: No state can be obligated to submit to Washington, D.C.’s demands on education. However, it also explains that to receive certain assistance from the U.S. Department of Education with strings attached, the state legislature must approve the program, “waiving the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.”

The outcry against the bill is growing across the political spectrum. A coalition of prominent education experts including Lindsey Burke, Williamson Evers, Theodor Rebarber, Sandra Stotsky, and Ze’ev Wurman, for example, released a recent statement arguing that the bill did not return control over education policy to where it belongs. “The current drafts, both the Senate and the House versions, do not return authority to the states and localities or empower parents,” they said. “The ESEA has evolved from what was described at the outset in 1965 as a measure to help children from low-income families into an instrument of testing mandates and federal control of public K-12 education and, increasingly, of private education as well. The road to effective education is paved with local control and parent power.”

In an analysis of the legislation dubbed “No Program Left Behind,” Lindsey Burke, an education policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation, blasted the fact that virtually every federal education scheme remains alive in the bill. “The 616-page proposal that is now under consideration fails to take the necessary steps to genuinely limit federal intervention in education,” she wrote. “In fact, it’s difficult to square that circle: that a bill as long as the existing No Child Left Behind Act somehow reduces federal intervention in education. Beyond simple page count, the House proposal maintains elevated levels of spending, while doing little to actually eliminate programs.... Policymakers should empower states to completely exit the 600-page law in order to begin the process of devolving education authority back to states and localities, and, ultimately, families.”

Also coming out against the bill were the Obama administration and its allies, although for different reasons. Notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. government is loading more than $18 trillion in debt on taxpayers and even unborn Americans, they argue that the federal government must continue to fund and control education policy. The White House and globalist Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who boasted to the United Nations and others of using U.S. schools to mass produce “green citizens,” were particularly outraged about the “portability” scheme. They argue that it would reduce the flow of federal funds to schools with more poor students by allowing them to leave the failing schools and take the federal tax dollars elsewhere. Another sticking point is that Congress did not fully fund Obama’s demands for federally managed “early education” schemes to capture the minds of the very youngest Americans.

Late last year, Obama hosted a summit on “early education” at the White House bringing together a vast array of organizations hoping to further super-size the federal government’s gigantic role in molding (and tracking) the minds of the Americans from birth. Among other schemes being pushed by the administration, according to the announcement on the White House website, was “extending and expanding evidence-based, voluntary home visiting.” As it did to impose Common Core on state governments, the administration used various slush funds to bribe state officials into expanding what top Obama officials regularly describe as their “cradle-to-career” education agenda — with special emphasis on the “cradle” component, as D.C. works hard to prod as many parents as possible into handing over their young children to government for “early education.” It remains unclear whether Congress truly intends to rein in the administration’s “cradle” scheming.

Another education bill in Congress, the “A-PLUS Act,” would reportedly seek to curtail the failed “No Child Left Behind,” which is almost universally loathed and acknowledged to have been a miserable failure. “As a former teacher I can attest to the fact that No Child Left Behind is the wrong approach to improving education standards in this country,” said Representative Rob Bishop (R–Utah), who introduced the proposal in the House. “This nation is simply too great, too broad, and too diverse for one set of ideas to rule from coast to coast.”

The real solution to America’s very real education crisis, though, is to get the federal government completely out of schools, as the U.S. Constitution and the 10th Amendment require. That means no more federal funding or mandates on education, permanently shutting down the unconstitutional U.S. Department of Education, ending all federal bribes and the strings they come with, and allowing local communities to make decisions again. It also means getting rid of the half-baked Common Core scheme financed by billionaire population-control zealot Bill Gates and foisted on states by the Obama administration. Several states are in the process of ending Common Core, but the threat to America’s future from the radical scheme remains.

Decades of D.C. and globalist meddling in education have turned American schools — and students — into a national crisis of epic proportions. The disaster will continue to grow more severe if left unchecked. The best and simplest solution is to just end federal involvement in education once and for all — the only constitutional solution. None of the bills in Congress would do that, but with enough public pressure, Americans can still restore proper education and constitutional government by getting the feds out of schools. In fact, doing so will be essential to the future of liberty, real education, and prosperity in America.


Got fluoride???

New Research Underscores the Dangers of Fluoride
Written by Raven Clabough

Scientists in England have found that fluoride could be causing depression and weight gain and have urged councils to stop adding it to the drinking water. The new findings directly contradict a report released by Public Health England last year that called fluoride a “safe and effective” way of improving dental health.

According to a study of 98 percent of GP practices in England, high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 percent more likely in areas of the greatest fluoridation. The Telegraph reports that up to 15,000 people are needlessly experiencing thyroid problems, which include depression, weight gain, pain, and fatigue.

Approximately 10 percent of the population in England live in areas with a naturally or artificially fluoridated water supply, according to the Telegraph. Researchers from the University of Kent suggest that the number of cases of underactive thyroid was higher in areas such as the West Midlands and the North East of England. Professor Stephen Peckham of the Centre for Health Service Studies, lead author of the study, asserts that the findings should be particularly disconcerting for those who reside in those regions.

“The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking,” Peckham noted. “There were nearly double the number of cases in Manchester.”

Advocates of fluoridation contend it helps to fight tooth decay by making enamel more resistant to bacteria; however, studies have shown that the adverse effects of fluoridation far outweigh any purported good it does.

The University of Kent study found that fluoride inhibits the production of iodine, which is necessary for the health of the thyroid gland, resulting in an underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism.

“Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems," stated Professor Peckham. He added, "I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water. There are far safer ways to improve dental health.”

And other studies have found the effects of fluoridation to be equally troublesome for differing reasons.

A 2014 study at Harvard suggested that fluoride can be connected to reductions in the IQ of children.

“A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations,” noted the authors, Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of New York’s Icahn School of Medicine.

What’s worse is that the levels of fluoride analyzed in that study were less than four milligrams per liter, less than the amounts permitted to be used in water fluoridation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” added the authors, who also warned of additional problems associated with exposure to these kinds of substances, including autism.

As a result of those findings, a 2014 report in the medical journal The Lancet labelled fluoride a dangerous developmental neurotoxicant, placing it alongside other toxins such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.

Critics have seized upon the various findings against fluoride to call for a complete end to water fluoridation.

“In light of the new classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, adding more fluoride to Americans’ already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification,” declared Fluoride Action Network Executive Director and retired chemistry professor Dr. Paul Connett in a statement. “We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it.”

The John Birch Society has opposed fluoridation of the water supply for more than half a century. In addition to health concerns, the Society has stood against the forced-medication implications of the practice, noting that fluoride is added to the water supply to treat people, not make the water safer, and warning many decades ago that some environmentalists supported putting sterilants in the water supply (with the government rationing the anttidote) to regulate the desired population size.

And now President Obama’s own “Science” Czar John Holdren has proposed that very thing: adding birth control to the water supply for the purpose of regulating population size.

In 1992, libertarian icon Murray Rothbard wrote a scathing critique of the practice that appeared in The New American, questioning the reasoning behind fluoridation.

Rothbard explained that the case for fluoridation rests wholly on the assertion that it reduces cavities in children aged five to nine, and that there are no claimed benefits for anyone over the age of nine. What’s more, studies reveal that the same children aged nine to 12 have more cavities, revealing that the cavity benefits disappear at the age of 12.

Meanwhile, as fluoridation advocates embraced studies that revealed fluoride reduced cavities among children aged five through nine, those same advocates ignored indications that fluoride also created even more significant health concerns. Rothbard wrote:

During the 1940s and '50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, fluoridation proponents touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in five- to nine-year-old kids in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places).

OK, but fluoride opponents raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics.

Later studies also found correlations between a fluoridated water supply and cancer rates. In the 1970s, Dr. Dean Burk, former chief of cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute for 30 years, reported that fluoride increases the cancer death rate based on a study that compared the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation and the 10 largest without.

Ultimately, Rothbard concluded, “Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, advocates for fluoridation continue to claim that it is safe.

Dr Sandra White, director of dental public health at Public Health England, has said, “Public Health England regularly reviews the evidence base for water fluoridation. The totality of evidence, accumulated over decades of research, tells us that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure, and shows no association with reduced thyroid function.”

But now, the latest findings out of the University of Kent should provide cause to reconsider these statements.


Mainstream media lapdogs...

Obama’s lapdog media is a pack of cowards

by John Myers

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

Last week, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the following:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

As if to prove Giuliani correct, President Obama went on another one of his “let us all embrace Islam” rants during his three-day Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. Meanwhile, Congress is debating whether to send more American combat troops back to the Middle East to engage the Islamic State (ISIS).

Yet if you listen to Obama, Islam has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS regardless of its name. We can only wonder if the Islamic State is just a cover for those murderous Catholics.

Last Thursday, Obama declared:

[T]he notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. And all of us, regardless of our faith, have a responsibility to reject it.

According to the Obama administration, the enemy is not the tens of millions of Muslims who cheered the falling of New York’s Twin Towers and whose terrorists we have battled for the past 13 years. Obama believes something far more sinister is afoot. His new intelligence assessment by his Department of Homeland Security reports that the real threat to America is from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists.

Obama’s terror war is against Americans, not Islamists

As Personal Liberty reported, the Obama administration believes the real threat to the nation is, “(American) extremists who believe that they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order.”

Obama’s Department of Homeland Security cites a three-year-old incident in which a father and son shot and killed two police officers in Louisiana after being pulled over for a traffic violation. Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at the “anything except Islam” summit, railed against right-wing extremists and militias who commit violence “in the name of the Bible.”

Thankfully, not everyone is buying Obama’s propaganda, including a hardcore progressive, Bill Maher. Last Friday on his HBO show, Maher said, “This idea that we cannot even call it Islamic terrorism seems Orwellian to me.”

Not only to you, Bill, but also to Giuliani. But you have to admit it is a sad day when one of Obama’s harshest critics is Maher. Then again, what can we expect from the left-wing media?

Love him or hate him, what Giuliani said last week — that Obama does not love America — doesn’t really matter. He is a retired politician; he isn’t running for office.

What Obama says regarding terrorists and how the real threat is Americans and not Muslims matters a great deal. He is the president of the United States. He is the leader of the free world — a world that is conspicuously less free today than it was when he took office six years ago.

Yet Obama backers, big business, the Democrats in Congress and those who control the mass media are salivating over what Giuliani said at a private dinner to 60 people.

This reminds me of Joseph Goebbels itching to point out that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Jew every time his Führer mismanaged the army, beginning with the disastrous defeat of the 9th Army in the Battle of Stalingrad. In a couple of years, tens of millions of Germans came to realize that the real enemy was not the Allies but Adolf Hitler. As for all those liberal sycophants who rush to point out that Obama was elected twice, it should be pointed out that Hitler was democratically elected once.

But today, Giuliani, an American leader in the days following 9/11, is a scapegoat. The media have decided to keep the ruckus going on about Giuliani so Americans won’t question Obama’s lies about Islam and will instead focus their attention on homebred terrorists.

But it wasn’t Americans who executed the Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris. It was Islamists. And it wasn’t American extremists who launched the terror attack in Denmark five weeks later. You can tell because American extremists don’t wear robes, pack the Koran in one hand and carry an AK-47 in the other. Those were Islamists, who are fighting their holy jihad backed by Arab money from the Gulf States, which are in turn backed by Obama.

Obama is a loyal Muslim until our bitter end

What were the events that led Islamists to attack newspapers in Paris and in Copenhagen? Simple, they had the audacity to draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad! And while Obama didn’t send a representative to Paris for the vigil of those victims, his administration did tell them beforehand they might have it coming.

In January 2012, the Obama administration criticized Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons of Muhammad, a position that the White House has steadfastly stood by.

PJ Media reported on Jan. 12:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest turned a question about the judgment of Charlie Hebdo in publishing Muhammad cartoons to a chiding about the “responsibilities” that come with free speech.

Earnest was asked if, in the wake of last week’s brutal terrorist attack on the satirical magazine’s French headquarters, the administration stood by Jay Carney’s 2012 comments: “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad. And, obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.

“At the same time, you know, it would not be the first time that there has been a discussion in this country about the kinds of responsibilities that go along with exercising the right to freedom of speech.”

The question Earnest should be asking and what all Americans should be asking is: What are the responsibilities of the president of the United States and what are the responsibilities of the fourth estate?

Why not have a Muhammad Cartoon Day?

CNN interviewed Lars Vilks on Feb. 15. Vilks is the Danish cartoonist and the target for the attack in Denmark. In that interview CNN almost blamed him for not doing the right thing and going into hiding, thus preventing the attack.

Vilks said:

This should be a small thing really, to insult a religion. You cannot make exceptions for religion. I mean that’s the point. I mean this should be the same rules as we have for Christianity or the Jewish religion or whatsoever, that we should make an exception. Islam is not more holy than the other ones.

CNN reported:

Vilks did not start this latest round of controversy. In 2005, the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, sparking protests from Muslim communities across the world. For many Muslims, any images of the Prophet Muhammad are seen as blasphemous. Even worse were depictions that deliberately insulted the prophet. CNN has decided not to show any of these images.

Of course not! Why would CNN or any news media or publication publish a cartoon? Good God, that could make them targets. Instead they report in detail, loop upon loop, on the beheadings carried out by ISIS, replete with victims dressed in orange jumpsuits moments before their executions.

If the media really wanted to stand up for free speech and stop cowering in fear, they would pick out one day and call it Muhammad Cartoon Day. Deal with it, you whacked-out crazy Muslims. You can’t kill us all for our right to free speech. But that would take courage, and that is something that is in short supply when we have a president who acts more like a loyal Muslim than a good American.

Perhaps it would help for news executives to watch the movie “Spartacus,” the 1960 American epic starring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. In it the Romans try to locate the rebel leader for special punishment. Every surviving man protects him by shouting: “I’m Spartacus!”

If we don’t want to die like slaves we need to all stand up and yell, “I’m Charlie Hebdo!”

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers