A Supreme Decision – Students Jail Time For Spreading Pro-Life Message




Sept 19, 2016 By Cathy Ruse

If you think the Supreme Court is a problem now, with blockbuster 5-4 decisions going against faith, family and freedom nearly every year, imagine a 7-2 majority against everything you hold dear, for generations. That is what we face this November.

The recent trajectory of the high court has been hostile to Biblical values. In June it evenoverruled a Texas law designed to make abortion clinics safer for women. The clinics cannot be required by the state, the high court said, to improve sanitation, make room for gurneys, or require their abortion doctors to hold admitting privileges in local hospitals—even though hundreds of Texas women are hospitalized every year after abortions.

Why would the Constitution forbid these things? It doesn’t. The Texas law was nullified for no other reason than that a majority of justices who favor quick and easy abortion over women’s safety had the votes to do it. Now, similar laws in other states will be toppled, putting more women at risk, handing more abortion clinics a free pass and ending thousands more innocent lives.

The vote on the Texas case was 5-3. Even Justice Scalia couldn’t have saved it. He used to say the court was an “ad-hoc nullification machine” when it came to abortion law. This recent case demonstrates that in spades. The Constitution is silent on abortion, so the people should have final authority on the matter. But in a “raw exercise of power” the court took it from us in Roe v. Wade, the infamous case authored by Justice Harry Blackmun (the blistering “raw exercise” accusation coming from Justice Byron White in dissent).

Twenty years after that power grab, in the Casey decision, yet another set of justices mustered the votes to give some of it back, giving the people of Pennsylvania (and by extension the rest of us) the power to regulate abortion around the edges. But in the latest decision, an even newer configuration of justices took it away again: two Clinton appointees, two Obama appointees and one erratic Reagan appointee—Kennedy.

On abortion, and so many other issues, rulings are based on partisanship and power. It was never meant to be this way.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. From left: Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (The Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/MCT via Getty Images)

The most recent Supreme Court photo. Bottom row, L-R: Clarence Thomas; the late Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13; Chief Justice John Roberts; Anthony Kennedy; Ruth Bader Ginsburg; top row: Sonia Sotomayor; Stephen Breyer; Samuel Alito; Elena Kagan.

There are two competing approaches to what Chief Justice William Rehnquist called “the very delicate responsibility of judicial review.” One is limited, where, as Rehnquist said, judges see their role as interpreting an instrument framed by the people in a detached and objective way. This is the vision of the founders, and why Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous branch.” Judges are meant to be umpires, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his confirmation hearings. They simply call the balls and strikes; they are never meant to pick up the bat and swing.

The other approach is expansive, where the Supreme Court is seen as the voice and conscience of contemporary society. This is the vision of many on the modern political left, who believe judges should play a particular role in solving society’s problems. It was five adherents to this latter philosophy who recently decided that having abortion clinic safety standards was a societal problem that needed solving.

In addition to Justice Scalia’s vacant seat, it is very likely the next president will have more vacancies to fill. By the end of the next president’s term, five justices will be over 70 years old; three will be in their 80s.

On the current court, there are four “problem solvers” who vote to advance the liberal political agenda: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. There are three “umpires”: Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And there is one swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, upon whom all eyes are focused during major cases each term. Kennedy has cast crucial swing votes against the right to life and for gay marriage.

Consider the impact of even one change. If one more justice had voted with Thomas in recent years, gay marriage would not have been imposed on the nation (Obergefell v. Hodges) and Obamacare would be a distant memory (NFIB v. Sebelius).

And if one more leftist “problem solver” had been on the bench, many more Christian business owners would be paying crippling fines (or closing) in order to follow their religious beliefs (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby), babies would be dying by partial-birth abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), and the Boy Scouts would be forced to hire gay activist scout leaders (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale)—a policy they later adopted voluntarily.

During Barack Obama’s presidency alone, over 50 Supreme Court cases were decided by a 5-4 margin. Latin scholar Jeff Kantor argues that Americans have gotten so used to a closely divided Supreme Court, where wins and losses seem to be handed out to each political faction in rough parity, that we really can’t imagine what an unrestrained, revolution-minded court might do.

Fifty years is a long time to cast your memory back to the dramatic liberal activism of the Warren Court, or even the Roe court a decade later, both of which made decisions that involved vast social changes.

What vast social changes would such a court make today? Would the court abolish homeschooling (such as in Germany)? Is it hard to imagine that justices who find almost anything in the Constitution could also find that non-government education violates it? Or that children being indoctrinated by religious “bigot” parents are victims of abuse? Or that excluding women from ordination violates the Equal Protection Clause? Or that anti-LGBT “hate speech” is criminally punishable?

Think of all the crazy leftist policies cropping up at colleges and universities, and then imagine them being imposed on the nation by a runaway court. These scenarios give us a view of what a high court appointed by a liberal president may do—unrestrained by a conservative bloc.

A good guess can be made of what a Clinton Court would look like, and we can imagine what such a court would do. Is a Trump Court as easily imagined? Many commentators argue that it couldn’t be worse than Clinton’s, but I believe more can be said in its favor from a conservative viewpoint.

Donald Trump is making all the right noises for conservatives. He has said he would choose “someone as close to Scalia as I could find.”

Moreover, Trump has announced a list of judges he said would be his model for future justices, both to replace Scalia and any others who may die or retire.

It is a list of smart, experienced and respected jurists. Several are former law clerks to Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist. And most important to conservatives, there is no evidence in their records that they decide cases according to their political preferences rather than the law.

It is also a campaign promise that, if broken, would severely hamper a reelection run by Trump in 2020. To put out this list and then go in a wholly different direction would be an outrageous betrayal.

Trump sought counsel for this list from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. He did not go to the ACLU or Planned Parenthood or even the left-wing American Bar Association—special interests to which Hillary Clinton would be beholden.

In fact, the day after she gained the delegates necessary to secure the Democratic Party nomination, Clinton spoke to Planned Parenthood leaders, telling them: “As your president, I will always have your back.”

Trump, on the other hand, talked to conservatives about potential high court nominees. In fact, it is likely the same list that would have been compiled by Ted Cruz had he been the party nominee.

Clinton, meanwhile, heaped praise on last year’s court mandate for gay marriage, thanking gay activists for their “bravery” in fighting the bigots but warning that their “work is unfinished.” She raised the Orlando terrorist attack in June and in the same breath said “discriminatory laws in states like North Carolina highlight the need for full federal equality under the law.”

If you shudder at the thought of what “full federal equality under the law” means to this candidate, your instincts are sound.

There are two distinctly different directions the Supreme Court could go—and only one appears to hold any hope that the rights of Christians and other religious people will be protected. As we approach November, it would be tragic if we were to underestimate the threat that a leftist, revolution-minded Supreme Court poses.

Cathy Ruse, Esquire, is senior legal fellow at Family Research Council Action, based in Washington, D.C.

original here



Sept 19, 2016


A pro-life legal defense group appeared in federal court arguing that a Jackson, Miss., public school district violated the constitutional rights of several members of a campus anti-abortion group.

Life Legal Defense Foundation Senior Staff Attorney, Allison K. Aranda is making a case for two pro-life student activists, who were arrested after handing out pro-life materials outside their high school.

Kristina Garza and Brianna Baxter were part of Survivors, an organization that seeks to spread the pro-life message on school campuses. Garza and Baxter were passing out pro-life materials outside Murah High School in 2012 when they were accused of being disruptive and arrested.

The Jackson Public School District (JPSD) claimed they were hanging from school buses and disrupting the learning environment.

However, video, photos, and eyewitness testimony from students show that the two women engaged in peaceful free speech activities.

Aranda said Baxter and Garza did not violate the law but said they were intimidated to stop sharing the message, a blatant violation of their freedom of speech.

“As a matter of constitutional law, citizens have a right to engage in free speech on a public sidewalk,” Aranda told the judge. “The law is clear. Students and the public have the right to engage in peaceful, non-disruptive free speech on the public sidewalk adjacent to schools.”

“The real culprits here are the JPSD officials who intimidated and threatened Ms. Garza and Ms. Baxter and violated their constitutional rights,” she said.

“The officers used their hands and arms as human barricades in an attempt to keep the (survivors) from handing out their material,” said Campus Enforcement Sgt. Dunson in his police report.

The students sued the school district and finally appeared before a judge earlier this week.

The judge is expected to rule on the motion in the next several weeks.

original here

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Roanoke – USA ‘Constitutional values, principles are in jeopardy’, Beefed Up Trump SCOTUS picks – MB Obama Veto

 Week of Trump Rallies Draws Over 26,000; Hundreds at 2 Clinton Events

USA ‘Constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy’, Beefed Up Trump SCOTUS picks

The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court

Sept 23, 2016 by BOB UNRUH

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday beefed up his list of possible nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, adding the names of two more judges from Colorado and the junior senator from Utah in an effort to convince voters he would put a judge on the bench in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“We have a very clear choice in this election. The freedoms we cherish and the constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy,” he said.

He earlier listed about a dozen possible nominees, when he provided names that made up a star-studded assembly of jurists strong on individual rights and constitutional principles.

Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano described them as “serious” candidates.

Two of the newly added names are from Colorado, and also listed is the junior senator from Utah, giving the list an emphasis on the West.

“The responsibility is greater than ever to protect and uphold these freedoms and I will appoint justices, who like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard for the Constitution,” Trump added. “This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future justices of the United States Supreme Court.

“I would like to thank the Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation and the many other individuals who helped in composing this list of 21 highly respected who are the kind of scholars that we need to preserve the very core of our country, and make it greater than ever before.”

At issue is the growing progressive bent of the Supreme Court, with the expectation Hillary Clinton, as president, would follow the lead of Barack Obama in appointing justices like Elena Kagan and Sonio Sotomayor, who voted to create same-sex “marriage” in the nation despite the Constitution’s silence on the issue.

In fact, Kagan had publicly endorsed the idea while the issue was pending before the court by performing same-sex “weddings,” and then refused a request to sit out the decision, which was criticized by top legal experts as unconnected to the Constitution, because of her bias.

For now, the high court is split 4-4 ideologically. Critics fear that the wrong appointee could actually facilitate the demise of, for example, the Second Amendment across the U.S.

Trump, on the other hand, is trying to assure Americans his justices will follow the Constitution and the law.

Among the additions to Trump’s list are Timothy Tymkovich and Neil Gorsuch, both on the 10th U.S. Court of Apeals in Denver. Both were appointed by President George W. Bush and the Colorado Independent describes them as conservative.

That report noted Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, was in Colorado just this week and warned people to think about what a court nominated by Hillary Clinton would do.

“We’re electing a president for the next four years and that president is probably going to set a course of direction of the Supreme Court of the United States for the next 40 years,” Pence said. “You better think about that real hard, Colorado.”

Also added to Trump’s list was Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, the only nonjurist to be added.

Trump earlier had named Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid as a potential candidate.

The additions to list, and their biographies, from the Trump campaign:

  • Keith Blackwell is a justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. He was appointed to the position in 2012. He had previously served on the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Before serving on the bench, Justice Blackwell was a deputy special attorney general of the State of Georgia, an assistant district attorney in Cobb County, and a commercial litigator in private practice. Justice Blackwell is a graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law.
  • Charles Canady is a justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. He has served in that role since 2008, and he served as the court’s chief justice from 2010 to 2012. Prior to his appointment, Justice Canady served as a judge of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal and as a member of the United States House of Representatives for four terms. Justice Canady is a graduate of Yale Law School.
  • Neil Gorsuch is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He was appointed to the position in 2006. Judge Gorsuch previously served in the Justice Department as a deputy assistant attorney general. Judge Gorsuch was a Marshall Scholar and received his law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.
  • Mike Lee is the junior U.S. senator from Utah and currently serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Utah and as a Supreme Court Clerk for Justice Alito.
  • Edward Mansfield is a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 2011 and retained by voters in 2012. Justice Mansfield previously served as a judge of the Iowa Court of Appeals. He also teaches law at Drake University as an adjunct professor. Justice Mansfield is a graduate of Yale Law School.
  • Federico Moreno is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He previously served as a state and county court judge in Florida. Judge Moreno is a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law.
  • Margaret A. Ryan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces since 2006. Judge Ryan served in the Marine Corps through deployments in the Philippines and the Gulf War. She then attended Notre Dame Law School through a military scholarship and served as a JAG officer for four years. Judge Ryan clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas.
  • Amul Thapar is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, serving since his appointment in 2007, when he became the first South Asian Article III judge. He has taught law students at the University of Cincinnati and Georgetown. Judge Thapar has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. and the Southern District of Ohio. Immediately prior to his judicial appointment, Judge Thapar was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar received his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
  • Timothy Tymkovich is the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Tymkovich was appointed to the bench in 2003. He previously served as Colorado Solicitor General. Judge Tymkovich is a graduate of the University of Colorado College of Law.
  • Robert Young is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan. He was appointed to the court in 1999, and became part of a majority of justices who embraced originalism and led what one scholar described as a “textualism revolution.” Justice Young previously served as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Chief Justice Young is a graduate of Harvard Law School.


The earlier possible nominees:

  • Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.
  • Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention). Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
  • Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.
  • Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.
  • Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.
  • Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School, and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.
  • William Pryor Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
  • Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes received her law degree from Marquette.
  • Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.

The Associated Press suggested Trump’s goal with the list is to “earn the trust of still-skeptical establishment Republicans who question his electability in the general election, as well as conservatives in his party still wary of his commitment to their cause.”

At Powerline blog, Paul Mirengoff wrote: “The list confirms what I have heard – that Trump’s talking to the right conservatives when it comes to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t guarantee a conservative nominee, but it does highlight what is probably the best argument, from a conservative perspective, for voting for Trump – his judicial nominations (and not just to the Supreme Court) are virtually sure to be vastly better than Hillary Clinton’s.”

Full Event: Donald Trump Holds HUGE Rally in Roanoke, VA (RSB Cameras) 9/24/16


“President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is shameful and will go down as one of the low points of his presidency,” he said in a statement.

Sept 24, 2016

Trump Slams Obama For ‘Shameful’ 9/11 Bill Veto

Donald Trump on Friday blasted President Obama for vetoing legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts.

“President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is shameful and will go down as one of the low points of his presidency,” he said in a statement.

“This bipartisan legislation was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and would have allowed the families of the nearly 3,000 people slaughtered by radical Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001, the opportunity to seek justice in an American court of law.”

Trump added he would approve the controversial legislation if he were occupying the White House instead of Obama.

“That President Obama would deny the parents, spouses, and children of those we lost on that horrific day the chance to close this painful chapter in their lives is a disgrace,” the GOP’s presidential nominee said.

“These are wonderful people, and as a lifelong New Yorker, I am saddened that they will, for now, not have that opportunity. If elected president, I would sign such legislation should it reach my desk.”

Obama vetoed JASTA earlier Friday, setting the stage for a fierce showdown with Congress over its future.

Read more

original here

Week of Trump Rallies Draws Over 26,000; Hundreds at 2 Clinton Events

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump saw many thousands of supporters gather at several rallies this week, far outpacing his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who again cancelled one of her few campaign events.

A conservative estimate of those who attended Trump’s rallies added to those who attended his “America-First” energy plan presentation total over 26,000 for the week. That’s compared to the around 700 that gathered for Clinton events in Philadelphia and Orlando. Those numbers are based on news reports detailed below. Both made stops in Pennsylvania and Florida. Trump held two events in North Carolina and Clinton postponed a fundraiser in that state.

More at




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Monday Debate Trump vs Hillary, Trump’s Front Row Guest Gennifer Flowers


FLASHBACK – Gennifer Flowers: Hillary Clinton an ‘Enabler’ Who Encouraged Bill to ‘Do Whatever He Does With Women’

NEW YORK — In a news making interview with me last October, Gennifer Flowers, who says she was Bill Clinton’s mistress for 12-plus years, slammed Hillary Clinton as an “enabler” who has “encouraged” her husband “to go out and do whatever he does with women.”

Flowers found herself back in the headlines Saturday when Donald Trump threatened on Twitter to bring her to the first presidential debate after Trump troll Mark Cuban said he’d sit in the front-row. Flowers responded promptly on social media, writing, “Hi Donald Trump… I’m in your corner. Of course I will see u at the debate !!”

Besides Monical Lewinsky, Flowers has the distinction of being the only other woman with whom Bill Clinton has admitted to having had a sexual encounter outside of his marriage.

In a wide-ranging interview last October on my Sunday night talk radio show “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Flowers slammed Hillary’s attempt to frame her campaign in part around women’s issues as “a joke.”

“Woman’s rights. Ha!” Flowers stated. “I personally have worked my tail off to get where I am in the entertainment business, which has not been easy since the Clinton scandal, by the way. … Hillary never put up a shingle and worked for her clients and built her clientele. She always got things on the back of her husband. … I think it’s a joke that she would run on women’s issues.”

She continued: “You know, people criticize me for talking about her because I had an affair with her husband.”

“And I don’t blame them for that. I understand that. I understand that they can be mad at me. I get it. I accept my responsibility. … But she’s never accepted her responsibility at being an enabler. She’s been an enabler that has encouraged him to go out and do whatever he does with women.”

Ominously, Flowers said at the time she believes it is a legitimate campaign issue to bring up Bill Clinton’s past treatment of women.

“Monica and I are the only two women that Bill has admitted to. I don’t know the other ladies personally. Perhaps their stories are legitimate. I don’t know that.”

“But just because we are women doesn’t make our stories less important. Our stories should come back up with the circumstances, with Hillary running. It should come back to the forefront again.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.


Trump Threatens to Seat Former Bill Clinton Mistress in Front Row at Debate **UPDATE** She Accepts!

Donald Trump responded to news that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was planning to place outspoken Trump critic Mark Cuban — a Clinton supporter — in the front row at Monday’s debate to troll the Republican nominee.

“If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!” Trump responded on Twitter Saturday morning.

Gennifer Flowers is one of Bill Clinton’s former mistresses.


BuzzFeed reports that Flowers’ assistant, Judy Stell, emailed them a statement saying, “Ms. Flowers has agreed to join Donald at the debate.”


The 1992 Video That Still Haunts Hillary Clinton to This Day

Sept 24, 2016 by Kristie McDonald

From Independent Journal Review

In the heat of questions over former President Bill Clinton’s alleged 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers, an interview on 60 Minutes opened the American people’s eyes to the woman behind the man: Hillary Clinton.

The first up close look at Mrs. Clinton left an indelible mark on public opinion. Two quotes in particular stood out among the rest, as recently noted by Politico. During an exchange with Steve Kroft, Hillary Clinton ran afoul of stay-at-home mothers:

“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas,” Clinton snapped to reporters at a restaurant called the Busy Bee during a campaign stop in Chicago, “but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

In the same interview, Mrs. Clinton also managed to offend feminists, although not enough to draw their condemnation:

“You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette,” she said. “I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together. And you know, if that’s not enough for people, then heck—don’t vote for him.”

Another exchange not noted by Politico provided a further glimpse of the calculating mind of Mrs. Clinton.

“She’s alleging—and it’s described in some detail in the supermarket tabloid—what she [Gennifer Flowers] calls a 12-year affair with you,” Steve Kroft put forth to the president.

“That allegation is false,” Bill Clinton responded with an answer that would become familiar over the course of his presidency. Then Hillary chimed in.

Read Full Story At Independent Journal Review

original here



Dems readying to drop Hillary

Infowars reporters Lee Ann McAdoo and Owen Shroyer discuss what the potential fallout could be if Hillary Clinton pulls out of the debate:

 hillary bill sex
Bill clinton hillary
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

VIDEO WikiLeaks : Hillary’s Brain Injury Caused By ‘Near Fatal Plane Crash’ – Hillary’s AMERIPHOBIA

Sept 23, 2016 by Mac Slavo


Hillary blackberry

>>Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and “bleeding profusely.”<<

If an unclassified email leaked by WikiLeaks is any indication, it appears that there may be much more to the story of what happened to Hillary Clinton back in 2012.

We’ve been told that she suffered a concussion… but was that just diplomatic cover for something else?

Bill Clinton himself publicly claimed that her 2012 concussion – supposedly from a simple fall –took a full six months to recover from:

Bill Clinton did more today than defend his wife, Hillary Clinton, from recentaccusations leveled by GOP strategist Karl Rove that she suffered brain damage afterfalling in December 2012.

“They went to all this trouble to say she had staged what was a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over,” he said. “It’s something she never low-balled with the American people, never tried to pretend it didn’t happen.”

The alleged incident claimed in this story overlapped with Hillary’s admitted illness, concussion and time off from office that precipitated her resignation as Secretary of State less than two months later on February 1, 2013.

Wikileaks released this chain of emails forwarded between various ranking military officials, and eventually to State Dept. and top Hillary confidant Jake J. Sullivan who laughed it off when he forwarded it to “H” herself, citing a conspiracy story written by Sorcha Faal – whose reports are widely dismissed as disinfo – claiming that Hillary sustained serious injuries in a crash during a secret diplomatic meeting with the then-president of Iran.

If such a secret meeting did happen, it remains top secret and there is no publicly available information to confirm or deny that such a meeting even took place – let alone that there was a plane crash.

However, Capt Les Horn, USN (Ret), who was in the chain of emails, noted that “The report appears to be credible” in a message he sent to Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine major.

Screen Shot 2016-09-23 at 3.50.27 PM

Presumably his assessment is based upon detailed military knowledge of the circumstances under which such a secret diplomatic mission would have taken place, including details about the aircraft and route, and possibly includes first hand knowledge of events. But that remains unclear.

According to the original story:

A new Foreign Military Intelligence (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin today is saying that United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was injured, and a top US Navy Seal Commander killed when their C-12 Huron military passenger and transport aircraft crash landed nearly 3 weeks ago in the Iranian city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border.


Upon the C-12 Huron landing at Ahwaz, however, this report says it encountered “extreme turbulence” causing it to leave the runway where its main landing gear then collapsed causing it to crash.

Within seconds of the C-12 Huron crashing, this report continues, Iranian emergency and security personal responded freeing the victims, including Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and “bleeding profusely.”


The death of SEAL Team 4 Commanding Officer Job W. Price adds additional reason to think that a cover story may be at work. Price was reportedly escorting Hillary on the plane, and may have died as a result of injuries in the alleged crash.

The US Navy Seal member reported killed in this bizarre incident, this report says, was indentified as Commander Job W. Price who as a leader of this highly specialized American Special Forces unit protects high-ranking diplomats traveling in Middle Eastern and Asian combat zones.


This GRU report, however, states that US military flight logs recorded by Russian air and space forces confirm that Commander Price, and other members of US Navy Seal Team 4, left their base in Urozgan Province, Afghanistan on a flight to US Naval Support Activity Bahrain where they met up with Secretary Clinton and all of them transferred to the C-12 Huron that began a flight path to Baghdad, Iraq.

However, officially Commander Price died by suicide a.k.a. a “non-combat-related injury” on December 22, 2012 while stationed in Uruzgan Province in Afghanistan.

Was this official explanation just cover for the real cause of his death? What else don’t we know?

Here’s the full story as released by Wikileaks. The PDF can be downloaded from Wikileaks here.


Read more:

Report: Secret Service Insiders Confirm: ‘Hillary Suffers From Parkinson’s… Experiences Seizures From Camera Flashes’

Must Watch: The Truth About Hillary’s Bizarre Behavior: “Does She Have Actual Brain Damage?”

“Media Actively Conspiring With Clinton Campaign” To Cover-up Hillary Major Health Issues

Hillary’s Top Aide Huma Abedin Confirms: “She’s Often Confused”

Hillary Clinton Suffers “Medical Episode”, Faints While Rushed Away From Ground Zero

original here


Hillary hates the nation-state concept of America

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert explains why Crooked Hillary hates America and why she wants to destroy it:


Related previous posts on this blog





























Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO KERRY: Syria Prohibited from Attacking al-Qaeda – Negotiation With DC Is Pointless – WWW 3 Close

MB Obama  continues to protect its ISIS proxy army wants NO FLY For Russians only

In Kerry’s Own Words: Syria Prohibited from Attacking al-Qaeda


Sept 23, 2016 By Daniel McAdams

Information Clearing House” – “RPI” – No wonder the United States insisted that its Syria ceasefire deal with Russia remain secret! It turns out that one of the US demands was that the Syrian air force must be prohibited from attacking al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria). Crazy conspiracy theory? Listen to John Kerry’s own words at the UN yesterday:

Why US kept Syria truce terms secret:
Syrian planes prohibited from flying over areas where al-Nusra is present
i.e. US protecting al-Qaeda pic.twitter.com/LQ6NuUZqSI

— the Lemniscat (@theLemniscat) September 22, 2016Kerry argued at the UN that it would be impossible to separate Washington’s “moderates” from al-Qaeda while al-Qaeda was under attack:Now, I have said to Russia many times it’s very hard to separate people when they are being bombed indiscriminately and when Assad has the right to determine who he’s going to bomb, because he can, quote, ‘go after Nusrah’ but go after the opposition at the same time because he wants to.Does this make any sense? It seem much more logical to argue that the threat of being bombed alongside al-Qaeda would be the greatest incentive for “moderates” to separate themselves from al-Qaeda as soon as possible!

You would think Washington would tell its “moderates”: “You must cease and desist from fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria within the next 48 hours or you will yourselves become targets of Syrian, Russian, and coalition planes.”

Instead Washington argues that because its “moderates” refuse to separate from al-Qaeda the Russians and Syrians must stop attacking al-Qaeda!

George W. Bush famously said, “either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists.” But what happens when Washington itself is “with the terrorists”?

Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute.


The Russians Discover That Negotiation With Washington Is Pointless

Sept 23, 2016 By Paul Craig Roberts

Information Clearing House” – If the dumbshit Western peoples and the corrupt EU, UK, Canadian, Japanese, and Australian political puppets don’t wake up ASAP, war will be upon us, a war that cannot be won.

The criminal neoconservatives must immediately be removed from power in Washington before the insane fools start World War 3. The CIA and the Pentagon must be put under tight constraints. And Donald Trump needs a massive trustworthy security guard. The European governments need to immediately disband the NATO alliance. Life on the planet is at stake.

No more provocations from Washington. Period. The insanity must stop. Now.


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.


Russian Reaction To US Attack

Third World War Has Never Been So Close


Sept 23, 2016 By Alexander Dugin


Information Clearing House” – “Katehon” –  As we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.

This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Sure, the US leadership immediately reported that the airstrike was a mistake and warned the Russian leadership not to express any emotions. But Americans can only be lying, as modern technology allows satellite objects to be seen from a desktop. Theoretically, American bombers could not have simply confused such a strike. And what’s most important: if they had told you that they were preparing to bomb you, and you said nothing, then does that mean you agree?

It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

But what about us? We don’t need war. Not now, now tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn’t have such an enormous country free from foreign control.

But in this case, we need to buy as much time as possible. The Americans have essentially attacked our positions, like the Georgians in Tskhinvali in August 2008. Russians are under fire, and this cannot be ignored. Our reaction is extremely cautious and balanced. We have expressed what we think about this American act of aggression, but in very deliberate terms.

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans are bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close.

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a Russian political scientist. He has close ties with the Kremlin and the Russian military, having served as an advisor to State Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov and key member of the ruling United Russia party Sergei Naryshkin.



Pentagon Demands No-Fly Zone For Russia Over Syria

Obama administration continues to protect its ISIS proxy army

Sept 24, 2016


Pentagon officials have called for a ‘no-fly’ zone in Syria – except that it would only apply to Russian and Syrian aircraft.

Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee following the recent humanitarian atrocities by airstrikes that occurred in Syria over the past week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and General Joseph Dunford haveproposed that a no-fly zone be enforced, with the exception of American aircraft.

“I would not agree that coalition aircraft ought to be grounded,” Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford stated. “I do agree that Syrian regime aircraft and Russian aircraft should be grounded.”

The two Pentagon officials were quick to blame Russia despite having no evidence to back the claim.

“I don’t have the facts,” said Dunford. “There’s no doubt in my mind that the Russians are responsible. It was either the Russians or the [Syrian] regime.”

Carter explained Dunford’s logic, saying that “the Russians are responsible for this strike whether they conducted it or not, because they took responsibility for the conduct of the Syrians by associating themselves with the Syrian regime.”

“To be clear, we are not cooperating with Russia,” Carter continued. “We do not align ourselves more broadly with their military actions because instead of singularly attacking ISIL – as they said they were going to do – they are primarily attacking the Syrian opposition.”

As we’ve previously reported, the Syrian opposition is virtually indistinguishable in ideology and methodology to ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which hasn’t stopped the U.S. and Gulf States from aiding them with over $100 million in arms and equipment.

The U.S. is more interested in unseating Syrian President Assad from power than defeating ISIS, as toppling Assad would allow them unfettered regional control while simultaneously removing a key ally of Russia, a country the globalists detest because of its strong nationalist and Christian values.

Secretary of State John Kerry had initially proposed the no-fly zone at the recent UN Security Council meeting after trading blame with Russia for who was responsible for the airstrike that targeted a humanitarian convoy that killed twenty people.

“It has to be achieved through a genuine and sustained reduction in violence, as well as unfettered humanitarian access that is unmistakable to everyone,” Kerry stated.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts,” he said to Russian officials.

Kerry also told Russian officials that “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”.

“This attack has dealt a very heavy blow to our efforts to bring peace to Syria and it raises a profound doubt about whether Russia and the Assad regime can or will live up to the obligations that they agreed to in Geneva,” Kerry said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rebuked Kerry’s proposal, stating that the U.S. needed to take action to prevent terrorist groups like ISIS from using political impasses like the failing ceasefire to their advantage.

The failure of the U.S. and Russia to reach a cease-fire agreement only showcases that their interests are in stark contrast to each other: the neocons want to fund terrorism and remove regimes, while Russia seeks only to preserve its national security and protect its regional ally.

original here

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

MB Obama’s Muslim Convert CIA Director Admits to Supporting Communist Party


Sept 23, 2016 by Tim Brown


Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah’s Muslim convert CIA Director John Brennan has admitted to giving his support to the Communist Party in the 1976 election.

Last week, during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual conference, Brennan admitted that he was asked if he had “ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US” during his first polygraph test to enter the Central Intelligence Agency.

“I froze,” Brennan said. “This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate.”

Claiming that he believed the Constitution protected free speech, he said he decided to answer truthfully.

“We’ve all had indiscretions in our past,” he said. “I would not be up here if that was disqualifying.”

“I froze, because I was getting so close to coming into CIA and said, ‘OK, here’s the choice, John. You can deny that, and the machine is probably going to go, you know, wacko, or I can acknowledge it and see what happens,'” Brennan said.

The question Brennan was asked came from the 1940 Smith Act, which “prohibit[ed] certain subversive activities,” among those were overthrow of the US Government by force or violence. Thus the question that is routinely asked is,
“Have you EVER advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?”

“I said I was neither Democratic nor Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change,” Bennan added. “I said I’m not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, ‘OK,’ and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, ‘Well, I’m screwed.'”

Brennan then attempted to put the people to sleep regarding their freedoms by stating, “So if back in 1980, John Brennan was allowed to say, ‘I voted for the Communist Party with Gus Hall’ … and still got through, rest assured that your rights and your expressions and your freedom of speech as Americans is something that’s not going to be disqualifying of you as you pursue a career in government.”

It’s interesting that Mr. Brennan would make such a statement considering the CIA suspended an employee who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement on Benghazi, wanted to allow Benghazi survivors to talk to Congress, but kept it classified, is known as a bully, and has continued to help aid America’s enemies in the Middle East. We could even point to the fact that man would not even be sworn in on a Bible, but rather a copy of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights and that was only after he had the largest number of votes against his confirmation in our history.

Between 1950 and 1957, many Communist Party members were indicted and convicted for advocating Communism. According to Wikipedia:

After a ten-month trial at the Foley Square Courthouse in Manhattan, eleven leaders of the Communist Party were convicted under the Smith Act in 1949.[50] Ten defendants received sentences of five years and $10,000 fines. An eleventh defendant, Robert G. Thompson, a distinguished hero of the Second World War, was sentenced to three years in consideration of his military record. The five defense attorneys were cited for contempt of court and given prison sentences. Those convicted appealed the verdicts, and the Supreme Court upheld their convictions in 1951 in Dennis v. United States in a 6-2 decision.

Following that decision, the DOJ prosecuted dozens of cases. In total, by May 1956, another 131 communists were indicted, of whom 98 were convicted, nine acquitted, while juries brought no verdict in the other cases.[51] Other party leaders indicted included Claudia Jones and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a founding member of the ACLU.

However, June 17, 1957, Yates v. United States held unconstitutional the convictions of numerous party leaders in a ruling that “distinguished between advocacy of an idea for incitement and the teaching of an idea as a concept.”

However, consider that that new Cold War, which has always been going on despite what the media has presented to us, is brewing and should anyone be surprised the Brennan, Obama and other Communist/Islamist ideologists are in positions of power? And do you really think they are not out to silence your opposition to you? If you do, then you are a part of the problem.

original here

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

MB Obama Celebrated Slave Labor In Red China On Labor Day – in Laos: ’Stressed’ Americans Typically Turn To Racism

Obama in Britain UK

Sept 7, 2016 by CLIFF KINCAID

Obama, now in Communist China for the G-20 meeting, has accepted a new and improved version of communist disinformation.

The old joke, “He’ll do anything for the worker except become one,” may apply to the Democratic Party and its modern-day leaders. The days when Democrats represented the working man are gone. Today, Democrats are more likely to preserve fish than jobs.

A case in point is President Obama’s unilateral designation of 600,000 square miles of water around Hawaii as a national monument. The rationale for destroying jobs and devastating fishing communities is global warming.
“It’s a good time to be a fish” says the website of Global Citizen. Human beings aren’t faring so well.
It’s no secret that the Democratic Party’s hold on the white working class is weakening. It’s an open secret that Donald J. Trump has expanded on Ronald Reagan’s appeal to so-called Reagan Democrats. Whether he can appeal to blacks who overwhelmingly vote Democratic is another issue. Their habitual deference to the Democratic Party, when their communities have been devastated by liberal policies, is shocking to behold.  
The attack on workers shows no sign of weakening. Obama and the Democrats seem to be more interested in pandering to elites enthralled with the latest version of the global warming theory than to the workers in need of bread to feed their families.
The destruction of the coal industry, an openly announced objective of President Obama, is currently underway. “Since reaching a peak in September 2014, employment in mining has declined by 223,000, with losses concentrated in support activities for mining,”reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Now Obama has turned his sights on the fishing industry.
“Obama creates the largest protected place on the planet, in Hawaii,” proclaimed The Washington Post. Job losses were briefly mentioned in the body of the piece.
The Post quoted White House press secretary Josh Earnest as saying that Obama “would be happy to sign into law a piece of legislation that would have protected these waters, but we haven’t seen that kind of legislative activity in this Congress, and it means the president has had to make more effective use of his executive authority.”
The Post failed to explain where in the Constitution a president is given the right to make a law when Congress doesn’t do what the president demands.
One version of the global warming theory, which rationalizes these jobs losses, originated with marijuana advocate Carl Sagan, who was also an astronomer. Before he came to believe the Earth was inhabited by a spirit called Gaia, Sagan was writing about the virtues of dope and “the cannabis experience.” He explained, “I do not consider myself a religious person in the usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs. The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate.”
It may have been during a “high” that he felt at one with the earth spirit Gaia and came to believe, despite his scientific training, that climate changes of some kind or another were threatening the health of the planet.
Pot heads are susceptible to all kinds of wacky theories. So it is no surprise that before he popularized the global warming theory, now known as climate change, he was utilized by the Russians to spread the idea that a “nuclear winter” would devastate the planet. This idea was floated in order to argue against improvements in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
All of these various theories are designed to convince the United States that global institutions and international agreements are the only way to save mankind from utter destruction.
Comrade J, a blockbuster book about Russian espionage written by former Washington Post reporter and author Pete Earley, explains how the Soviet KGB peddled charges that deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons to Europe in the 1980s might lead to their use and a “nuclear winter,” or climate crisis, for the world. The book says the story was cooked up by the KGB and fed to the Western world by anti-nuclear activists such as Carl Sagan, who penned an article on the topic for the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs. The book notes that Sagan later appeared on the ABC television network to talk about the subject.
Sergei Tretyakov, a former Russian spy who defected in New York in 2000 and who Earley wrote about in his book, said he discovered “dozens of case studies” of the KGB using “propaganda and disinformation to influence public opinion” in the West.
The prospect of a “global chilling” soon gave way to “global warming,” and now “climate change.” It’s the latest attempt to con people into believing that human activities on the earth could fundamentally alter the earth’s climate and doom humanity.
Obama, now in Communist China for the G-20 meeting, has accepted a new and improved version of communist disinformation. He wants the American people to believe that the rulers in Beijing are going to comply with a new climate change agreement to restrict their own industries, which drive their military buildup.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, says, “Now we find ourselves celebrating an agreement where the world’s largest carbon emitter, China, is permitted to increase their emissions until 2025 and to continue bringing a coal-fired power plant online every 10 days. We even turn a blind eye to the fact that China lied about its carbon emissions when it first came to the table with its pledge last year.”
Not only does Obama violate the Constitution and abuse his executive powers, he does so to serve the purposes of Communist China. It is another disgraceful part of the Obama legacy. 
The fact that this happens on Labor Day in the U.S. only rubs salt in the wounds of American workers losing their jobs to Chinese slave labor.

original here

Obama in Laos: ’Stressed’ Americans Typically Turn To Racism

President Barack Obama tells a group of young Asians that when Americans are economically stressed, they turn to racism to cope with their struggles.

After Obama highlighted America’s rich heritage of multiculturalism, he pointed to the country’s racist tendencies as a result.

“That especially becomes a problem when the economy is not doing well, and so people feel stressed,” he said. “Typically, when people feel stressed, they turn on others who don’t look like them.”

He blamed the faltering economy for causing the problems in America’s society.

“When suddenly things are harder, people start saying, ‘Ah, you know what, this is the fault of the Chinese,’ or ‘This is the fault of Jews,’ or ‘This is the fault of the Houthi,’ or whatever,” Obama said.

Obama made his remarks during a town hall with young people at Souphanouvong University during his visit to Luang Prabang, Laos.

He praised America’s many food cuisines and music as a positive result of multiculturalism and also pointed to the Olympics as an example of American success as a result of its diversity.

“Because we have people that came from everywhere, we have people of all different types for every sport,” he said. “So we have really tall people to play basketball or to swim. We have little people for gymnastics. Right? We have, genetically, for whatever sport, we have people who fit the sport, right?”



trump obama race clarke

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments