12-Year-Old Girl Sends a Letter to Every Legislator Urging Them to Stop Abortion

April 21, 2014 by Liberty Pike

A week ago, I told you about Brenn, a 15-year old who spends her free time praying outside her local Planned Parenthood clinic (a clinic that was just shuttered last week, in part due to her efforts!).

Now I want to tell you about Samantha. She is 12 now, but she was 11 when she figured out what part she could play to help stop abortion in America.

She decided she should start writing letters to her state’s Congress. She sent out 165 letters, one for every senator and representative. In it, she pleaded with the congressional members to make abortion illegal, to return America to truly “one nation under God,” abiding by His commandment not to kill. She received 13 responses to her handwritten letter which is attached below.

She closed her letter by saying, “I might be small, but I can make a big difference if I try.”

This year, she decided to write again, this time explaining the mother’s side of an abortion to the lawmakers. She imaginatively and accurately (according to my dear friends at Silent No More who are post-abortive) described an abortion experience from the mom’s perspective.

She again closed her letter by saying, “I might be small but I can make a difference if I try.”

Samantha has received a response from Texas Right to Life and also House Member Van Taylor who wants her to come meet with him to discuss ways they can both make a difference for life in Texas.

Her mom Tabbatha, who told LifeNews about her daughter’s efforts, says, “As her mother, I am incredibly proud of her desire to get involved, her dedication at such a young age to make a change, and her courage to take a stand for what she believes is right.”

We should all be inspired by Samantha’s courageous efforts to make a difference, a big one, even though she “might be small.” We look forward to hearing the results of Samantha’s second letter.

If you are a young person, the pro-life movement needs your strength and energy more than ever before! You too can mail letters, or even schedule appointments to lobby your state’s legislators. You also can start a pro-life club in your school which will directly impact the next generation of women and men who might otherwise seek an abortion. Please visit Students for Life for help in starting your club. http://studentsforlife.org/

In the words of Samantha, “We might be small, but we can make a big difference if we try.”


Baby grabs finger FINAL

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SCOTUS Affirmative Action No Longer Needed – Uphold Voters Decision

“courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”
22 Apr 2014 by Ken Klukowski

On Apr. 22 in Schuette v. BAMN, the Supreme Court of the United States held 6-to-2 that a Michigan constitutional amendment ending racial preferences in many aspects of state government does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War. One of its clauses forbids any state from denying any person “equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the central purpose of that clause is to end racially discriminatory state laws.

In 2003, the Supreme Court allowed certain racial preferences to continue nationwide in two 5-to-4 decisions concerning admissions at the University of Michigan. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the deciding vote in both cases, one of which allowed (but did not require) “reverse” racial discrimination to remedy past discrimination.

Following that decision, in 2006, Michiganders adopted Proposal 2 by a margin of 58–42. It amended the Michigan Constitution to end racial preferences in a wide array of government actions and programs, including college admissions.

The Supreme Court in Schuette upheld this provision today. There was no majority opinion for the Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the lead opinion for the plurality, which will be the one carrying the force of law for the nation. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Kennedy writes in this case:

… is not about the constitutionality, or the merits, of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education… that principle is not challenged. The question here concerns not the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the States may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.

… our federal structure permits innovation and experimentation and enables greater citizen involvement in democratic processes. While this case arises in Michigan, the decision by the State’s voters reflects in part the national dialogue regarding the wisdom and practicality of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.

In its more liberal years in the 1960s and 70s, the Supreme Court opened the door to racial preferences. As part of this, in 1969, it began developing the political process doctrine, which by 1982 the Court said allows courts to act where a state’s action poses a risk “of causing specific injuries on account of race,” without any discriminatory intent and when the government is not officially or explicitly discriminating.

Kennedy wrote that the Court’s “broad language” in 1982 “went well beyond the analysis needed to resolve [that] case.” A broad reading of that case subjects to strict judicial scrutiny “any that action [that] makes it more difficult for certain racial minorities … to achieve legislation that is in their interest.”

Kennedy concluded “that reading must be rejected,” noting it has “no principled limitation and raises serious questions” about many other Supreme Court precedents. Such a broad rule “would contradict central equal protection principles.” In shunning “racial stereotypes,” he noted that “the Court has rejected the assumption that members of the same ethnic group—regardless of age, education, economic status, or the community in which they live—think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls.”

Instead, “Government action that classifies individuals on the basis of race is inherently suspect and carries the danger of perpetuating the very racial divisions the polity seeks to transcend.” Courts delving into such ventures “would result in … inquiries and categories dependent upon demeaning stereotypes.” This would lead to any number “of matters be[ing] foreclosed from voter review or participation.”

Kennedy added that whether racial preferences are constitutional at all was something “not at issue here.” Instead the Court today holds “courts may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow.”

“By approving Proposal 2 … Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power,” Kennedy wrote. Citizens can “debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times and the course of a nation that must strive always to make freedom ever greater and more secure.”

Applying this in the context of race, it “is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds. The process of public discourse and political debate should not be foreclosed even if there is a risk that during a public campaign there will be those, on both sides, who seek to use racial division and discord to their own political advantage. An informed public can, and must, rise above this.”

Kennedy was careful to note, “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” On that point, he insists, “There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court’s precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commits this policy determination to the voters.” Although racial preferences may lead to rancorous debate, “Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg. (Justice Kagan was recused from this case.) Sotomayor wrote, “Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.’” She wrote that the majority’s approach today would “wish away, rather than confront,” racial inequality.

Roberts wrote a concurring opinion specifically to rebut Sotomayor: “The dissent devotes 11 pages to expounding its own policy preferences in favor of taking race into account in college admissions, while nonetheless concluding it does not mean to suggest that the virtues of adopting race-sensitive admissions policies should inform the legal question before the Court.” Roberts found fault with Sotomayor’s argument. He concluded, “People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.”

Justice Stephen Breyer—a liberal—provided the sixth vote to uphold Michigan’s provision. He did so on different grounds, writing that the political process doctrine is not violated here because minority participation in the political process is not impaired by Michigan’s amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the Court’s judgment upholding Proposition 2, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Scalia began:

It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself. The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception. It is precisely this understanding—the correct understanding—of the federal Equal Protection Clause that the people of the State of Michigan have adopted for their own fundamental law. By adopting it, they did not simultaneously offend it.

Scalia continued, “Even taking this Court’s sorry line of race-based-admissions cases as a given, I find the question presented only slightly less strange: Does the Equal Protection Clause forbid a State from banning a practice that the Clause barely—and only provisionally—permits?” Scalia noted that the Court has repeatedly instructed government to do everything possible to implement race-neutral policies. “Respondents seem to think this admonition was merely in jest,” he says.

Scalia also cited one of Thomas’ previous opinions and commented, “Never mind that it is hotly disputed whether the practice of race-based admissions is ever in a racial minority’s interest.” He further noted that Supreme Court precedent requires that if any policy was deliberately designed to benefit minorities, “we would hold the policy unconstitutional.”

All that said, Scalia and Thomas noted that this case turns on the political process doctrine. Discussing the 1969 and 1982 cases, they asserted those cases are “contrary to our traditional equal-protection jurisprudence [and] should be overruled.” The doctrine begins by having courts take a “scattershot” approach to determining if there is a “racial issue,” and if so, “involves judges in the dirty business of dividing the Nation into racial blocs.” Scalia and Thomas opined, “No good can come of such random judicial musing.”

They criticized the doctrine’s underlying concepts, that the Equal Protection Clause “protects particular groups” at the expense of others. To the contrary, they insisted, the relevant provisions in “the Constitution protects persons, not groups.”

This case represents a significant step toward the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, one that conservatives will cheer and that President Barack Obama will surely criticize. How much further the current membership of the Supreme Court is willing to go is anyone’s guess.

It would seem that Courts who have overturned other Voter Decisions, as in Same Sex Marriage Referendums, should be asked to review their findings in light of this Ruling.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Texas AG Abbott to BLM: Stay Out Of Texas – Don’t Mess With Texas! & Sen Heller v Sen Reid

April 22, 2014 by Bob Price

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.”

As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”

In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:

1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.

2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.

3.Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.

4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.

5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.

“The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.”

“What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.”

As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.”

Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.”

Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.”

At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.”

The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.”

Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.”

Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”

The Letter to BLM

Follow Bob Price on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX


Sen Dean Heller (R) VS Sen Harry Reid (D). Sen Heller says Patriots. Sen Reid says Domestic Terrorists.
Sen Heller calls for Senate Hearings, no response from Sen Reid who is behind the BLM land grab

Related previous posts on this blog






















Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO MB ‘Obama eligibility source’ (Obama DNA) challenges U.K. gov’t – part two

Pressing for classified info to back extraordinary claims
April 21, 2014 by Jerome R. Corsi

This is the second of three articles examining the criminal defense planned by British barrister Michael Shrimpton on national security charges in a London jury trial scheduled to begin Nov. 10. – part one link below.

LONDON – Several British military intelligence sources with a long track record say they are prepared to testify in the trial of a barrister charged with allegedly making false claims to British government officials that a terrorist nuclear attack was under way during the 2012 Olympics in London.

As WND reported, Michael Shrimpton, who faces a Nov. 10 trial, also appears in a 2008 video that began re-circulating earlier this year on the Internet in which he claims to have been privy to shocking intelligence information on Obama’s origins. Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother. He intends to subpoena from the CIA and British intelligence any records either agency may have on Obama’s DNA.

Michael Shrimpton – Obama born in Mombasa Kenya – British Intelligence have recorded phone call

After a March 17 hearing in the London case, WND met in the U.K. with British intelligence experts who were asked to evaluate Shrimpton and his defense.

Evaluating the case

Christopher Monckton, a former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a WND columnist, said he believes Shrimpton was acting in good faith when he made the terror-threat report to the British government.

“My best guess is that the government will eventually see the sense in dropping the criminal prosecution against Shrimpton, since it is quite clear from my own earlier discussions with Shrimpton about this episode that he genuinely believed that terrorists had obtained a redundant German submarine and were planning to sail it up the Thames and blow up the Olympics with a nuclear weapon,” Monckton said in an interview with WND in London.

Glaring inconsistencies, blackouts and outright fabrications in Barack Obama’s life narrative have generated widespread doubts about his presidential eligibility — Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?” sets the record straight.

“It was entirely clear from my discussions with Michael that he was trying to do the right thing, and the authorities do not, in the end, want to deter people from making reports that might prevent mass murder on a horrific scale,” Monckton said.

After reviewing court filings Shrimpton had prepared in his defense, Monckton concluded Shrimpton has legitimate contacts in the military intelligence community. Monckton considers it possible that at trial Shrimpton could subpoena classified documents and expert testimony that would support his various claims.

“However, it is also possible that the government may be stupid enough to try to proceed with the case,” he cautioned.

Particularly problematic for the prosecution, according to Monckton, could be Shrimpton’s charges that the CIA conducted DNA tests on Barack Obama in 2008 that Shrimpton alleges prove Ann Dunham was not Obama’s natural mother.

“If Shrimpton were to be shown a CIA document indicating that a DNA test had been done on Mr. Obama, there would be some stringent conditions of confidentiality,” Monckton said.

“Shrimpton would probably not be allowed to have a copy of the document, but would be required to read it in the presence of an agent.”

British law

Monckton stressed that Shrimpton will not have to prove at trial that he was precisely correct in every aspect of his reporting to the government of a perceived threat. But he will have to establish that he has legitimate intelligence sources. Also, his charges, while appearing initially outrageous to many, cannot be dismissed without serious investigation, Monckton said.

In the final analysis, if Shrimpton can establish his competence in the intelligence field and present reason to believe his information was true, then it is hard to see how the government can convict Shrimpton.

That Shrimpton in his various writings makes various claims that are later shown to have been factually incorrect will not be sufficient to establish his guilt under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, a statute written to punish those who deliberately carry out hoaxes.

Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, written to apply to bomb hoaxes, reads as follows:

“A person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever is guilty of an offence.”

A person convicted of a criminal offense under the hoax law in Crown Court is subject to up to seven years in prison.

The law, however, carries a high threshold for establishing guilt, as noted by British legal commentator Allen Green in TheLawyer.com blog.

Green said the Crown “would have to discharge a high burden of evidential proof to convict under this offence: They have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to induce in another person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present.”

“Unless the prosecution can show this then the defendant cannot be convicted,” he said.

Prosecuted for a tweet

Perhaps the most famous case that could have been tried under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 was a bomb threat posted on Twitter on Jan. 10, 2010, by Paul John Chambers. The tweet was sent in frustration that Robin Hood Airport near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, was closed due to a snowstorm.

Chambers had hoped to fly to Belfast, Ireland, to meet a girlfriend he had met on Twitter. He tweeted: “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your sh** together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

As the case developed, Chambers was found guilty of a misdemeanor under Section 127(1) of the Communications Act of 2003 that prohibits sending “by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

In May 2010, Chambers was convicted by district judge Jonathan Bennett of the Doncaster magistrates court and fined 1,000 British pounds. However, the conviction was overturned on appeal two years later.

The London Guardian reported the Crown Prosecution Service was criticized by various members of Parliament for having wasted public money on a joke and putting Chambers, aged 27 at the time of his appeal, through two and a half years of serious stress.

How realistic are threats of nuclear terrorism?

On March 23, while WND was in London, the U.K.’s Mirror newspaper published an article titled “Al-Qaida target Premier League matches and sporting events attended by Queen in chilling online magazine.”

The article explained recent online postings by al-Qaida operatives have heightened security concerns that a wave of British “lone wolf” jihadists fresh from battlegrounds in Syria may be plotting murderous terrorist attacks on horse races watched by the Queen as well as prominent soccer games and tennis matches.

“Security surrounding the monarch was tonight stepped up after al-Qaida chiefs urged terrorists to blow up sports events she is most likely to go and see,” the Mirror reported.

The British paper said an article by the English-language online magazine ‘Inspire,’ produced by the terror group, gives tips on car bombing and disguises, and identifies potential high-profile targets around the globe.

The Inspire article, by an author calling himself the AQ Chef, says: “In the beginning of summer we have Cheltenham and [at] the end of the summer we have Epsom, whereby horse races are attended by thousands from around the kingdom including the Queen.”

Accompanying the article in the Mirror was a comment by Col. Richard Kemp, former director of international terrorist intelligence for the Investigative Intelligence Agency COBRA

“Major sporting events have long been on al-Qaida’s list of targets,” Kemp wrote.

“Huge crowds in packed stadiums can make security checks very difficult and lead to mass casualties. When televised live they give the terrorists what they want – footage that will be beamed around the world. Although Inspire’s authors know getting the chance of getting near the Queen are remote, they realize attacking a venue where she is present will be huge news.”

Two days later, President Obama, while attending the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague, Netherlands, said at a news conference that he was more worried about a terrorist nuclear weapon being detonated in Manhattan than he was concerned about Russian intentions in Ukraine.

“So my response then continues to be what I believe today, which is: Russia’s actions are a problem, but they don’t pose the number one national security threat to the United States,” Obama said. “I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.”

While the reports don’t confirm Shrimpton’s specific accusations, they indicate a terrorist nuclear attack on London during the Olympics was a legitimate security concern.

In the 2005 WND-published book “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians,” the author of this article devoted the largest part of a chapter to explaining how a terrorist group could smuggle an improvised nuclear device into New York City and detonate it with catastrophic consequences.

‘I was in the building myself’

Outside London, WND was introduced by Shrimpton to a British military intelligence expert who is listed as a prosecution witness in Shrimpton’s trial.

The credentials of the source, who asked not to be identified, have been verified by WND, stretching back to Germany in the pre-World War II era.

The source said the judge in Shrimpton’s trial will have to provide an opportunity for testimony in closed session if he is to be questioned about classified intelligence information he believes would be helpful to Shrimpton’s case.

He told WND that he believed Shrimpton was correct in fearing a terrorist nuclear attack was being planned to take place during the 2012 Olympics in London. However, he begged off affirming the nuclear weapon in question was stolen from the submerged Russian submarine Kursk.

He also backed up a further claim Shrimpton made that a secret German intelligence operation known as the Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst, or German Defense Service, known as DVD, exists and operates in buildings located close to the site of the former Nazi concentration camp in Dachau, Germany.

“I have been in the DVD headquarters building myself, and I am willing to so testify under oath in court,” the intelligence source told WND.

Subsequent to the meeting, Shrimpton addressed a March 24 email to the Crown Prosecution Service in which he wrote:

This is to advise you as a courtesy that (name deleted) was gracious enough to accept a luncheon invitation from Dr. Corsi and myself over the weekend. He is not of course on the ‘no contact’ list. The venue was (location deleted).

During the luncheon (name deleted) was gracious enough to confirm in Dr. Corsi’s presence and hearing that a nuclear warhead HAD been inserted into London in 2012, i.e. that my intelligence briefing to the Secretary of State, qualified as it was, was essentially accurate. Commodore English has already confirmed of course in his witness statement that the DVD exists and that he has visited its HQ in Dachau.

In my opinion these statements fairly reflect the state of opinion amongst senior members of the Intelligence Community.

The CPS did not respond to WND inquiries asking whether the prosecution intended to call source to testify.

Confidential sources

Over the course of 10 days in the U.K., WND witnessed repeated instances in which credible military intelligence agents telephoned Shrimpton to give him inside information regarding current developments in British politics and in matters of foreign affairs.

“The great problem in what I do,” Shrimpton explained, “is that intelligence sources provide me with information on the condition I use them as background sources only, keeping their names out of the press.

“If I violate this trust, I risk the informant might deny my report while cutting me off from any further information the source might otherwise have been willing to leak to the public through me.”

Intelligence experts WND interviewed were unanimous that Shrimpton at trial would have to find a way to disclose key sources to the judge and jury.

During the hearing in Judge McCreath’s court on March 17, Shrimpton read a list of witnesses he wished to call in his defense, without identifying his reasons for selecting each one.

In doing so, Shrimpton made McCreath aware that provisions may have to be made at trial to examine classified documents Shrimpton planned to subpoena and to take the testimony of credible military intelligence experts with top-secret information behind closed doors.

In the approximately 20 minutes Shrimpton took to make this pleading to the court, McCreath in each instance instructed Shrimpton to put his request in writing, promising a ruling on the requests “at the appropriate time.”


Related previous posts on this blog


http://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/mb-obamas-origins-resurface-at-intel-experts-trial/ (Part One)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Russia has ‘days, not weeks’ to follow accord & Russians inspect US nuke facilities & How Obama Lost Ukraine

Obama There Will Be Costs Ukraine
Are we Mad At Russia or not for pulling the covers off the Soros/Obama/Nuland/Kerry Coup in Keiv?. This time we sent Uncle Joe.
-How Obama’s White House Lost Ukraine in a Few Stupid Steps
-CIA Will Soon Roll Out Death Squads to Deal With Activists in Eastern Ukraine?
Apr. 21, 2014 By Nedra Pickler and Julie Pace

KIEV, UKRAINE Russia has “days, not weeks” to abide by an international accord aimed at stemming the crisis in Ukraine, the top U.S. diplomat in Kiev warned Monday as Vice President Joe Biden launched a high-profile show of support for the pro-Western Ukrainian government. Russia in turn accused authorities in Kiev of flagrantly violating the pact and declared their actions would not stand.

Biden, the highest-ranking American official to visit Ukraine during its conflict with Russia, planned to meet with government officials in the capital of Kiev on Tuesday. The vice president also planned to announce new technical support to help the fledgling government with energy and economic reforms.

Biden’s trip comes days after the U.S., Russia, Ukraine and Europe signed an agreement in Geneva calling for Moscow to use its influence to get pro-Russian forces to leave the numerous government buildings they now occupy in cites throughout eastern Ukraine. The U.S. asserted on Monday that publicly available photographs from Twitter and other media show that some of the troops in eastern Ukraine are Russian special forces, and the U.S. said the photos support its case that Moscow is using its military to stir unrest in Ukraine.

There was no way to immediately verify the photographs, which were either taken from the Internet or given to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last week by Ukraine diplomats.

In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected charges that Moscow was behind the troubles in eastern Ukraine and failing to live up to the Geneva agreement.

“Before putting forth ultimatums to us, demanding fulfillment of something within two-three days or otherwise be threatened with sanctions, we would urgently call on our American partners to fully recognize responsibility for those whom they brought to power and whom they are trying to shield, closing their eyes to the outrages created by this regime and by the fighters on whom this regime leans,” Lavrov told a news conference.

Words and actions by Ukrainian leaders are “absolutely unacceptable,” he declared.

The U.S. has warned that it will quickly order new economic sanctions on Russian officials and entities if Moscow doesn’t follow through on the provisions in last week’s accord. Gregory Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said it was still too early to tell whether the deal would succeed, but he added, “The ball is really in Moscow’s court in terms of whether they’re going to take this diplomatic off-ramp.”

“There needs to be concrete results,” Pyatt told reporters in Kiev. He said the U.S. would make a decision on whether the agreement is working in “days, not weeks.”

While last week’s agreement offered a glimmer of hope that the crisis in Ukraine could be resolved peacefully, the accord appears to be fragile at best. The armed pro-Russia groups have refused to leave their occupying positions in eastern Ukraine until the country’s acting government resigns. And there was a burst of violence Sunday, with three people killed during a shootout at a checkpoint that was manned by pro-Russian troops.

Ukrainian and Russian officials each blamed the other for instigating the attack. The White House said it was still trying to determine who was responsible and had no independent verification of what transpired.

“Overall, we are concerned about the situation there, and we urge paramilitary groups throughout the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine to lay down their weapons and depart the buildings that they have occupied, as was called for in the accord signed in Geneva last week,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Even as officials sorted through this latest disturbance, the State Department sought to build a public case against Russia for the wider unrest. The photo images released Monday show militants brandishing Russian weapons and wearing uniforms similar to those worn by Russian forces. The militants look similar to the forces that moved into Crimea in March, ahead of a referendum there that resulted in the peninsula being annexed by Russia.

Secretary of State John Kerry and Lavrov spoke by telephone Monday but appeared to break little new ground. Russia’s foreign ministry said Lavrov told Kerry that the Ukrainian government was unable and unwilling to stop what the Russians call extremists in eastern Ukraine.

Biden planned to meet Tuesday with government leaders who took over after pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in February following months of protests. He will speak with Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleksandr Turchynov, the acting Ukrainian prime minister and president. The vice president is also scheduled to meet with legislators from across the country and democracy activists before returning to Washington Tuesday night.

He held a series of meetings Monday with U.S. Embassy officials, members of Congress also in Kiev for an update on the crisis and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s chief monitor in Ukraine.

A senior administration official told reporters onboard Air Force Two en route to Kiev that Biden planned to announce new technical support to the Ukrainian government to implement energy and economic reforms. The official, speaking on a condition of anonymity to allow Biden to publicly announce any agreements, said the vice president also will follow up on recent U.S. commitments of non-lethal security assistance and discuss what more Washington can offer to help.

Biden also planned to discuss preparations for next month’s Ukrainian presidential election and the latest developments in eastern Ukraine, where insurgents are accusing leaders in Kiev of aiming to suppress the country’s Russian speakers in the region.

The Obama administration official told reporters that the assistance Biden will announce includes technical expertise to increase production and boost energy efficiency to reduce reliance on oil imports from Russia. The economic help includes advice to make sure international funding is allocated effectively and that all parts of the country are benefiting.

Julie Pace reported from Washington. AP National Security Writer Lara Jakes in Washington and AP writer Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed to this report.


Russians inspect Montana nuclear launch facilities
April 21, 2014 By Matt Volz

HELENA, MONT. — Russian nuclear inspectors visited the U.S. amid heightened tensions between the two nations to verify that 18 nuclear missile launch facilities had been demolished as part of a 2011 arms control treaty, Air Force officials said Monday.

The April 9 inspection — the first of its kind at Montana’s Malmstrom Air Force Base, according to treaty compliance chief Richard Bialczak — went ahead despite the strain between the two nuclear powers over Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden was in Ukraine on Wednesday to send a high-level signal of Washington’s support for Kiev. The U.S. has threatened additional sanctions against Russia if it does not heed an international agreement meant to de-escalate tensions.

Russia is allowed eight inspections of U.S. facilities each year under New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is designed to reduce the number of deployed nuclear missiles by 2018.

Malmstrom, which is responsible for a third of the nation’s 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, received notice of the inspection the day before the Russian teams and their escorts from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency arrived.

The Russian inspection teams spent 12 hours traveling to sites across central Montana to confirm that each silo’s launch doors had been removed and their launcher tubes filled with earth and gravel, Malmstrom Air Force base officials said in a statement.

“Overall, we felt the process went smoothly,” said Col. Marne Deranger, the vice commander of Malmstrom’s 341st Missile Wing.

The demolished launch facilities were operated by the 564th Missile Squadron, which was deactivated in 2008. Three other missile squadrons are responsible for the 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles at Malmstrom.

The remaining Minuteman III missiles are located at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming.

The Russian inspectors could return to view 16 additional launch facilities at Malmstrom that were demolished after the inspectors departed, Air Force officials said. Eventually, all 50 of the 546th squadron’s former launch facilities will be demolished.

The U.S.-Russia treaty limits the number of strategic nuclear weapons each country can deploy to 700 by 2018. The Pentagon announced earlier this month it would keep all 450 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles but remove 50 missiles from their launch silos to comply with the treaty.


How Obama’s White House Lost Ukraine in a Few Stupid Steps
April 21, 2014 By Patrick Smith

No one wants to say so, but the Obama administration has backed the wrong horse in Ukraine, and the misguided wager is a big loss. It is hardly the president’s first failure on the foreign side, but it may prove the costliest of his many to date.

For a while it was possible to pretend, just barely, that supporting the coup against Viktor Yanukovych, the elected president hounded into exile in February, would prove a sound judgment. Obama always came across as a welterweight in the ring with Vladimir Putin, simply not up to the Russian leader’s command of all available moves. But one could imagine Secretary of State Kerry clearing an exit corridor with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

For a while it looked as though the provisional government in Kiev might prove worthy of bailout funds from the U.S., the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund, despite the new regime’s legitimacy problems. Putin took (back) Crimea and prompted little more than impotent bleating, true. But there was hope that this new bunch could hold together what remained of the nation at least until the elections scheduled for May 25.

It is all by the boards now. Regardless of how you may construe these past six months in Ukraine, we have just watched a failed effort to wrest the nation straight out of Russia’s sphere of influence and insert it into the West’s. It is now easy to conclude that the second-term Obama White House has not one foreign policy success to its credit and none in prospect. (The first term looks little better, for that matter.)

Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Mideast, Syria, China, and probably Iran in coming months: Nothing ad hominem here, but figuratively speaking, the failure-prone Kerry has crashed more helicopters in the desert than Jimmy Carter ever ordered airborne.

Success in Ukraine was never in the cards for this administration. But it slipped beyond all grasp late last week, when the provisionals ordered a military operation to quell dissent in the numerous eastern cities where pro–Russian sentiment tends to be strong. Touching and pathetic all at once, an account of the result is worth reading simply as a reality check.

There is no coming back when your soldiers and security forces not only refuse orders once in the east, but volunteer their ammunition, guns, tanks, artillery, and personnel carriers to the locals, saying they have no stomach for the mission. Readers may disagree, but I will never take the provisionals in Kiev as other than the opportunistic imposters I took them to be from the first. The first conclusion here: Kiev should get no money from anyone until a proper government is elected to office.

Next came the agreement Washington, the E.U., Moscow, and the provisionals negotiated in Geneva last Thursday. Instantly it appeared to make even less difference than the little it was first expected to.

Washington immediately complained that Russia refused to call off its operatives in the east, who are supposedly to blame for all the unrest. Three big problems here.

– Russia’s role is not completely clear, but when there are 40,000 Russian troops stationed around the Eastern perimeter of Ukraine, it gives insurgents a lot of confidence.

– It stretches credibility to suggest that the residents of eastern Ukraine are empty-headed such that Moscow has them all playing the same music without any thought of their own

-Three, a firefight Sunday at a roadblock in the east almost certainly involved paramilitaries in support of the provisionals. Moscow asserted that they were from Right Sektor, the neo-fascists who rammed the provisionals into power three months back. It is a sad measure of Kiev’s credibility, but in any detached judgment the Russians’ account cannot be dismissed. If true, it took Kiev three days to breach the Geneva agreement.

Obama took an extraordinary step Saturday, and again there seems no turning back from it. As The New York Times reported, the president has just declared Cold War II, having concluded that there is no working with Putin even if a solution in Ukraine develops.

The project is to “ignore the master of the Kremlin, minimize the disruption Putin can cause,” and “effectively make Russia a pariah state.” All of this is advanced as position-of-strength imagery and strategy.

It can be read as such only by the gullible. Turn this around and Obama has just announced a pout that amounts to his surrender to a statesman who has boxed his ears in every round.

Apart from this, it is compounding error to bring back the confrontation at the Cold War’s core. Just as wrong is NATO’s new plan to push its presence as close to Russia’s frontiers as it can.

Are we now watching the start of another generation of needless tension and division between Europe and its easterly neighbor? It is the obvious risk as of this past weekend, and it is already evident the economic costs will be formidable: wasteful military and security spending, redundant infrastructure in the hundreds of billions of dollars, opportunity costs that simply cannot be calculated.

Most immediately, Washington and the European allies ought to be reversing course and turning Ukraine into a field of cooperation with Russia by way of a commonly supported bailout devoid of geopolitical motivation. This kind of thinking is now antique idealism, of course—something to hang in a museum.

A decade and a half into a new century and the place of foreign policy has already shifted. A good one is essential to any nation’s well-being in this new era. As things stand now, Ukraine is due to show us the damage a bad one can do.


CIA Will Soon Roll Out Death Squads to Deal With Activists in Eastern Ukraine?


Related previous posts on this blog
















































Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unsafe Spaces: Islamist Mosques & Murder and Crucify For Refusal To Convert To Islam

Syria Crucify two
-Muslim Murders a Christian Boy for Refusing to Convert to Islam
-Syria: Jihadists Crucify 2 Christian Youths Who Refuse to Convert to Islam
April 21, 2014 By Frank Gaffney Jr.

The contempt that America’s enemies have for the United States these days is palpable. The most obvious current example is Vladimir Putin’s disdain for President Obama, whom he regards as little more than a speed-bump on the road to his conquest of Ukraine and perhaps other nations in what the Kremlin calls Russia’s “near-abroad.”

Not content with snatching Crimea and preparing reprises elsewhere, Putin has a jet buzz one of our ships in the Black Sea for ninety minutes then launches a new multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile. By contrast, Team Obama is busily dismantling what’s left of our navy and strategic forces.

Then there’s the back of the hand treatment China showed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel when, during his recent visit to the People’s Republic, the Pentagon chief had the temerity to lecture his hosts about how to behave internationally. They took him to see their just-refurbished aircraft carrier and unveiled a new fighter aircraft to operate from it. The best Hagel could do was announce that the U.S. was going to respond to Beijing’s increasing belligerence in the region by sending there a grand total of two more anti-missile destroyers–by 2017.

A more subtle, but no less in-your-face kind of contempt has just been served up by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other Islamists in this country.

To mark the occasion of the first anniversary of two of their fellow jihadists’ murderous attack at the Boston Marathon, the leaders of several Brotherhood fronts have launched something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” They evidently think we are so stupid, or at least now so submissive, that they can try to put mosques off-limits to law enforcement. This is all the more astounding since we know that the perpetrators of the terrorism of a year ago used the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge to become versed in the ways of the supremacist Islamist doctrine known as shariah and the jihad it commands.

A chief proponent of this Safe Spaces gambit is Salam al-Marayati, the president of an Islamist influence operation out of California with extensive access to the Obama administration, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In an opinion piece posted by altmuslim blog on March 28, al-Marayati actually makes plain the true purpose of his Safe Spaces Initiative.

Notwithstanding the portrayal of this proposal as a means of preventing radicalization in mosques, in the words of al-Marayati: “Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque. In essence, we want to enhance both a spiritual safety and public safety.” (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the latest announcement by William Bratton–the former police commissioner recently re-appointed by New York’s new, Islamist-friendly mayor, Bill de Blasio–would sure seem to justify the Brothers’ low regard for us. As the New York Times reported today “The New York Police Department has abandoned a secretive program that dispatched plainclothes detectives into Muslim neighborhoods….Plainclothes detectives looked for ‘hot spots’ of radicalization that might give the police an early warning about terrorist plots.”

The Times quoted the NYPD’s chief spokesman, Stephen Davis, who made clear the completeness of the department’s submission to the Islamists who style themselves as the “leaders” and “representatives” of all Muslim Americans: “‘Understanding certain local demographics can be a useful factor when assessing the threat information that comes into New York City virtually on a daily basis,” Mr. Davis said. “In the future, we will gather that information, if necessary, through direct contact between the police precincts and the representatives of the communities they serve.”

I discussed the folly of making mosques surveillance-free zones in an interview on Secure Freedom Radio this evening with former federal prosecutor and best-selling author Andrew C. McCarthy. Here’s part of our conversation (for the entire podcast, click here):

FRANK GAFFNEY: The Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who’s a Muslim Brother fellow-traveller jihadist type, has a rather poetic turn of phrase for it. He says, “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks, and the faithful our army.” And, Andy, this gives rise to a concern that I’m sure you share about an initiative that some of these Muslim Brotherhood types, notably Mohamed Magid, the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America–and, oh, by the way, a frequent visitor at the Obama White House and prominent source of counsel to him and others in his Administration–

ANDY MCCARTHY: And another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation.

FG: Indeed. These guys have cooked up something called the “Safe Spaces Initiative.” I wonder what you make of that idea, particularly as it seems their purpose is to, as one of them put it, “keep government informants…from violating the sanctity of the mosque.”

AM: Yeah, well, you know, it’s unfortunate that with this particular Justice Department and this Administration they’re probably pushing on an open door.

FG: It’s probably a wired game, let’s be honest. These guys have almost certainly got this rigged with the Justice Department.

AM: But the amazing thing is for all of Obama and Eric Holder’s caterwauling about, you know, how we’ve proved again and again that the civilian justice system is the best way to prosecute terrorism cases–well, why don’t they ever check into what was proved in those prosecutions that they like to tout around? Because if they open the transcripts…what they would find is that mosques were used as recruitment centers, they were used for conspiratorial conversations and agreements, they were used to house weapons, they were used to transfer weapons, and they really were used to light a fire under people who might have been fence-sitters but who were powerfully influenced by some of the imams, particularly the guy who I prosecuted in the 1990s, the Blind Sheikh.

It was in the mosques that [Omar Abdel-Rahman] did most of the damage that he did to the United States. So this is not something we speculate about, Frank. This is something that’s actually been proved in court, and proved again and again and again. So, if you’re going to say that a mosque needs to be a safe space, then what you’re really saying is we’ve taken willful blindness, which was a problem, and we’ve now codified it, so it’s not just willful blindness; it’s just mulish, absolute refusal to come to terms with what we’re up against.

FG: Yeah. And to speak to the other subject of your trilogy there, it is a formula for more of the grand jihad, not less. It is a certainty that you will find more Tsarnaev boys being recruited, or being trained, or being armed, or in other ways being enabled. It simply is mindboggling, Andy, and I think the American people couldn’t comprehend what’s going on here, or believe it if told it.

We can’t afford more of the sort of willful blindness that will give rise to more unsafe mosques and other places, and more jihad.





Muslim Murders a Christian Boy for Refusing to Convert to Islam
April 22, 2014 by Pamela Geller

These sharia horrors are not reported by the press. But I get scores of such stories every day. Every day, while being beaten with the libelous islamophobia canard.

The reason why government officials refuse to prosecute such crimes is because such murder is a religious imperative under Islamic law.

“Muslim Murders a Christian Boy for Refusing to Convert to Islam,” Pakistan Christian Post (thanks to Halal Pork Shop)
LAHORE, Pakistan: Haroon, alias Sunny, aged 22, was murdered by a Muslim colleague who shot him dead on April 16, 2014. He had recently started work at an Islamic Center in Lahore as a sweeper, where he worked alongside Muslim security guard Umer Farooq.

Farooq mocked Haroon’s Christian faith on a daily basis and forced him to embrace Islam. He started showing dreams to Haroon and told him that he was good looking and should embrace Islam. He also promised to him a life of luxury and marriage to a rich Muslim woman, but Haroon did not care about these things and refused to embrace Islam.

When Haroon told his father what was going on, he was advised to ignore Farooq. On April 16, 2014 Haroon went to work and Farooq again started a conversation about religion and began pressurizing him to embrace Islam. Haroon asked Farooq politely why he was so adamant for him to embrace Islam as he was not ready from his heart. He again clearly refused to convert, stating that he was a true follower of Jesus Christ. Farooq then became aggressive and opened fire on Haroon, with a bullet hitting him the head, killing him on the spot. He later started shouting that Haroon had attempted suicide.

The police took the security guard into custody immediately, but did not register an FIR because they wanted to convert the murder case into suicide. When the local Christians heard about the murder they came out of their houses and staged a protest in front of the police station – it was only then that they lodged an FIR.

Umer Farooq is currently in custody and his case is under investigation.

Nasir Saeed, Director CLAAS-UK, has condemned the killing.

He said that recently we have seen a report published by the MSP stating that 1000 Christian and Hindu girls are being forcibly converted to Islam, while there are also incidents where young boys and some men are also forced to convert to Islam, and if they refused they are killed and implicated in false cases.

Mr Saeed added: “The situation endures because of the government inactions. If people involved in such crimes are brought to justice, then it can act as a deterrent, but instead they are being encouraged by local religious leaders, Imams and Madrasahs.”

He said that the main reason for such crimes is growing religious intolerance and hate against minorities.

“The government must ban religious discussion and forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam must be considered a crime, otherwise minorities have no future in Pakistan. It is equally dangerous for the government as with the growing violation of human rights, Pakistan could be deprived of the benefits it is receiving from the international community, including GSP plus status.”

As has been the case in numerous other incidents, the police again dragged their heels in registering the case and only did so because Christians in the locality raised their voices in solidarity with Haroon.

Justice must be seen to be done and Farooq must be charged with murder, and punished for killing Haroon just because he refused to forsake his faith and bow to the pressure being placed on him.


Syria: Jihadists Crucify 2 Christian Youths Who Refuse to Convert to Islam
April 22, 2014 by Pamela Geller

This is the real story of what’s happening in Syria. The endless islamic war on non-Muslims. 1,400 years of it — and the civilized man is silent in the face of such unspeakable savagery.

A Croatian reader wrote this to me: “I am not sure if you have someone who can translate this from Croatian into English but this Catholic site is the only one reporting on what is happening in Syria vis-a-vis Islamists slaughter of Christians. This article talks of the crucifixion of two Christians youths who refused to convert to Islam at the point of the gun.”

Obama is backing these savages. Christians were safe under Assad. Obama is supporting the jihadists’ ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.

There is no English reportage of this horror – so here is Google translate from a Croatian Catholic site: (thanks to Pero)

Islamists have been crucified and the other gruesome ways of killing Christians who refused to renounce faith

In the occupied towns and villages , jihadists and extremist Muslim groups Christians offered Shahada ( a sentence that expresses the foundation of Islamic belief ) or death … They thought it was unacceptable to give up their faith and therefore suffered martyrdom , the nurse said Raghida , former head of the Christian school in Damascus Vatican Radio


Islam or death ! – Choice of the front of which are in the height of the conflict in Syria found many Syrian Christians , and about the atrocities that affected the Christian population of the Middle Eastern country , once known for the harmonious coexistence of Muslims and Christians , spoke sister Raghida , former head of the Christian school in Damascus .

– In the occupied towns and villages , jihadists and extremist Muslim groups Christians offered Shahada ( a sentence that expresses the foundation of Islamic belief ) or death … They thought it was unacceptable to give up their faith and therefore suffered martyrdom . But it was a scary inhuman torture and unspeakable violence – said in an interview with Vatican Radio ‘s Syrian nuns who currently works in France . Her description of the atrocities committed by extremists leaves without a word .

– For example , in Maalouli crucified two young men because they refused to pronounce martyrdom . They told them : ” So you want to die as a teacher in whom you trust ? Please choose: either to renounce ( faith ) or you will be crucified ! ” One of them was crucified in front of his father, who was subsequently killed . The Abri , an industrial zone on the outskirts of Damascus , just as they entered the city they started killing men, women , children . After the massacre , played football their heads . And when it came to pregnant women , were pulled their children and hung them on the tree umbilical cord .

These horrors , despite calls to stay by the head of the Christian Churches , especially the Pope Francis , pushed the nearly two-thirds of Christians from Syria , says sister Raghida , adding that those who remained generally do not have the money to go or they were denied visas , as as is the case with her family .

Nevertheless, the sister Raghidu , as well as for the remaining Syrian Christians , there are no words like despair or hopelessness !


Islam in USA CAIR

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jeb Bush Paid Director of Pro-ObamaCare ‘Health Care’ Company

21 Apr 2014 by Tony Lee

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wanted to cash out after he left office, but those business entanglements may hurt him if he chooses to run for the GOP nomination in a party that is increasingly becoming opposed to crony capitalism.

According to a report in The New York Times, “Bush left public office seven years ago with a net worth of $1.3 million and an unapologetic determination to expand his wealth, telling friends that his finances had suffered during his time in government.”

Bush tried to prop up Lehman Brothers before it collapsed and almost took down the financial system with it, eventually costing taxpayers billions of dollars to bail out banks. This galvanized what would become the Tea Party movement. He has also been associated with some troubled and shady companies and executives, as well as a company that promoted Obamacare.

Bush’s associations with Lehman Brothers may prove more troubling for someone the Tea Party already distrusts for his unabashed support of amnesty and the Common Core:

Records and interviews show, for example, that Mr. Bush participated in the fevered, last-ditch efforts to prop up Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street bank weighed down by toxic mortgage-backed securities. As a paid adviser to the company in the summer of 2008, he met with Carlos Slim Helú, a Mexican billionaire, as Lehman sought to persuade Mr. Slim to make a sizable investment in the firm, emails show.


Within a year of departing the Statehouse, he had signed on as consultant to Lehman Brothers, where he was eventually enlisted to reach out to Mr. Slim in a plan code-named Project Verde. Mr. Slim, however, was not interested in making a major investment in Lehman Brothers or striking up a joint venture with it. “Project Verde was unsuccessful,” Mr. Bush wrote to a Lehman colleague in early July 2008.

Lehman executives talked openly about the value of Mr. Bush’s family connections in the midst of the crisis. Lehman’s chief executive, Richard S. Fuld Jr., discussed the possibility of having Mr. Bush ask his brother President Bush to persuade the British prime minister to allow Lehman’s emergency merger with a British bank, according to testimony from the company’s bankruptcy case. Mr. Fuld never followed through, and Mr. Bush did not call the president, a spokeswoman for him said.

Barclays, which took over Lehman Brothers, reportedly pays Bush “in excess of $1 million a year,” according to the report.

The Times also reports that Bush was a paid director for a company, Tenet Health Care, that aggressively supported and promoted Obamacare because it would be profitable for the company. He may have to explain his connections to GOP primary voters–and an increasing number of Americans–who staunchly oppose the law.

InnoVida brought Bush on board its company in 2007, but the company went bankrupt in 2011, and its “founder went to jail and investors lost nearly all of their money,” the Times reports: “It turned out that the leaders of InnoVida, a manufacturer of inexpensive building materials, had faked documents, lied about the health of the business and misappropriated $40 million in company funds, records show.”

A Democrat “who lost millions on his investment in InnoVida,” however, said that once he told Bush about the “major problems inside the company, the former governor acted swiftly and forcefully to investigate them” to protect the shareholders.

Nonetheless, Bush has been accused of “insufficient oversight” at a company that lost more than three-quarters of its value:

Mr. Bush sat on the board of Swisher Hygiene, a soap maker, at a time when, its executives acknowledged, their financial statements were unreliable and their accounting practices inadequate. That admission contributed to a plunge in stock price that has wiped out more than three-quarters of Swisher’s value and touched off a wave of shareholder lawsuits. Several have named Mr. Bush as a defendant, accusing him and fellow board members of insufficient oversight.

The Times implies that Bush may not run for president if he does not want to break up his lucrative business portfolio.


Related previous posts on this blog





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment