Posts Tagged ‘Protect’

Scathing report by Committee to Protect Journalists: Most secretive administration since Nixon

by John Lott on Sunday, October 13th, 2013

This is article 499 of 571 in the topic Media
When liberal Democrats start comparing a president to Nixon in anyway you know that you have problems.  Personally, after reading this report, it appears that Obama is much worse than Nixon.  Can you imagine what the press would have done if Nixon had gone through a reporter’s private personal communications or gone to court asserting that they believed normal reporting activities were criminal acts?  But that fact that reporters are even comparing Obama to Nixon in anyway is a bit of a start.  From the Committee to Protect Journalists:

. . . The administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate. The 30 experienced Washington journalists at a variety of news organizations whom I interviewed for this report could not remember any precedent.

“There’s no question that sources are looking over their shoulders,” Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor of The Associated Press, told me months after the government, in an extensive leak investigation, secretly subpoenaed and seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 AP reporters in its Washington bureau and elsewhere. “Sources are more jittery and more standoffish, not just in national security reporting. A lot of skittishness is at the more routine level. The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention. There’s a mind-set and approach that holds journalists at a greater distance.”

Washington Post national security reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a member of CPJ’s board of directors, told me that “one of the most pernicious effects is the chilling effect created across government on matters that are less sensitive but certainly in the public interest as a check on government and elected officials. It serves to shield and obscure the business of government from necessary accountability.” . . .

“There is no access to the daily business in the Oval Office, who the president meets with, who he gets advice from,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has been covering presidents since Gerald Ford. She said many of Obama’s important meetings with major figures from outside the administration on issues like health care, immigration, or the economy are not even listed on Obama’s public schedule. . . .

Go straight to Post

LOOKING MORE AND MORE LIKE A COMMUNIST NATION UNDER OBAMA AND HIS FELLOW TRAVELERS!

by Stephen Levine on Wednesday, August 28th, 2013

This is article 39 of 45 in the topic Equal Rights/Civil Rights

This is a direct insult to those who have fought and died to protect America and its Constitution …

obamaflag

You will notice that the flag appears to be held by a person wearing a NEA-logo union shirt …

On Monday’s broadcast of “The O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel, network contributor Juan Williams accused African-American leaders of corruption an criticized speakers at Saturday’s March on Washington anniversary for failing to address education.

“[March leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.] is not one who would simply cry, as you were saying, over the awful lyrics and the bad schools,” he said. “He would act. He would stand up. That’s the tradition of Dr. King — stand up and act against bad schools that are condemning these kids to useless lives because they never have an opportunity to climb that ladder of upward mobility. And the civil rights challenge of this generation is education, and Dr. King would never allow anybody to buy his silence, to buy him off, to sell out the kids and that’s what’s happening right now.”

“I look today at some of the reports on union spending — it’s unbelievable,” Williams continued. “[The American Federation of Teachers] — you know, AFT and their affiliates in New York, tens of thousands of dollars going to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and NAACP. Same thing with the National Education Association — NEA.

Why?

Because they know that they don’t want those civil rights leaders to ever stand up and say yes to charter schools, yes to vouchers, yes to school reform. Yes to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago saying that we need the black community. Poor people need better schools, and you can’t make excuses at the cost of our children and our children’s future.” <Source>

Divisive …

50th Anniversary of the March on Washington Week-Long Schedule of Events

Celebrating the Legacy of Youth in the Movement
Protect Our Voting Rights & Social Justice Youth Organizing Training
10th Annual Black Youth Vote! National Civic Leadership Training Conference
Highlights: Unity Breakfast, Tribute to Jamal Rose, Gathering of Black Men “I Am Trayvon” Dialogue, Sister Circles, Issue Organizing Breakouts, Regional/State-Based Organizing Strategy Sessions
9:00 am – 9:00 pm
National Education Association
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC
Hosted by National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, NAACP, NEA, Generational Alliance, NAN Youth Move, The Praxis Project, NUL Young Professionals, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., BK Nation, 100 Black Men of America, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. Source>

Bottom line …

The public service employees unions are infiltrated with socialists and communists, so why should we be surprised when these radical leftists try to subvert the government from within and spout their race-baiting socialist propaganda? Never before has our enemies, both foreign and domestic, had such a grip on our government and the institutions that made America strong.

Remember, the 2014 congressional election cycle is fast approaching and it appears that the socialists and communists are at risk of being voted out of office. While they may call it racism, I call it subversion, sedition, and treason.

— steve

Go straight to Post

PBS “Green Lights” Eugenics Documentary That Asks Whether to “Purge or Protect the Human Surplus”

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

This is article 82 of 95 in the topic Environmental
On the morning of Tuesday, July 9 I received an email from the production manager of Magnum Veritas Productions with the following inquiry:
“We are in the production stage of a PBS program called Human Weeds on the rise of earth’s population and whether we need to purge or protect the human surplus.  We want you to share about the resurgence of modern eugenics, your opinion of the significance and implications of Earth’s growing population, your solutions for ensuring a good life for everyone, and what is in the works behind the scenes to accomplish this.”
The email directed me to the film’s website at www.humanweeds.com and I also visited the company’s website at www.magnumveritasvp.com. Suffice to say I rejected the request to participate.
Purportedly the documentary will address “whether we need to purge or protect the human surplus.” What human surplus? That suggests there are humans on the planet who are in excess of what some genius thinks is the right number. How does anyone even ask if any portion of the human race should be protected or purged?
The Nazis thought that Jews were “life unfit for life” and in need of extermination. They managed to kill six million along with another five million “enemies of the state” that included homosexuals, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholic clergy, gypsies, the mentally challenged, and a long list of others.
It has long been a popular progressive notion that the Earth is over-populated and something should be done about it.
I placed a call to Magnum Veritas Productions and had a conversation with the production manager who sent the email. “Human Weeds” is the “working title” of the documentary. She told me that it is not funded by PBS and, indeed, MVP is currently seeking funding, but that a producer at PBS had “green lighted” the project to air sometime in 2014. Calls to the PBS corporate public relations office went unanswered.
I Googled “PBS and Eugenics” and found a page from “A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries titled “Eugenics movement reaches its height–1923.” Eugenics was the alleged “science” of heredity that traces its beginning to around 1883. It evolved into a social theory about the human race. The text notes that “Even in its day, many people saw that eugenics was a dubious discipline, riddled with inconsistencies.” In 1923, the American Eugenics Society was founded and “quickly grew to 29 chapters around the country.”
“The eugenics craze was already fading when the horrors of institutionalized eugenics revealed in Nazi Germany during World War II doused it entirely as a movement.”
Well, not entirely.
At DiscoverTheNetworks.org its report on“Eugenics and the Progressive Movement”, notes that the movement had many famous advocates in the first half of the last century. They included author H.G. Wells, NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois, economist John Maynard Keynes, playwright George Bernard Shaw, World Wildlife Fund founder, Julian Huxley, sex theorist Havelock Ellis, and the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.
Sanger took issue with the position of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of life, saying, “Assuming that God does want an increasing number of worshippers of the Catholic faith, does he also want an increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshippers?” She also saw on-demand abortion as a way to reduce the African-American population.
As I noted in May regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, Roe v.

Click to continue reading “PBS “Green Lights” Eugenics Documentary That Asks Whether to “Purge or Protect the Human Surplus””
Go straight to Post

Can the Media Protect Hillary Clinton from Latest State Department Scandal?

by Roger Aronoff on Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

This is article 328 of 467 in the topic Government Corruption

Hillary Clinton’s approval rating has fallen 12 points in the wake of the Benghazi scandal, especially since some Americans still hold her responsible for the inadequate security in Libya during the September 11, 2012 attack. Now, additional scandals, which may have been covered up by the State Department under Hillary’s watch, could further threaten her approval rating. These scandals, if given enough traction by the media, could possibly jeopardize Hillary’s chances to run for president. It is therefore in the media’s best interest to keep their beloved political candidate away from controversy, and distance the department’s cover-up from her leadership.

Two news accounts do so. CBS News’ groundbreaking story mentions Hillary only once. NBC News’ story mentions Hillary only once, as well.

“CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off,” reports CBS news. “The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples” (emphasis added).

So, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, may have covered up eight different investigations—if not more. These investigations include allegations of prostitution, pedophilia by an ambassador, sexual assault, and drug purchases.

CBS’s reporting is based on a State Department memo issued in October of last year. A draft report for the Inspector General’s office was issued on December 4, 2012. The final report, issued in March 2013, omitted references to the cover-ups, according to the New York Post. The Post aimed its article, “Hillary’s sorry state of affairs,” straight at Secretary Clinton’s leadership.

“The draft report, marked ‘Sensitive But Unclassified,’ cites several examples of undue influence ‘from the top floor of the department, raising serious concerns about the quality and integrity’ of investigations,” reports the Post. “That statement was removed from the final report issued March 15.”

Bloomberg reports that Hillary’s approval rating was at an all-time high in December, at 70 percent. Would it have remained as high had the Inspector General’s report come out with the eight cited cases? It is unlikely.

“Since leaving the state department, Clinton has mostly kept a low profile, other than delivering a few public speeches and releasing a video in March in which for the first time she announced support for same-sex marriage,” reported John McCormick for Bloomberg News. “Even so, she’s done just enough in the political arena to keep potential donors and supporters intrigued by the historic potential of backing a candidate who could become the first woman president.”

According to the recent Bloomberg poll, “47 percent said they disapprove of how Clinton handled the situation in Benghazi, while roughly a third—34 percent—said they approve.” Bloomberg credits Benghazi as the reason Clinton’s favorability dropped 12 percentage points since last December.

It could have been more, as the recent leak by former State Department investigator Aurelia Fedenisn demonstrates.

The scandal reaches up to Hillary’s right-hand man Patrick Kennedy, at the very least, and involves her own guards.

NBC News opted not to identify the ambassador who has been accused of soliciting minors and prostitutes. “Top State Department officials directed investigators to ‘cease the investigation’ into the ambassador’s conduct, according to the memo,” reports NBC News. However, the New York Post identifies the ambassador as Howard Gutman, ambassador to Belgium.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Pesticides Kill Pests…And Protect Lives

by Alan Caruba on Friday, June 7th, 2013

This is article 65 of 79 in the topic EPA

A bit of personal history; in the 1980s I was engaged by the U.S. producer of a pesticide called Ficam to develop case histories about its use.

Ficam is applied with water and it killed off a wide range of common insect pests. There is no odor and there is no hazard to humans when correctly applied, but at some point the Environmental Protection Agency told the producer it would have to go through the entire process of re-registering it for use. Since that would have cost several millions of dollars, the decision was made to cease selling it in the U.S. As a result, it was essentially banned from use in America. Today it is still in wide use in other nations.

The 1980s was a period of extensive propaganda by environmental organizations about any use of any pesticide. It had begun two decades earlier with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring”, that falsely claimed that DDT posed a threat to bird populations and to humans. The book created the hysteria about DDT that got it banned in the U.S.in 1972 and subsequently in many other nations.

In a recent commentary, “Environmental Fear-Mongering Isn’t Just Silly, it Kills People”, by Walter E. Williams, he quoted an article by Dr. Henry Miller, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Gregory Conko, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who said the ban was responsible for the loss of “tens of millions of human lives—mostly children in poor, tropical countries—having been traded for the possibility of slightly improved fertility in raptors (birds). This remains one of the monumental human tragedies of the last century.”

Williams noted that “In 1970, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as DDT…In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria that otherwise would have been inevitable.” These days, the World Health Organization estimates that malaria infects at least 200 million people, of which more than half die, each year. Most malaria victims are African children.” Four decades later, millions continue to needlessly die because of the DDT ban.

DDT killed billions of mosquitoes, the transmitters of malaria. Ficam, when it was used in America, killed billions of disease vectors such as cockroaches that are known to spread Salmonella, Gastroenteritis, Leprosy, Dysentery, and Typhoid fever, among others.

The EPA didn’t care about this when it banned DDT or forced Ficam off the U.S. market. The environmental organizations that continue to attack pesticides don’t care that insect pests spread disease or that termites annually cause billions of dollars in property damage.

In an Investors Business article, Paul Driessen, a senior advisor to CFACT, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, debunked the scare campaigns surrounding die-offs of bee colonies. Greens are currently spreading lies about “neonics”, a pesticide derived from naturally-occurring nicotine plant compounds, saying they are responsible for the bee die-offs, but such colony collapses were first reported in 1869 and to this day scientists are still unable to identify why they occur. Typically, the laboratory studies expose bees to doses “far above what a realistic field dose exposure would be”, according to a study by Dr.

Click to continue reading “Pesticides Kill Pests…And Protect Lives”
Go straight to Post

Tears Don’t Protect Against Murder

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

This is article 500 of 796 in the topic Terrorism

After serving a few years in prison for his role in the Munich Massacre, Willi Pohl moved to Beirut. The brief sentence was a slap in the wrist, but Pohl had still served more time in prison than the Muslim gunmen who had murdered eleven Israeli athletes and coaches during the 1972 Summer Olympics. Mohammed Safady and the Al-Gashey cousins were released after a few months by the German authorities.

They went back to Lebanon and so did he.

A decade after the attack, Willi Pohl had begun making a name for himself as a crime novelist. His first novel was Tränen Schützen Nicht vor Mord or Tears Do Not Protect Against Murder.

While Pohl was penning crime novels, Israeli operatives had already absorbed the lessons of his first title. Tears, whether in 1939 or 1972, had not done anything to prevent the murder of Jews. Bullets were another matter.

The head of Black September in Rome was the first to die, followed by a string of PLO leaders across Europe. Those attacks were followed by raids on the mansions and apartments of top Fatah officials in the same city where Pohl had found temporary refuge. By the time his first book was published, hundreds of PLO terrorists and officials were dead.

European law enforcement had failed to hold even the actual perpetrators of the Munich Massacre responsible, never mind the representatives of the PLO who openly mingled with red radicals in its capitals. Israeli operatives did what the German judicial system had failed to do, putting down Safady and one of the Al-Gasheys, while the other one hid out with Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

The Israeli raid on the PLO terrorists in Beirut’s Muslim Quarter missed one important target. Arafat. And so, on another September day, some 19 years later, September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin shook hands with Arafat and proclaimed, “Enough of blood and tears! Enough!” But the blood and tears had only begun, as a PLO on its last legs was revived and built its terrorist infrastructure inside Israel’s borders.

By 1993, the year of the infamous Rose Garden handshake, 45 Israelis had been killed and 34 injured in Muslim terrorist attacks. A year after the handshake, the toll stood at 109 Israelis dead and 456 wounded. By 2002, the year that Israel’s patience finally broke and Sharon sent forces storming into Arafat’s compound, the numbers for that year were a horrifying 451 dead and 2,348 wounded.

Today, some 40 years after that September in Munich and 19 years after the even worse tragedy of that September in Washington D.C., with over 1,500 dead since that fatal handshake, there have been rivers of blood and tears. And a shortage of bullets.

PLO officials these days are more likely to die of morbid obesity or, like Arafat, of AIDS, than of Israeli raids. They are nearly as likely to kill each other, like Arafat’s cousin, Moussa Arafat, the former head of the Palestinian Authority’s terrorist forces, who was dragged out of his home and shot by his own people.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Pair of Colorado Dems Explain How to Protect Yourself Without Carrying a Gun

by Doug Powers on Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

Why you don’t need to carry a gun to effectively protect yourself…

First up, Colorado Dem State Rep. Joe Salazar has a twofold message for women on campus: 1) You shouldn’t carry a gun because what do you think they invented rape whistles and call boxes for? And 2) You shouldn’t carry a gun because you might shoot somebody just because you incorrectly believed that person was planning to do you harm (you know how impulsive women can be), even though the man was in fact only observing you… maybe because he was doing research for his job as a Colorado state legislator or something like that:

From the on-deck circle, Colorado State Senator Jesse Ulibarry adds another effective way to defend yourself from a crazed gunman without carrying a gun yourself: Ball point pens:

This is exactly why the security guards who protect the Colorado State Legislature are armed with nothing except scissors, BICs and rape whistles. Or maybe not.

Go straight to Post

According to Piers Morgan, There are Only 2 Uses for ‘Assault Rifles’: To Commit Mass Murder, and to Protect Piers Morgan

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, February 5th, 2013

This is article 375 of 583 in the topic Gun Rights

CNN’s Piers Morgan, big time gun control advocate, broadcast a show from Texas to figure out why people like guns so much.

Morgan has asked in the past “why does anybody need to own an assault rifle?” He’s also said the only people who own weapons like the AR-15 are those who want to commit mass murder. But apparently there are allowable exceptions, such as when those weapons are used to protect Piers Morgan, as was the case outside a gun store where Morgan was taping (one guard at the end says he’s employed by CNN):

Of course CNN employs armed guards. Somebody has to protect all those anti-gun hosts.

However, according to multiple sources, the armed men were actually British agents under secret orders to take Morgan out if he were to try to go back to England.

CNN’s Piers Morgan, big time gun control advocate, broadcast a show from Texas to figure out why people like guns so much.

Morgan has asked in the past “why does anybody need to own an assault rifle?” He’s also said the only people who own weapons like the AR-15 are those who want to commit mass murder. But apparently there are allowable exceptions, such as when those weapons are used to protect Piers Morgan, as was the case outside a gun store where Morgan was taping (one guard at the end says he’s employed by CNN):

Of course CNN employs armed guards. Somebody has to protect all those anti-gun hosts.

However, according to multiple sources, the armed men were actually British agents under secret orders to take Morgan out if he were to try to go back to England.

Go straight to Post

County Sheriff: Power To Protect

by Chuck Baldwin on Thursday, January 24th, 2013

This is article 360 of 583 in the topic Gun Rights

The local FOX affiliate in Salt Lake City, Utah, has reported that the Utah Sheriff’s Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Barack Obama regarding any potential federal laws that would restrict the citizens of the State of Utah from practicing their Second Amendment rights. The letter was signed by every sheriff in the State of Utah except one. The letter reads in part:

“With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.”

The letter also states: “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

In addition, Utah Representative Brian Greene, R-Pleasant Grove, has introduced legislation that asserts State power over federal power regarding gun control. Rep. Greene’s bill “would go so far as to allow local police the authority to arrest federal agents should they try to seize any firearms.”

The report added: “‘Acting upon those will be a third-degree felony in this state, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine,’ Greene said.”

See the report at:

http://fox13now.com/2013/01/19/utah-sheriffs-take-stance-on-gun-control/

Tim Mueller, the sheriff of Linn County, Oregon, has also written the White House a similar letter. Mueller’s letter said in part, “Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies,” adding, “Nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, OR.”

Read the report and Sheriff Mueller’s letter at:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/second-sheriff-refuses-to-enforce-gun-confiscation.html

Several sheriffs in the State of Oregon have followed Sheriff Mueller’s example and issued similar statements: Sheriff Jim Hensley of Crook County, Sheriff Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Sheriff Craig Zanni of Coos County, and Sheriff John Hanlin of Douglas County.

In fact, sheriffs from all over America have begun taking similar stands. One of the first was Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky. Also add Pine County, Minnesota, Sheriff Robin Cole.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Would States Secede to Protect Their Citizens?

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

This is article 131 of 185 in the topic US Constitution

Many, if not most, Americans are unaware that the nation is composed of separate republics with their own constitutions. They are, of course, the individual states.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved respectively, or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment

By tying compliance with federal laws and regulation to receiving funds, the states have been coerced to accept programs that limit freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and the passage of Obamacare is but one example. Some twenty states have refused to set up the mandated insurance exchanges. Obamacare grants the government complete control over the provision of medical care that every American has formerly received from the free market health system that it destroyed. It gives the federal government control over our lives in terms of who lives or dies.

As noted on the website of the Tenth Amendment Center: “The Founding Fathers has good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.”

“The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.”

“Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag ‘Anti-Federalists.’”

“The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.”

Their worst fears are coming true as the nation heads into 2013. In just four years, the Obama administration, through its profligate borrowing and spending, has brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse and, as we have seen, the refusal of the President to negotiate anything than the current Band-Aid to avoid the “fiscal cliff” for another two months, has brought the nation to a point where the collapse of the U.S. dollar is not just imminent, but likely.

When that occurs the individual states may elect to secede in order to avoid having the federal government nationalize their National Guard units or take control of their state police to enforce whatever measures it might take to control the population. Individual state law enforcement authorities in cities and towns would need similar protection. Reportedly, massive amounts of funding have been directed to them to ensure their cooperation.

It would be a means to protect their citizens insofar as state constitutions grant the same rights as found in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It would not surprise me to see Texas lead the way. Others would follow.

Click to continue reading “Would States Secede to Protect Their Citizens?”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin