Court Protects IRS Tyranny

The names Catherine Engelbrecht and Reggie B. Walton may not exactly be household names, but both are part of a disturbing court ruling that can only be described as a reprehensible government protection racket in plain sight for all to see. Ms. Engelbrecht was the plaintiff and Reggie B. Walton the judge. A succinct summary is provided by Breitbart in the report, True the Vote’s Lawsuit against IRS Gets Tossed by Federal Judge.

“A federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order dismissing a lawsuit filed by True the Vote, a Houston, Texas-based non-profit organization focused on “voters’ rights and election integrity” against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The order alleged that the IRS had improperly delayed granting their application for 501(c)(3) status and targeted them as a conservative organization. The opinion, by Judge Reggie B. Walton, found that the IRS had taken sufficient “remedial steps to address the alleged behavior.”

From the ruling by Judge Walton, analysis:

“The defendants contend that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over counts one, two, and five of the plaintiff’s complaint because the IRS ultimately approved the plaintiff’s application for tax-exempt status, and thus counts one, two, and five—all of which seek “to correct [the] alleged targeting [of the IRS] and delay during its application process” for tax-exempt status—are now moot as there is no longer any case or controversy for the Court to resolve.”

How nice that the IRS can slip out of a sticky wicket by simply retroactively approving a 501(c)(3) application that they officiated with a touch of harassment and a sprinkle of intimidation. The reasoning used by Judge Walton to protect the IRS from a “voluntary cessation” exception follows:

“The rationale supporting the defendant’s voluntary cessation as an exception to mootness is that, while the defendant’s unilateral cessation of the challenged conduct may grant the plaintiff relief, the defendant is free to return to its old ways—thereby subjecting the plaintiff to the same harm but, at the same time, avoiding judicial review. Accordingly, a case can be mooted by virtue of the defendant’s cessation of its allegedly illegal conduct only if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”

Oh praise the sacred high priests of the Internal Revenue Service for “seeing the light” and repenting their ways. Such a reasonable trust in the good intentions of the IRS to not only follow the law but to administer their trade under the “good faith” doctrine that only a judge working for the same corrupt government as do the Lois Lerner brigade of bureaucrats, would profess.

An important USA Today article, from hardly an anti government publication, IRS list reveals concerns over Tea Party ‘propaganda’, furnishes the evidence.

“Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about “anti-Obama rhetoric,” inflammatory language and “emotional” statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.

The internal 2011 documents, obtained by USA TODAY, list 162 groups by name, with comments by Internal Revenue Service lawyers in Washington raising issues about their political, lobbying and advocacy activities. In 21 cases, those activities were characterized as “propaganda.”

The list provides the most specific public accounting to date of which groups were targeted for extra scrutiny and why. The IRS has not publicly identified the groups, repeatedly citing a provision of the tax code prohibiting it from releasing tax return information.”

The supporting items Document: IRS ‘political advocacy cases’ list, while the pattern of selective favoritism is authenticated in the report, IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo.

For a more cutting edge analysis from  Twitchy US politics on the insanity from the Loony Left, just absorb the rhetoric and ask, who the real totalitarians are in society and even worse in government. Outrage: Court acknowledges that IRS targeted True the Vote, dismisses lawsuit anyway explains.

“Voters’ rights group True the Vote , a nonprofit “founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process,” has had a hard time of it. As the 2012 election approached, Cher of all people referred to True the Vote as “a bunch of Tea Party Nazis” and “animals.” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, informed True the Vote founder and president Catherine Engelbrecht that he would be launching an investigation into her organization.

Of course, all of this was happening while the IRS was targeting conservative groups and holding up applications for nonprofit status, often through several election cycles. And even though the U.S. Federal District Court didn’t deny this, True the Vote’s case against the IRS was dismissed today.”

Engelbrecht issued the following brief statement:

“The Court today correctly acknowledged that the IRS targeted True the Vote because of its perceived political beliefs. Such conduct is reprehensible and should never be acceptable in a free society. Despite this critical finding, we are stunned and disappointed in the court’s ruling which nevertheless dismisses our case. We will be evaluating our legal options and will announce our intent in that regard soon.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots reaction to the DC Court Decision on IRS “Unconscionable”. “The Court’s decision not to sanction either the IRS or the individual agents because it and they had taken “remedial measures” is unconscionable.”

Supporting this conclusion are Top 9 Quotes on the IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups.

1. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.” – President Barack Obama to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly February, 2014
2. “Decline to answer that question.” – Lois Lerner, pleading the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, March 5, 2014
3. “The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.” – Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Audit
4. “Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They [Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio] used names like ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriots’ and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” – Lois Lerner
5. “Even after admitting that it had targeted groups, and a TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] report detailed the abuses, the IRS did not let up. In August 2013, the IRS requested yet more documents and information. It asked us to provide, for example, all fundraising communications for the 60 days before the November 6, 2012 election, and all materials that we used in various “Get Out the Vote” activities. That request made no sense under the current standards for evaluating non-profit applications. The regulations proposed three months later, however, explain the requests, as they include specific provisions classifying any mention of a candidate’s name within 60 days of an election and get-out-the-vote efforts as taxable political activity.” – Jenny Beth Martin in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, February 27, 2014
6. “The Internal Revenue Service says acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller was first informed in May 2012 that tea party groups were inappropriately targeted for scrutiny.” – Hot Air, May 13, 2013
7. “The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups – a finding that seems to confirm political bias was at play.” – The Washington Times, June 27, 2013
8. When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.” – The Chicago Sun-Times, February 10, 2014
9. More than 400,000 documents have been turned over to Congress, only a fraction of which have been publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act. Republicans say they’re still missing key documents including the e-mails of former IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner. – USA Today, February 26, 2014

But remember, President Obama assures us there’s “not a smidgen of corruption!”

No matter your political leanings, every American should be concerned when the courts condone abusive and arbitrary administration in any agency. Allowing the IRS to retroactively cover their rear, while turning a blind eye to systemic illicit practices, is just part of the game plan that permits the court to make up law, which favors government tyranny.

The True the Vote decision is insulting and only goes to prove that reforms through the election process are truly the moot option.

Totalitarianism and the Silence of the Lambs

A few days ago, a prominent attorney asked me a question: can religious liberty and the growing demands of government and others occupy the same space?  And if not, who wins?

This is, perhaps, not quite the right question.

Dr. Hannibal Lecter, aka “Hannibal the Cannibal” in  The Silence of the Lambs asked a more fitting one:

First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?

Most pundits observing what has gone on recently in Arizona and other states regarding same-sex marriage have concluded, “We are witnessing a clash between religious and civil liberties.”  While many nod their heads in agreement, this analysis is wrong.

The fact is that what the left is demanding now through our courts, through legislatures, and at ballot boxes around the country does not constitute “rights” at all, or at least not in the historical sense.

This is not a “clash of religious and civil rights.”  This is a clash of freedom and untenable, outrageous demands.

 

There is something much, much deeper going on here.

Same-sex marriage is a trial balloon of sorts, being used to test how far Americans will allow their consciences to be suppressed by the State.

“If Christians can be compelled to lend a craft to something their conscience objects to, what can’t they be compelled to participate in? We’re talking about precedent; and the cases before us are bellwether test cases about whether private actors can be forcibly mandated to go against their conscience” (“Of Consciences and Cakes,” First Things, Feb. 20, Andrew Walker).

A couple years ago, the Health and Human Services Contraceptive and Abortifacient Mandate served the same purpose, leading the way to where we now are.  When the State can get away with abusive behavior and strong-arm tactics toward even The Little Sisters of the Poor, let alone privately owned businesses such as Hobby Lobby, then statists know that the time is ripe to take another big step.

This battle is much bigger than anybody thinks it is.  We cannot see the forest for the trees.  We are not witnessing a clash of rights; we are in the middle of a massive social experiment.  This is a test for the viability of incremental totalitarianism.  Nothing less.

In a kind of Cloward-Piven Strategy, the assault – or “test,” or however you want to identify it – is occurring on many different fronts and on many different levels simultaneously.  In addition to same-sex marriage and the health care mandate(s), we have the IRS targeting of conservative groups, constant Second Amendment attacks, voter photo ID initiatives labeled as racist by the DOJ, and state initiatives to curb abortions labeled a “War on Women.”

Perhaps most chilling is the way that federalism is being undermined from within the states themselves.  State judges are now routinely overturning the expressed will of the people, acting unilaterally to impose novel viewpoints on entire state populations.

The fifty states, which are supposed to be laboratories for experimentation – conducting trial runs, so to speak – are being stripped of that function.

The beauty of America is our diversity, much of which is still reflected in the personalities of each of our states.  If the reach of the national government extends too far and we become thoroughly homogenized, we inevitably start moving toward a type of tyranny.  If the rules and the standards are exactly the same in every state, where can one go either for respite or advantage?  As the force of the national government grows, this key element of our American liberty recedes, perhaps to be lost forever.

The Economist magazine once described the wonderful functioning of our local governance very nicely:

America has 50 states with 50 sets of laws. Virginia will never ban hunting, but even if it did, there are 49 other states that won’t. In America, people with unusual hobbies are generally left alone. And power is so devolved that you can more or less choose which rules you want to live under.

If you like low taxes and the death penalty, try Texas. For good public schools and subsidized cycle paths, try Portland, Oregon. Even within states, the rules vary widely. Bath County, Kentucky is dry. Next-door Bourbon County, as the name implies, is not. Nearby Montgomery County is in between: a “moist” county where the sale of alcohol is banned except in one city. Liberal foreign students let it all hang out at Berkeley; those from traditional backgrounds may prefer a campus where there is no peer pressure to drink or fornicate, such as Brigham Young in Utah. (Dec. 19, 2009)

If all our laws and regulations are essentially nationalized, there will be no choices left to us other than the single choice to comply.  The very thing that makes the United States such a wonderful success – E pluribus unum, “out of many, one” – is being destroyed.  Ironically, in the name of diversity, we are squashing diversity, trampling out opinions anathema to progressive ideology.

Statists are tickled pink that they are able to make headway on this.  And for the most part, the media are willing collaborators, as pointed out by Mollie Hemingway in The Federalist:

Religious liberty is a deeply radical concept. It was at this country’s founding and it hasn’t become less so. Preserving it has always been a full-time battle. But it’s important, because religion is at the core of people’s identity. A government that tramples religious liberty is not a government that protects economic freedom. It’s certainly not a government that protects conscience rights. A government that tramples religious liberty does not have expansive press freedoms. Can you think of one country with a narrow view of religious liberty but an expansive view of economic freedom, freedom of association, press freedoms or free speech rights? One?

A media less hostile to religious liberty would think less about scoring cheap political points, creating uncivil political climates, and disparaging institutions that help humans flourish.  A media with a higher regard for truth would, it turns out, have a higher regard for religious liberty.

Sadly, we seem to have left the world of reason and tolerance. Could our media climate demonstrate that any better?  And what lies ahead, if left uncorrected, is illogical and tyrannical.  Freedom of religion was the central principle in the moral case of our country.  Once that’s gone, how long can the Republic stand?

Returning to Dr. Lecter’s question, “what is it in itself? What is its nature?”

Its nature is this: totalitarianism.

The current visible clash of religious and asserted civil “rights” is secondary – a symptom, not an actual cause.

In fact, the logical conclusion for the trajectory we are now on is the eventual squashing of both civil and religious rights, and this will occur because we have allowed a powerful government to play us one group against another.

What can each of us do?

The only way to stop the advancement of totalitarian measures is for the grassroots of each state to bravely stand up to the bullying, silencing tactics of out-of-touch, frightened judges, legislators, corporate cronies, and media collaborators, as they lead us down a path of decreased liberty and increased totalitarianism.

Stand up for social issues that you know in your gut to be true.  Don’t allow yourself to be silenced by political correctness.  Stand up for marriage.  Stand up for life.  Stand up for the right of children to be born and to have both a mom and a dad.

Stand up also for constitutionally limited government and fiscal responsibility.

You have Truth with a capital T on your side.  You are right, and they are wrong, so do not be afraid.

Don’t make the mistake of remaining quiet until you are certain you have a winning argument.  That is not your responsibility, and that is what the totalitarian left is hoping you will do.  All you are responsible for is to speak truthfully and to let others know your beliefs.  We outnumber them.  We can overwhelm them with Truth, if only each of us would open our mouths and proclaim the Truth at every opportunity.

Remember: be not afraid.

Source: Doug Mainwaring | American Thinker

Black Supremacist Who Wants Whites Dead Still Employed By Obama DHS

Chalk up another victory for the post-racial president’s agenda. No, it’s not Barack Obama falsely claiming that white society denied black Hurricane Katrina victims monetary assistance.

Or having a bigoted reverend ask at his inauguration when “white” will do “right.”

Or having a DoJ that refuses to pursue voting-rights cases when the victims are white.

Or sitting in a black-power church, where our country was called the “US of KKK-A,” for 20 years.

This time it’s a black-supremacist Department of Homeland Security employee who, almost four months ago, was discovered to be running a website that advocated the mass murder of whites — and who is still in the employ of the DHS.

Ayo Kimathi’s job was to purchase guns and ammunition for the government, until he was placed on leave in August after the Southern Poverty Law Center exposed him as the purveyor of the website “War on the Horizon.” As to the site’s content, Alex Seitz-Wald at National Journal writes:

Kimathi, using the online nom de guerre “the Irritated Genie,” called for “ethnic cleansing” of “black-skinned Uncle Tom race traitors” on his website, which envisioned a massive race war on the horizon. “In order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites — more than our Christian hearts can possibly count,” he wrote.

In other postings, he warned that whites and their enablers like President Obama are trying to “homosexualize” black men in order to make them weaker, and suggested that a woman’s primary role in life should be to “keep a strong Black man happy.” He also seemed to hold anti-Semitic views, claiming in a Facebook post that his website was under attack from a conspiracy of “zionist smallhats, the Uncle Tom koons,” and, naturally, “the haters.”

By the way, Kimathi drew a salary of $115,731 in 2012 for his position, which, we can be sure, he attained solely due to merit.

While Kimathi obviously isn’t too fond of Obama, there’s no word on whether the president has said that the man “acted stupidly.” We also have to wonder — and, yes, I know this joke has been done to ObamaCare death: if Obama had a bitter, angry, rebellious son, would he look like Kimathi?

Of course, we have a DoJ that dropped a voter-intimidation case against Black Panthers caught on video wielding nightsticks and intimidating white voters; and an attorney general who, a DoJ whistleblower tells us, carried a card in his wallet that essentially states, “Blackness is more important than anything, and the black US attorney has common cause with the black criminal.” Given this, I’m not sure what’s more surprising, that Kimathi hasn’t been fired yet or that he hasn’t been promoted. Other surprises in this story are that the Southern Poverty Law Center actually exposed a black bigot and that this black bigot doesn’t even half-like The One.

Anyway, if Kimathi can’t be fired, DHS should just assign him the task of negotiating the ObamaCare website. That ought to redirect his Internet endeavors for at least four or five years.

You’ve Met Edward Snowden….Now Meet Jeffrey Silverman

When Edward Snowden met with Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald to turn over documents revealing the extent of the NSA spying program, he did more than provide an education to the entire world concerning the reach of the American Empire. He also very likely protected himself from far flung and highly illegal machinations to silence him. Safely ensconced in Russia, Snowden is now reportedly working for a Russian website. His revelations continue to impact the public persona of the US, worldwide.

Other whistleblowers and journalists have not been so fortunate.

Enter Jeffrey Silverman…

Silverman, who was born in Washington DC and served in the US Army prior to receiving an MS in Agricultural Development/International Development, had been living in the Republic of Georgia since 1991. He has done in-depth investigative reporting on chemical and biological weapons, the alleged murder of the former Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania and on  in the former Soviet Union.

Silverman, who also writes under the name Joni Simonishvili, had been working on articles concerning covert US support for the Chechen rebels when he made a trip back to the US in 2004 to visit family. To his amazement, he was charged with failure to pay child support in Kentucky. Silverman states that he had been paying support for years without a court order. After a Kentucky judge ordered his passport seized and turned over to authorities due to the alleged non-payment of support, a Virginia judge subsequently reversed the order and gave Silverman back his travel documents.

Silverman had flown back to Georgia and was on a working trip to Azerbaijan to submit an article in Baku when he was picked up on orders of the US Embassy, beaten badly and his passport again seized. The US Embassy then issued a document to Silverman stating that he is an alien. He was offered a trip back to the US under alien status but instead of accepting a tainted offer, Silverman jumped the border from Azerbaijan into Georgia.

There are strict laws governing the revocation of an individual’s citizenship. A US native born citizen cannot have his citizenship revoked unless he commits an expatriating act, such as serving in an army at war against the US. No such terms, however, apply to Jeffrey Silverman.

The FBI subsequently paid a visit to Silverman’s son’s mother, Donna Evans. She wrote:

I had two FBI agents visit me at my job in Kentucky. One was Detective Greg Wolf and the other was Mr. Steve Auvenshine. They came to my work site and told me they were investigating you but wouldn’t tell me why. They asked numerous questions about you and what you did for a living. “They showed me a picture of you and asked if it was you. They asked me questions about how we met, where you have lived, where you were born, who your parents were and what did they do for a living, whether they were still alive or not, what countries you had visited, what languages you spoke, how long you had visited each country, what religion you practiced and if you had ever been in the military. I asked them why they were asking so many questions about you but they would not say. I think they already knew all the answers to all the questions they asked me; I think they just wanted to see if I would verify what they knew. They also wanted me to send all the e-mails that you had sent me to them. Bourbon County [the local authority] said that they were already sending all the e-mails they receive from you to the US State Department.

The State Department declined to comment on Silverman’s citizenship, as did DHS and the DOJ.

Following the beating in 2004, Silverman was again detained in 2005. According to Silverman, “The police kidnapped me off the street in the middle of the day and took me to the Georgian Office of Counterintelligence and beat me….Embassy staff were waiting in the other room and when done, they came and asked if I needed any help in returning to the US. It so happens that the agent involved, Bryan Paarmann, is the same agent involved in the alleged murder cover up of the Georgian PM, Zurab Zhvania.

Someone else who was impacted by the mounting concerns about the nature of Jeffrey Silverman’s journalism was Silverman’s friend, Vahktang Maisaia, who served as counselor at the Georgian mission in NATO in 2004-2008. Maisaia writes of events that took place in May of 2009:

I was tortured and subjected to mock execution at the building two days later. I was accused in having relations initially with NATO special services, Slovak Republic military intelligence service and later on they extended the link with “Russian Federation Intelligence Service” (I quoted word-by-word the name of the Russian service – why because the service with such name does not exist at all even in accordance to the Russian Federation laws). It is long too history how well my case has been rigged but regarding Jeffrey I had to confess that in one of the night illegal interrogation session usually started at 6.00 PM till 6.00 AM by the Counter-Intelligence Department two teams almost every days since May 8th till June 23 of 2009 at Gldany prison #8), Otar Ordzhonikidze and his staff-member Data Datashvili and Valerian Zumbadze personally interested in Jeffrey Silverman’s personality and background, they tortured me in order to gain his contact points and whereabouts at that time in order to seize him in abduction manner, like “death squadron” way and execute him in somewhere unknown place because of his foreign citizenship and his popularity abroad (how they claim to me).

Another assault on Jeffrey Silverman in 2011 . Silverman has plates in his head from one of his beatings.

Jeffrey Silverman is now essentially a stateless person. Silverman states he has sought assistance from Reporters without Borders as well as the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ did not respond to inquiries from this reporter as to that organization’s refusal to address Silverman’s plight. It is known in journalistic circles that the agencies pledged to protect press rights generally turn a blind eye to assaults on US journalists doing adversarial reporting.

Silverman is currently the Georgia Bureau Chief for Veterans Today and teaches in Tbilisi.

We Killed Him For “The Fun of It”

This past Tuesday night, I sat in my chair watching NBC’s Lester Holt report on two black kids, 15 and 16, along with a bi-racial kid shoot and kill a 22 year old Australian college kid on a training run past their house in Duncan, Oklahoma.

When asked why they did it. They responded, “For the fun of it.”

The news reported, “Twenty-two-year-old Chris Lane of Melbourne, Australia, was killed for no reason while out running in the town of Duncan, Oklahoma. Police arrested Chancey Luna, 16, James Edwards, 15 and Michael Jones, 17, on first degree murder charges.”

Duncan Police Chief Dan Ford said the boys gave the simplest of motives, “Overcoming a boring end to their summer vacation.”

The 16 year-old Luna said they were bored and killed Lane for “the fun of it.”

They shot him in the back after he ran past their house. I sat in my chair dumb-struck at the utter horror, stupidity and sickening savagery of the entire report. Lester Holt remained emotionless while speaking his words to millions of Americans. It turned my guts. It made me sick to my stomach. The killing left a gaping “why” in my brain.

Will millions of African-Americans protest in the streets because two black boys and a bi-racial boy killed an Australian white kid running past their house “for the fun of it”? Will they call for justice like they did in the Trayvon Martin case? Will white Americans protest the killings by taking to the streets and demanding justice?

Sadly, blacks and whites won’t even whimper a sound at the killing of the white Australian college man named Chris Lane. But I want to delve into this type of insanity a little deeper.

I think our society suffers from a deep down sickness for too many of its citizens. Every 15 seconds, some American man, whether husband or father, beats the hell out of a woman.

“Violence against women is pervasive throughout the United States. One in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in their lives. On average, three women are killed every day at the hands of a current or former intimate partner.”~ National Network to End Domestic Violence.

Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse or girlfriend to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend annually. 

Those factoids sicken me. What causes such incredible violence to the weaker sex? Why don’t we address it? The causes? The solutions?

Surely we could encourage community, jobs, education and fellowship to vanquish such violence within our country. Instead, we fund 10 year wars that kill even more people by guns, bombs and poisons.

Black on Black killings in America: 7,000 murders annually

According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011 there were 279,384 black murder victims, which means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks, resulting in the 94 percent figure. While blacks make-up only 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims.

So what’s the source of the problem? As Publius notes, “The problem is not among the black population as a whole; rather, it is due to a “small sub-culture that glorifies violence and lives and dies by the gun.” It is the gang culture, characterized by widespread criminality, tribalistic warfare, through-the-roof unemployment, extremely high rates of out-of-wedlock births (72.1 percent among blacks in 2010), widespread welfare dependency, and nihilistic art typified by “gangster rap.”

Black on White killings in America

• In 2011, of the 12,664 murder victims in America, 50% were Black and 46% were white.
• In 2011, 52% of the offenders in these murders were Black and 45% were white.
• One other stat: 90% of perpetrators were men.

White on Black killings in America

Intra-racial violence holds for whites. Eight-three percent of white murders in 2011 were within-race killings. This data tells us that murder, for the most part, in America does not come from racial hatred. Most killers kill within their race.

Suicide Among the Young in America

• Among persons aged 15 to 24, suicide ranks as the third leading cause of death in America. About 18 teens kill themselves daily or one Columbine High School rampage 24/7.
• In 2000, over three million youth seriously considered suicide in the USA and over one million attempted suicides. That equates to over 2,700 attempts daily or two attempts every 60 seconds.

As a nation, as a civilization, as a culture and as a multicultural society—we desperately need leadership that focuses on funding for thorough and successful education for whites, blacks, browns and all other children. We need to create jobs for our teens to give them worth, financial energy and moral direction. We need to stop the 71 percent of out-of-wedlock birth rates for African-Americans and white Americans if we hope to bring any kind of reasonable male-female balance to the rearing of our children

As it stands, those children face being brought up as savages rather than human beings. Right now, two black kids and a bi-racial kid face the rest of their lives behind bars. Right now, an entire community in Australia faces life without their outstanding son who trusted America enough to come and play baseball.

As a culture, and a country, America needs to stop wasting money, military and brute power in hundreds of countries around the world. We need to elect representatives who focus on making our country a place where teens grow up with ethics, morals, direction, homes, jobs and purpose—to live a fruitful and positive life. As it stands today with those three kids and hundreds of thousands like them, the violence toward women, the suicides and the crime rates—we fail miserably.

I think I am going to have a sickening gut ache for a very long time.

Teachers Will Be Armed In Arkansas

Clarksville High School in Arkansas will be the first high school to utilize state laws that allow armed security guards in schools to arm teachers.

Training is underway now that will facilitate teachers carrying concealed weapons when classes resume.

David Hopkins, superintendent for Clarksville explained: “The plan we’ve been given in the past is, ‘Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best.’ That’s not a plan.”

Twenty teachers, including volunteers and other facility are training with a private security firm to turn them into licensed guards. Those in the program will receive 9-mm Walter PPS and holster; including $1,100 for a total of $50,000 the school in spending.

To make sure these participants are full trained, they will receive 53 hours which is 5 times the requirements for security guards in Arkansas.

Hopkins said : “They’re not gonna be in a uniform, and they’re not gonna be wagging their gun on their side. We’re going to be very discrete about it, but yet we’re going to be trained professionals, and we’re going to be able to provide security for our kids in a matter of seconds instead of minutes.”

Instead of hiring an independent security firm, Hopkins asserts : “We’re not tying our money up in a guard 24/7 that we won’t have to have unless something happens. We’ve got these people who are already hired and using them in other areas. Hopefully we’ll never have to use them as a security guard.”

Students will not know which teachers are armed and which are not to ensure that Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are able to assist at a moment’s notice.

CERT is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These are trained members of each community educated in “disaster preparedness for hazards that may impact their area and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations.”

Donna Morey, former president of the Arkansas Education Association (AEA) said: “We just think educators should be in the business of educating students, not carrying a weapon.”

Arkansas and 6 other states; such as Ohio, Colorado, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Washington State have adopted measures to place armed guards in public schools.

School districts in Florida, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Alabama and New Jersey have hired armed police officers to patrol and protect their campuses based on Vice President Joe Biden’s national recommendations last January.

Like those other schools, Sidwell Friends School, where President Obama’s two daughters attend, have 11 security officers and is seeking tohire armed police officers to patrol the campus.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) School Resource Officer program offers government certified law enforcement officers to patrol campuses as part of a national initiative.

Sheriff Douglas Harp of Nobile County, Indiana suggested deputizing teachers in order to carry handguns in classrooms just after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Last January, a scheduled Code Red lockdown was performed at Cary-Grove High School in Illinois.

This drill was complete with the firing of blanks into a hallway to give the students the very real impression that they were being attacked. Officialsclaimed that this exercise would help teachers and students “recognize the sound and react quickly should an active gunman situation occur.”

According the school website: “The drill will begin with a public address announcement about the lockdown. After staff have secured their rooms, Cary police and administrators will sweep the building to ensure all students made it into secure locations and assess any potential issues that may become apparent from the practice. Following this, a second PA announcement will be made informing students and staff that gunfire will be simulated so that they might be able to recognize the sound and react quickly, should an active gunman situation occur.”

They went on to explain: “Following the drill, a discussion will ensue between the students and their classroom teacher. We will utilize this feedback as a building and police department to assess our security and make any necessary adjustments to our building plan. Our sole purpose for utilizing the blanks is to fully prepare our students and staff.”

Parents whose children attend the school were concerned that the simulated gunfire was going beyond necessities. One parent said: “If you need to run a drill, you run a drill. They run fire drills all the time, but they don’t run up and down the hallway with a flamethrower.”

Students were upset by the crassness of the drill. Some participants pointed out that not all guns sound the same when fired. And a substitute teacher suggested that there be proactive training on what do to in such a situation instead of the terrifying drill that was conducted by school officials.

Jeff Puma, spokesperson for the high school explained that the administration is working with the Cary Police Department who recommended that this drill take place. Puma said: “It was their recommendation that we do this in order to create the knowledge necessary to keep our students safe in an active crisis situation.”

Puma said that the police referred to the students as “sitting ducks” while in their classrooms should a shooter enter the building. The police intimated that the students remain in their classrooms for “safety reasons” rather than try to escape through a window or run out a door.

Source:  Susanne Posel | Occupy Corporatism

The Post-Racial President’s Profiling: DWW (Defending While White)

What would it have taken for the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman to find him guilty? Well, try this on for size: imagine that instead of emerging from his encounter with Trayvon Martin bloodied with a broken nose, he didn’t have a scratch on him. Imagine he had also admitted he confronted Martin with gun drawn and hadn’t actually been attacked — but had shot Martin simply because the teen was running at him. Lastly, imagine Zimmerman was built like a brick outhouse, had trained in a few martial arts and even competed in martial-arts tournaments. Is it conceivable there could have been an acquittal?

Luckily for Zimmerman, the above was not his scenario. But those were the facts in the case of another man who shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old.

And there was an acquittal.

The case was however, different in two apparently significant ways: the teenager was white and the shooter was black.

The man’s name is Roderick Scott, and he shot teen Christopher Cervini in 2009 in Greece, New York. As with Zimmerman, Scott was aware there had been crimes in his neighborhood; unlike Zimmerman, Scott wasn’t a neighborhood-watch volunteer. But after observing some individuals preparing to break in to a neighbor’s vehicle on an April 4 night, Scott grabbed his handgun and walked outside “to stop or detain the criminals,” as he put it. He then saw someone rummaging around inside the vehicle and saw two suspects altogether, at which point he drew his weapon, chambered a round, took a shooting stance and ordered the teens to freeze, prompting one them to run off. But the other, Chris Cervini, charged toward him yelling that he was going to get him, claims Scott. Having already warned the criminals he was armed, Scott testified that he then shot the teen so he would not “kill me or hurt me.”

Other similarities between the two cases are that Scott was also faced with a manslaughter charged and was judged by a mostly white jury. But then there are some more differences. The national media didn’t pick up his story and make it a cause célèbre. We didn’t see news outlets plaster articles with a picture of a smiling, cherubic, pubescent Chris Cervini or NBC doctor a tape to provoke racial unrest and make Scott appear a bigot. We didn’t see the DOJ send operatives to NY to foment demonstrations, and Eric Holder never contemplated civil-rights charges against Scott. And no one said “It’s now legal to shoot white kids in America.”

Oh, yeah, and the best information has it that Cervini was not armed with a bag of Skittles.

It is also inconceivable that muscular martial-arts competitor Scott couldn’t have taken the teen down in mere seconds with his bare hands. But I suspect he was a no-nonsense type, that his attitude was, “If those punks make one wrong move, I’m gonna’ smoke ‘em.” But this is conjecture. Scott is a human being, deserves fair treatment, and I accept that reasonable doubt existed in his case. From a practical standpoint, however, that wasn’t the main reason why — unlike Zimmerman — his case proceeded without fanfare. It’s not the main reason he is not now a marked man.

It is that he wasn’t guilty of DWW.

At least since the first high-profile Defending While White case — Bernhard Goetz’s in 1984 — it has been clear that liberals have it exactly backwards (as usual). They feel that whites get favored treatment after inter-racial confrontations, but the reality is that if there’s any gray at all when it’s black vs. white, the journalism runs yellow. The media can have that story they love: privileged white oppressor guns down helpless black babe-in-the-woods victim. And then it’s sort of how your sex can be whatever you want today. Hispanics become white, a teen thug becomes a child, a defender becomes an attacker and lies become truth.

One thing Martin’s defenders are right about, however, is that black kids just aren’t safe on the streets of America. After all, homicide is the leading cause of death among black teens. In fact, as liberal Juan Williams wrote last year citing DOJ statistics based on a 2005 analysis, “Almost one half of the nation’s murder victims that year were black and a majority of them were between the ages of 17 and 29. Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population in 2005. Yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation’s murders.” But then there’s something else the DOJ tells us.

Ninety-three percent of these black victims were killed by other blacks.

That doesn’t leave much left over for other races, so what percentage of black and white homicides involves whites killing blacks?

Three percent¹.

Moreover, this includes justifiable homicides (defensive situations), and only a minority would be incidents in which an older white man kills a black teen. And very, very few of those would be considered murders. Yet Eric Holder’s DOJ now behaves as if this phenomenon is such an epidemic that federal power must be used to stamp it out.

Of course, if Holder truly cared about blacks and not just agendas, his focus would be on the true epidemic of blacks killing other blacks. And if he cared about truth, he would actually publicize the findings of a study conducted by his own DOJ in 2011. And here is a sampling of them from Investor’s Business Daily:

[E]ven though black men between the ages of 14 and 24 make up only 1% of the U.S. population, they represent 27% of all the nation’s murderers.

…While blacks make up just 13% of the population, they’re responsible for more than half — 53% — of the country’s murders.

The 36-page study, which analyzed race-based crime data spanning three decades, found that whites were twice as likely to be murdered by blacks than the other way around….

Note that the DOJ included Hispanics in its “white” category. If only non-Hispanic whites are considered, however, the US murder rate is comparable to that of Western Europe (because of this demographic reality, the murder rates in New Hampshire, Vermont and Iowa are lower than Britain’s).

Conclusion? If you’re a prospective murder victim in America, the probability is good that your victimizer will be a black youth. This is why the DOJ study also tells us, “[N]early 40% of all justifiable homicides were blacks defending themselves against violent blacks (and that doesn’t include all the black cops killing black thugs),” writes IBD. And we don’t hear much about this. But what if you’re a white person who must defend himself against a violent black youth?

You may be charged with DWW.

Then the media can publish its baby pictures. It can talk about how you murdered a “child” as it murders your reputation and perhaps your chances for a fair trial. It can twist the truth. And it can state idiotic things, such as that your “injuries weren’t life-threatening,” as some said about Zimmerman (wait until you have life-threatening injuries before defending yourself and you may not be able to defend yourself).

And if you think DWW is problematic here, just look overseas to South Africa, where whites are sometimes imprisoned on trumped-up charges after defending themselves. Moreover, the nation’s ANC-led government started disarming the white population in 2010 and, wrote Frontpage Mag in March:

Thus, white farm families were forced to relinquish their last line of defense against the tens of thousands of criminal gangs roaming the countryside–armed with AK47s. [sic] and as Genocide Watch noted on its website last July one more step was taken as well. “The government has disbanded the commando units of white farmers that once protected their farms, and has passed laws to confiscate the farmers’ weapons,” it reported. “Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocidal killings.”

Speaking of which, Genocide Watch places the imperiled South African whites at stage six in the genocidal process.

Stage seven is extermination.

Much like what some plan for George Zimmerman, the DWW transgressor with a $10,000 New Black Panther bounty on his head.

¹Data are from the FBI, the Census Bureau, and the Department of Justice (details)

Democratic Establishment Unmasked: Prime Defenders of NSA Bulk Spying

NYT: “The Obama administration made common cause with the House Republican leadership”

Source: Glenn Greenwald | The Guardian

Fake Names On Facebook And The Surveillance State

File this one in the ever-burgeoning category of: how insane can legislators get?

Congress is now debating an update to the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Turns out it’s already a misdemeanor to “exceed authorized use” of a computer, but the DOJ wants to make it a felony.

Of course, what does “exceeds authorized use” mean? Well, it means, for instance, an employee sending emails to pals while he’s at the office—because his employer has a rule against that.

In other words, the feds want to back up employers’ rules and turn them into felonies. Splendid.

“Yeah, you remember Jack, don’t you? Used to work here? One day he made an online reservation at the Wynn in Vegas, and now he’s in jail. Life is tough, keep your eyes straight ahead and don’t mess with the boss.”

“And Betty? She ordered three lipsticks on a slow Thursday and she’s now upstate. I hear the shrinks got hold of her. Dosing her with an anti-psychotic. Hope she has three live brain cells to rub together when she gets out.”

Then there’s the Facebook issue. The company, originally bankrolled by a CIA front, has a rule against users setting up accounts with fake names. Does the DOJ want to go after Facebook users who break the rules?

The Surveillance State, aided by Facebook, wants to know who you are at all times. They want you to be your name and no other name.

It’s a technical issue, see? It’s a lot easier to spy on you if you’re Mary Jones all the time when you’re online. As opposed to Mary Jones and Dragon Lady and HiHat and Ben Franklin and The Beast From 40 Fathoms…

The joke is, most people lead lives that are fictional already. The NSA and its allied partners spy on those lives.

Here’s the same thing from another angle. John Smith, citizen, follows the straight and narrow. He, like every other John Smith, is a target of the Surveillance State. He hasn’t committed any crimes. He isn’t a threat. But that doesn’t matter. He’s there. He’s a unit. Therefore, he’s on the radar.

But John Smith is a fiction. He’s a convenient, solid, average, normal persona/role in the stage play called Society cooked up by the Real John Smith, who is hiding. Inside himself. You rarely see him. Once in a blue moon, he pokes his head out and says something off-key. Then he retreats behind his facade.

There are millions and John Smiths, and the NSA is spying on all of them. The fake ones. The fictions.

What if every John Smith invented six or seven new personae?

“Sir, are you pretending to be somebody else?”

“Yes, and the pretending is now more intense. It’s ongoing.”

“But you see, sir, that introduces confusion, when we spy on you.”

“I used to believe I was a John Smith android forever. Wow, was I kidding myself. I used to go to one church service on Sunday. Now I go to three different churches. And I’m also an atheist.”

“Excuse me?”

“I campaigned for Democrats only. Now I campaign for Democrats, Republican, Libertarians, Communists, and Anarchists. Of course I don’t vote for anyone. I’m exploring monarchy as well. I think the divine right of kings could make a comeback.”

“But who do you actually worship?”

“The NSA, of course. And the CIA and DIA, Interpol, MI-5, the old GRU, and the Chinese Secret Service.”

“Sir, we have you on the record talking about eight different wives.”

“Only eight? I must have misplaced a couple.”

Some people will assume I mean they should actually marry a dozen women. Those people are the literalists. They always go for the lowest-common-denominator reading. They think if they have a little fun, do a little acting, a little pretending, it might infect their minds. It might take them over. They’re the John Smiths. They live inside walls of fear.

Reality is one fiction among a limitless number of possible realities.

The basic problem with Reality is that’s it’s only one.

Any baby can teach you that. Play with the kid in just one way, over and over, and he’ll develop an itch he can’t scratch. He’ll cry and go off on you. Play with him a hundred different ways and he’ll gurgle and laugh and wriggle and decide coming into this life was a good idea after all.

Every kid needs an uncle and an aunt and a few cousins and a brother or sister. Parents tend to repeat themselves. Their repertoire wears thin. The kid needs a boost, a change, a different face, a new joke, a shift of rhythm.

People who can make you laugh take you out. They take you out of the one, forever, exhausting IS. Reality is the fiction of one and only one IS.

There are two types of laughs. One blows up reality. The other, which is the android laugh, comes across like tranquilized mule with a hernia.

The NSA is super-serious about the one persona that is supposed to be the super-serious you. That’s what they’re spying on.

The internet thrives on anonymity. This causes a lot of nonsense and crap to surface. That’s the price we pay. But the Surveillance State doesn’t want anonymity. It wants “just the facts.”

It wants to scare people into being their android-selves and nothing more, nothing else. It wants The One Reality. If they can make that happen, they win. Afterward, it really doesn’t matter what people do.

I remember watching the very first episode of the original CSI. At the murder scene, the techs were going over an apartment, collecting evidence, bagging it. Then we were back in the lab. More analysis.

I thought, are they kidding? They believe people want to watch this stuff?

Well, people did. They wanted to watch the lab, the fine-tuning of hair, blood, DNA. The categorization, the tracking, the accessing of the data banks.

The first cousin to Surveillance.

You want to talk about operant conditioning? The whole CSI franchise is one giant psyop. For more than a decade. Getting people used to ubiquitous looking and spying and tracking, on behalf of justice.

That’s what NSA wants to be. That’s how NSA wants the public to view it.

Super-serious-android-NSA spying on super-serious-android-us. In the one and only Reality. That’s the op.

So…step back and calculate our chances if we continue to live in the one and only Reality and try to fight them from that position.

Of course, entering and inventing other realities takes imagination. That’s the catch. It always was.

Ever since the first elite priest class on Earth cooked up some crazy spiritual Ponzi scheme to suck in the rubes, imagination has been the nemesis of the State.

Paraphrasing Grouch Marx: “In the 1930s, you could make a movie in which a woman fell down a flight of stairs, and people would laugh. But eventually it couldn’t be a movie. It had to be a real woman falling down a real flight of stairs.”

People are trained like dogs to appreciate and accept only one IS. The “real” IS. They convince themselves this is a good idea. These people are unconscious allies of the Surveillance State.

What’s that? People are into all sorts of multiple virtual realities? Yes, for a while, but they keep coming back to believing in The One and Only Just-the-Facts Reality. If they actually wanted new realities, they’d be cooking them up themselves, they wouldn’t be dreaming inside somebody else’s.

In light of all of the above, the universe of propaganda becomes more vivid. Its aim is reduction. Reduction of the way we see ourselves. We’re given bound images of human beings as citizens living in a walled fortress, where our every thought and action needs to be boiled down and made transparent, so our leaders can make threat assessments.

This is the fiction we’re being fed. Over and over.

 

“It’s not asking too much, is it? It’s too hard to seek out and find terrorists. We need to collect everything on everybody, and then with suitable algorithms established, we can select out the dangerous ones.

“In fact, it’s better if we consider everybody dangerous and track and limit their movements. That works.”

 

Yes, the NSA is looking at you. They’re looking at you as if you’re an android. Well, naturally. They’re androids. Wherever they look, they see androids.

---

The author of two explosive collections,  and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon Rappoport was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Source: Jon Rappoport  |  No More Fake News

Obama’s Dangerous Racial Hang-Ups

When Barack Obama said that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon,” it perhaps didn’t say much for him as a parent. And when the president now says that Martin could have been him “35 years ago,” it doesn’t say much for him as a youth. Of course, we know that Choom Gang Obama smoked marijuana like Martin. I wonder, though, did he miss 53 out of 90 days of school and get suspended 3 times during that period? Was he caught with ladies jewelry, a “burglary tool” and drug paraphernalia in school? Did he enjoy fighting and, when a girlfriend implored him to beat his sword into ploughshares, say that he was going to fight another boy again because “he didn’t bleed enough for me”? Most significantly, would Obama have attacked George Zimmerman, broken his nose and pounded his head against the pavement? It seems the president is implying he was a thug.

(Aside: on the other hand, if you truly believe Martin was a good kid, Mr. Obama, would you have been okay with his dating one of your daughters?)

In reality, I’m quite certain what young Obama would’ve done if he had been profiled and was alarmed at being followed. Run. Ah, but should a teenager minding his own business (supposedly) have to be profiled? The president certainly doesn’t think so, as he recently said, “There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.”

Yes, what injustice. What an imposition. What prejudice.

What nonsense.

Let me tell you a story. About 15 years ago I was walking on a lonely street towards a friends’ apartment in a decent Bronx neighborhood (there is such a thing). The only other person on the sidewalk was a woman about 25 paces in front of me. Well, aware of my presence, she nervously stopped, turned hard left, moved in-between two parked cars and remained there anxiously till I passed by, her eyes affixed on me the whole time. Why such a reaction? I can assure you I wasn’t made up to perform in a minstrel show.

She judged that way me simply because I was a young man. Yet she knew nothing about me!

And that’s the point.

Consider what she did know. Almost 90 percent of violent crime is committed by men. If she was going to be raped, it would be by a man. And being a man, I was a lot bigger and stronger than she was. So she was making judgments based on the only information at her disposal: superficial measures. And could I blame her? It’s not as if she sprayed me down with mace as I walked by. She was just applying common sense.

What’s funny here, though, is that we don’t hear activists complain about the “injustice” of sex profiling; they don’t even notice it. People fixate on how Trayvon Martin was profiled because he was black, but it doesn’t even occur to them that a Tawana Martin would have raised considerably less suspicion.

This brings us to a question: if it’s okay for “male” to be part of a criminal profile, shouldn’t all other characteristics associated with a higher incidence of crime be fair game as well? And would “black” qualify? Well, consider what Investor’s Business Daily reports, quoting statistics from Eric Holder’s DOJ:

[E]ven though black men between the ages of 14 and 24 make up only 1% of the U.S. population, they represent 27% of all the nation’s murderers.

… [T]he administration study also found that blacks of any age are eight times more likely to murder than whites [and note that the DOJ included Hispanics in the “white” category].

While blacks make up just 13% of the population, they’re responsible for more than half — 53% — of the country’s murders.

So contrary to what Obama implies, the suspicion of blacks — just like the suspicion of men — has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with reality.

Now a bit more about profiling. Profiling is simply a method by which one can determine the probability that a given individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent. And many factors weigh in this assessment, such as sex, age, dress, behavior and, yes, race. This is why complaints about “racial profiling” are as silly as would be talk of “sex profiling.” Because there are only two kinds of profiling: good profiling and bad profiling. The good variety involves all relevant factors as identified by sound criminological science (and the science of streetwise survival). Bad profiling arises when you disallow relevant factors based on the tenets of political correctness.

This brings us back to Martin. He wasn’t viewed suspiciously simply because he was black any more than I was 15 years ago because I was male. In my case, if I’d been 85 years old and/or wearing a business suit (I wore my favorite leather jacket), the woman I encountered would’ve been far less likely to consider me a threat. Likewise, if Martin had been dressed smartly and carried himself with dignity, he would have raised fewer eyebrows.

Of course, having grown up in NYC, I understand that boys in rough neighborhoods don’t want to dress like Little Lord Fauntleroy (the friend I mentioned earlier, a brilliant man of faith, made cultivating the white-trash look an art); appearing tough deters troublemakers. Then again, it’s also true that many black youths think the bad-to-the-bone gangsta’ style is cool. Whatever the motivation, know that the same thing making you seem formidable prey to miscreants makes you seem a fearsome predator to the meek. “But, hey, don’t I have the right to dress how I want?!” Sure, and a white teen may take on the skinhead look— and then people will make their judgments. It’s fairly stupid to don a hoodie and then wonder why you’re viewed as a hood.

In fact, the “do as I please without judgment” attitude — reflected in Obama’s words — is also something else: offensive. After all, imagine I demanded that women check their brains at the door in deference to men’s feelings and not take whatever precautions are prudent when strange men are present. I don’t even have the right to ask such a thing.  Other people’s safety takes precedence over your feelings, Mr. Obama.

And if the world’s Obamas and Sharptons are still angry, they should consider the answer Alan Keyes gave in a presidential primary debate when asked if he’d be upset at being profiled as a black man. He said (I’m paraphrasing), “Yes, I’d be upset. I’d be upset at all the young black men who committed crimes and caused others to view me more suspiciously.”

Of course, the reality is that just as the mouse flees from the Garter snake or the cat from the dog, liberals instinctively profile just like anyone else. Jesse Jackson said in 1993, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved.” Juan Williams admitted in 2010, “[W]hen I get on a plane…if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think…they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” In a 2008 speech, Obama called his grandmother a “typical white person.” And we know now that even little Saint Trayvon, in all his cherubic, golden-toothed glory, profiled George Zimmerman as a “creepy-**s cracka’” and perhaps even a homosexual predator.

And the irony is that if Martin had actually known how to profile as well as Zimmerman, he might still be alive today.

Holder And Zimmerman: Will Blackness Trump Fairness?

While George Zimmerman has been acquitted, his troubles are hardly behind him. It’s not just that no small number of thugs want his head on a platter, but that the baddest of them all is the highest law-enforcement official in the land.

The question of whether Eric Holder’s Department of Justice will file a civil-rights-violation suit against Zimmerman is especially salient now. This is because of his acquittal, of course, but also because it must be considered against the backdrop of an open investigation of him that the department’s Civil Rights Division is currently conducting.

An investigation that was proceeding even before Zimmerman’s trial was concluded.

This brings us to the important point that the DOJ has a conflict of interest in the case — a conflict of emotional interest.

It’s a shamefully intense one, too. Consider this: “Right now, hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the Department of Justice Voting Section is a sign expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin.” This was written just last month by J. Christian Adams, the former DOJ civil-rights attorney who resigned from the department in disgust in 2010. But is the sign just a rogue employee’s handiwork? Hardly. It is, in fact, reflective of the intense anti-white/pro-black racial bias prevailing at the DOJ.

And it starts at the top. I’ve often reported on Holder’s race card; no, not the one he plays when cowardly calling Americans cowards on race. The actual one that, according to Adams, he carries around in his wallet and which bears the words of a Harlem preacher named Samuel Proctor. The actual quotation is found here, but more interesting is Holder’s interpretation of it. As Adams wrote in his book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department:

When asked to explain the passage, Holder replied, “It really says that … I am not the tall U.S. attorney, I am not the thin United States attorney. I am the black United States attorney. And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there’s a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal…” [especially when they’re one and the same].

Think about that for a moment. Not only should we wonder what that common cause might be, but Holder didn’t say that it bonded him to the black downtrodden. He didn’t even say black defendant.

He said he was bonded to the black “criminal.”

Now, a criminal is just that: a person absolutely, positively guilty of violating the law. So ponder the reality here, which is so astounding that it bears recasting.

The nation’s highest law-enforcement official has bonded with criminals.

He has common cause with them.

At least, that is, if they happen to share his skin color.

Now consider what this means for Mr. Zimmerman. We generally assume that blacks who may be biased against him would at most rationalize and deny his case a fair hearing in that court between the ears; the idea is that they’d convince themselves Trayvon Martin was innocent and Zimmerman a cold-blooded hunter. But if we’re to take Holder at his word, a different and quite striking conclusion presents itself.

He couldn’t care less if Martin was guilty as sin.

It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman acted in legitimate self-defense.

Holder doesn’t have to rationalize because he doesn’t care if Martin was a “criminal.” Martin was black. And that means Holder has a common-cause bond with him.

If that’s not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.

So we basically have the New Black Panthers, sans outfits, at the DOJ. Is it any surprise, then, that Holder dropped the voting-rights-violation case against the out-of-the-closet New Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008? And is it any surprise that, as Adams also tells us:

[Last] week, Judicial Watch released documents demonstrating that the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service was deeply entangled in New Black Panther-led rallies and protests in Sanford, Florida, against George Zimmerman. These are the same rallies during which the New Black Panthers called for a bounty on George Zimmerman, and released “dead or alive” posters. The New Black Panther leading the rallies was the same New Black Panther Eric Holder sprang free in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.

The common-cause bond strikes again.

So forget about Zimmerman getting a fair hearing at the DOJ; it’s not the facts of the case but the color of his face to the “black United States attorney.”

And what are we to say when America’s top law-enforcement official has served notice that he has no regard for the law? What’s his thinking? I can only conclude that he considers the law unjust by definition because it is “white man’s law.” And when at issue is the violation of unjust law, “criminal” becomes a badge of honor.

Given that much crime is black on black, however, I have to wonder what would happen if, on some dark byway one lonely night, Eric Holder ran into the wrong bond brother. Would the miscreant sense that common-cause connection and not view as a victim the man who wouldn’t view him as a criminal? Well, the chance to find out would be something Eric the Red will never give us.

Justice.

Top IRS Official Takes The Fifth: What It Means

Now it’s getting interesting.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt filings, will take the Fifth in front of Congress tomorrow.

She won’t answer questions. She won’t say, for example, why she never informed Congress that she knew there was criminal fiddling going on at the IRS, where employees “gave extra scrutiny” to tea party, conservative, patriot, and other groups during the application process.

Instead, as the DOJ launches a criminal investigation, Lerner will tell the House Oversight Committee, “I decline to answer. I invoke my Fifth Amendment right.” Multiple times she will say this.

Meaning: “If I answer, I could incriminate myself.”

Her lawyer, William Taylor, has asked the Committee to excuse Lerner from testifying tomorrow, Wednesday, since she won’t be answering questions. Taylor wrote to the House Committee, “[Forcing her to testify would] have no other purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”

Tsk, tsk. Mustn’t embarrass a person who has committed crimes. Be nice. Be kind. Yes, Lois Lerner failed to tell the Committee anything about IRS crimes, when she testified four times last year, but so what? Give her a break. Goodness gracious, don’t put her through an ordeal.

Somehow, Lerner’s lawyer’s logic doesn’t stand up. But he’s a lawyer, so that’s no surprise.

Then there was this: a presidential election last year. 2012? Obama? Remember?

If Lois Lerner had blown the whistle then, and the full-blown scandal that’s erupting now had occurred before the election, who knows who would have won the presidency.

Lois was obviously protecting a president running to win a second term. She’s “pre-taking” the Fifth now and hoping she won’t have to appear before the Committee tomorrow, so the Obama administration won’t have to risk hearing a Congressman ask, WERE YOU PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT FROM SCANDAL IN AN ELECTION YEAR?

WERE YOU LYING SO OBAMA COULD WIN REELECTION?

Ahem…the Fifth Amendment wasn’t designed for that purpose. It was designed so a person wouldn’t have to incriminate himself/herself. The Fifth doesn’t exist to protect someone else from scandal.

We get it, Lois. We get what you’re up to.

If you do stand before the Committee tomorrow, why don’t you just say, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I would cast doubt on the 2012 presidential election and the president.” Come out with it.

One question, though. Are you sure the president you’re protecting isn’t named George Bush? Because this sounds a lot like what Bush’s people were doing all those years.

Am I dreaming here? This is the Obama administration, right? The presidency that was supposed to be transparent and good and different and transcendent, and prophetic of a New Age?

Gee, you mean it’s just biz as usual? It’s every presidency and every administration that pulls dirty tricks? It’s one continuous, unbroken line of diabolical scum at work?

What a shock. Let me hold on to my chair, because the room might start spinning.

Lois, what if there is no Clark? What if he’s not in some phone booth taking off his suit and turning into Superman, so he can rescue you? What if the president and his henchmen are just throwing you to the wolves?

Consider that. Then consider what would happen if you changed your mind at the 11^th hour, and instead of taking the Fifth, you checked into the Committee room tomorrow and told everything, and I mean everything, you know.

You could rock the vote, retrospectively. You could make the kind of splash we rarely see. You could upset so many apple carts it would be wondrous to behold.

Wasn’t this administration supposed to be about a massive healing and cleansing? You could make it so, Lois. You could engage with the people, for once, and tell the truth.

I know you’re sweating bullets right now, but think about it.

Imagine the looks on the faces of Steven Miller, Eric Holder, Barack Obama.

The truth and the whole truth.

Priceless.

Lois, your lawyer, Taylor, has written to the House Committee, “[Lois] has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances, she has no choice but to take this course [and invoke the Fifth].”

Wow, Lois, do you see how crazy it’s getting? Your own attorney is basically saying you have no reason to take the Fifth…except for the fact that you have to protect other people. Isn’t that right? Isn’t that what he really means? So who is he really working for?

You’re out there alone. You’re exposed. Why not give them all the shaft and tell the whole sordid story?

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections,  and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Source: Jon Rappoport Blog

Media Once Bitten, Forever Scorn

Hurrah, the worm has turned! Or has it? The corporatist controlled mass media love affair with the puppet spinmeister seems to be on the rocks. For progressive propagandists, the profession of journalism has long sunk into the sewer. Withal, the elitist snobbery of the self-appointed gatekeepers for the globalist power structure got a slap in the face and a wakeup call, from Associated Press spy-gate. The reporter darlings for the Obama “Chicago Outfit” protection racket just got a taste of unexpected payback appreciation. Slow on the uptake, Obama Lapdog Andrea Mitchell on IRS Scandal: “One of the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen in all my years in journalism” “Wait until this fossil finds out about AP records being seized.”

 

This sentiment typifies the insincere shock from the hypocrites that ignored the criminal pattern of governance for the last four plus years. Just listen to their temper tantrum in the YouTube video, . Oh, woe is I, how can our esteemed profession be treated in such a way by our celebrity creation rock star? How could he betray us, after we covered for him at every turn?

Well, the fact that the “Chicago Gangster Organization” of the Obama crew targeted the electronic communications of the press should not be a shock in the age of the Patriot Act. The real bombshell is that the Justice Dept. Wiretapped the House of Representative’s Cloak Room. “California congressman Devin Nunes made the claim yesterday that the Justice Department wiretapped telephones in the House of Representative’s Cloak Room, an exclusive part of the Capitol where members are able to privately interact with one another.

“Will the newly invigorated and hardy souls of the “Fourth Estate” become bloodhounds and sniff out the ugly stories behind the headlines? Before the long beleaguered news consumer regains confidence that the muckraker tradition of theWashington Merry-Go-Round has returned, consider who really benefits from this miraculous turn of conscience.

Let’s get right down with the despicable truth that most mainstream news is simply a product of disinformation that benefits the shadowy forces that control the editorial content of the spin. Polite company is supposed to ignore that Zionism and the Mediahas an Israel-First agenda in reporting. The direct links of tribe ownership, editorial approval and journalists staffing is simply a fact within the industry.

The linkage of a systemic slanted viewpoint and sympathy for an ideology that conflicts with traditional Americanism is a reality that cannot be denied by any honest observer. Prodigious lies from politicians are expected, but repeating the prevarications, while professing a claim that objective journalism is their trade, is a primary reason whypresstitutes are so despised.

In order to understand the current media scorn towards the Obama regime needs a shot of bold courage for analysis of the geo-political influence that dictates the perspective that goes into print. Since the mass media is a top down cabal of groupthink, it is entirely explicable that some political objective is at the core of the “so called” fabricated media outrage.

The Obama administration has demonstrated a reluctance to do the bidding of the most bellicose pro Zionists. The significance that an illegal preempted strike on Iran, a priority for Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, has not received approval from Barry Soetoro means that the string is running out on Obama usefulness. Interminable media speculation has been registered about Barack Hussein Muslim sympathies. Leaving the extent of such motivations aside, the critical question is whether a teleprompt reader, tutored by the CIA to become an asset for the agency, is really making foreign policy decisions.Consider that the red line has passed for Obama, and that operations for false flag distractions are firmly in the hands of his controllers. Stripping the imposter in chief of his political capital and placing blame on his inept and gonzo behavior is a natural for the skilled character blackwash of media assassins.

The most reasonable conclusion from an analysis of the sudden turn by a uniform media is that the order, from on high, went forth that ignoring greater Israel interests, has consequences. From none other than the oracle of Zionist supremacy, the New York Times editorial board Spying on The Associated Press, expresses their new found denigration.

“For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, “calls into question the very integrity” of the administration’s policy toward the press.”

The mere mention of the Attorney General from the Department of Injustice, mildly stated is just a little late. “Fast And Furious” Eric Holder is the poster boy for careerist corruption going back to the Oklahoma City Bombing. Why now is the media turning on an AG that makes one longing for the resurrection to office of John Mitchell?

The POTUS proclaims, I Have ‘Complete Confidence’ In Holder.

“President Barack Obama continues to back Attorney General Eric Holder following the fallout over the Justice Department secretly obtaining two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press.

During a Rose Garden press conference, the president stated that he has “complete confidence” in the job Holder is doing.”

And why would Obama not back his buffoon sibling in law-breaking? Know NothingHolder is either the minister of incompetence or the sheriff of selective memory.

“Attorney General Eric Holder used the phrase “I don’t know” or some variation, at least 57 times during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today as House Republicans grilled him over controversies including the IRS’ targeting of Tea Partiers, the Justice Department’s seizure of journalist phone records, and the security lapses surrounding the Boston bombing.

Holder, who says he has recused himself from an intelligence leak probe in which the Department of Justice subpoenaed phone records from Associated Press reporters, repeatedly dodged questions about the growing scandal.

When asked whether the DOJ attempted to work with the AP before seizing the phone records, Holder said, “I don’t know what happened. I was recused from the case.”

The Daily Mail expands in the article, Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY, “Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.”For all those remaining Obama supporters, why isn’t Eric Holder indicted for obstruction of justice as a prelude to impeachment of his boss?

Already we are hearing that many more disclosures are about to break. One such disgrace, coming out of a broadcaster, notable for their ESPN coverage, is the account of the IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office.

“Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.”

The sport of network political coverage has been more about entertainment than accountability coverage. The application of investigative inquiry and objective criteria is mostly absent from the half-truths and feel good treatment of favored political causes and personalities. Quality investigatory reporting of a Robert Novak, Seymour Hersh or a Jack Anderson is very rare today. The standards that they practiced need to be applied by the Washington press corps.

Will the media demonstrate the same intensity of scrutiny, when querying Press Secretary Jay (Ron Ziegler, Jr) Carney as they did during Watergate? Dream on folks, the asymptomatic embellishment in reporting by the progressive media is embedded in their genes. Their function is to enable the collectivist cover-up that has a primal goal of dismantling our constitutional republic.

Independent news organizations need to get down to veracity and confront the power structure with the same vigor and intensity of John Peter Zenger. The publishing trade honed by Benjamin Franklin is dishonored by the journalists that grovel for career recognition from media conglomerates that write deliberate falsehoods.

Journalists know that their editor can strip out any item that does not conform to the “PC” policy of the publisher. The real Associated Press scandal is that the moguls of media stories are in the business of serving the political agenda of their ownership masters.

The reason that alternative news sites are dangerous to the establishment version of information is that the internet readers obtain none filtered content and are able to assess their own conclusions. The rightful contempt due for government political propaganda also applies to the slick talking heads that mouth the scripts of their internationalist overlords. Whom do you trust? The globalist adaptation of reality has no credibility.

Obama’s And Holder’s Selective Constitutional Deafness

Often a phenomenon of bad marriages, “selective deafness” is when one hears only what is convenient. The same failing manifests itself in government when politicians and judges hear the Constitution talk only when it sings their tune. Worse still, sometimes these people behave as if the document says things it doesn’t. This is the equivalent of hearing things.

And Kansas governor Sam Brownback heard something recently. He received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder stating that Kansas’ newly enacted legislation prohibiting government agents from enforcing federal gun laws in the state “directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.” Unconstitutional, Eric? My, how antebellum of you.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina House just passed a law criminalizing the enforcement of ObamaCare within its state, a move that critics will also attack with talk of the Supremacy Clause.

Speaking of supremacy, AG Holder also told Brownback that the feds would litigate if necessary “to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law,” which means that the case would end up before the Supreme Court.

So now the administration that created ObamaCare, refuses to enforce immigration law, illegally bypassed the Senate to make recess appointments, and has a DOJ that won’t offer whites voting-rights protections cites constitutionalism in defense of its agenda. This is a bit like serial-killing abortionist Kermit Gosnell seeking to avoid the death penalty by preaching the sanctity of life.

For Brownback’s part, he defended Kansas’ law by pointing out that the right to bear arms is enshrined not only in the US Constitution but also the Kansas Bill of Rights. This is true, but as Cicero learned 2000 years ago and hate-speech apparatchiks insist today, the truth isn’t always a defense. And the truth is, Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore. We now live in a place where the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of lawyers.

G.K. Chesterton once noted that “[t]here are only two ways of governing: by a rule and by a ruler.” We should note that in our nation it increasingly is the latter and that the pretense of constitutionality is now often used as a pretext for unconstitutional designs. The contemporary left’s attitude is much like that of the Jim Carrey lawyer character in Liar Liar who, subject to a spell that precluded his lying for 24 hours, responded to a judge’s question about why he objected to an argument in court by saying “Because it’s devastating to my case!” While the left is never that honest, their definition of a proper legal argument is similar: whatever works for them at the moment. Unfortunately, they have also managed to appoint many judges who work for them.

Thus, when leftists such as Eric Holder say, “We’ll see you in court,” our response should be, “I’ll see your court and raise you a state executive branch.” After all, how else do you respond when dealing with a stacked-deck Supreme Court that, using the greasiest of lawyer-craft, rubber stamps blatantly unconstitutional ObamaCare? How can the High Court be ascribed deific infallibility when it reads the same document in different times and draws different conclusions?

First remember here that the Supreme Court is only meant to be supreme among courts. And what of judicial review, the principle that courts shall be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning for all branches of government?

It is found nowhere in the Constitution.

It originated with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision in which Chief Justice John Marshall declared the right for the Court.

In other words, the Supreme Court was given big-kahuna powers by…the Supreme Court. So George Washington refuses to be made king, and shortly afterwards, like Napoleon crowning himself emperor, the Court makes itself an oligarchy. And we abide by this…why?

If thus characterizing the Court smacks of typical modern hyperbole, note that Thomas Jefferson warned that an oligarchy is precisely what the institution would become if judicial review were accepted. He said about the branches of government that it wasn’t correct to give “one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others…” and that if Justice Marshall’s opinion held sway, “then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” — this means a suicide pact.

Yet there is an even larger point. I am a staunch constitutionalist, but this is much like saying you’re an avid boxer: you can only indulge your passion with the cooperation of others. If your opponents refuse to abide by Queensbury rules, “boxing” becomes impossible as you’re reduced to a no-holds-barred, outlaw fight. And then insistence on unilaterally abiding by the rules only ensures painful defeat. Likewise, what happens when you play by constitutional rules despite your opponents’ subscribing to no-holds-barred, outlaw governance?

The point is that our constitution is the contract the American people have with one another. But when a party subject to a contract repeatedly violates its terms for the purposes of benefitting itself and disadvantaging the other parties, that contract is rendered null and void. For it has then become a suicide pact — especially for those who insist on fighting fair with barbarians.

This can be illuminated further by expanding on the boxing analogy, with the rules of boxing being the Constitution, your opponent representing the feds’ interests, boxing’s ruling body being the legislature, and the ringside judges being the Court. While the ruling body makes the rules, the judges’ role is to simply apply them, and your opponent has an obligation to follow them. But what if your opponent consistently violates them to gain an advantage? What happens when the judges, operating with an idea that the rules are “living,” only apply them in a way that suits whatever rooting interest they have at the time? Furthermore, what if your opponent has a majority of the judges in his pocket and they will ensure his victory? You’d have to be punchy to even step into that ring.

A prerequisite for any civilized endeavor — be it a game or government — is the necessary degree of civility on the part of those involved. Barring this, the wise move is to walk away and, in no uncertain terms, serve notice that you won’t play until there is agreement to follow the rules. And if your opponents are so intent on domination that they follow you outside the ring to fight, then you know it’s a back-alley brawl and proceed accordingly. Remember that when people will yield to neither reason nor law, there is only one thing left that can make them yield.

What we often forget when preaching constitutionalism is that the principle is conditional. As our second president John Adams explained, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” “Moral and religious” describe neither the leftists controlling our federal government nor those voting them into power. So love it though we may, our constitution is no more suited to much of modern America than it is to the Taliban. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we’ll free ourselves from the shackles of the left’s selective law just as it long ago freed itself from the guide rails of all law.

The SPLC Is At It Again

Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is at it again. In their typical obsessive hate-filled paranoia, the SPLC has issued another baseless assassination piece against anyone whom they consider to be “right-wing.” They call their hit piece, “The Year in Hate and Extremism.” Of course, only “right-wing” leaders are so characterized. According to the SPLC, left-wing leaders are always the voices of reason and goodness. Barf!

The SPLC article lists several conservative leaders as examples of “hate and extremism.” They include Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), U.S. Representative Trey Radel (R-FL), former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, FOX News radio host Todd Starnes, and ConservativeDaily.com’s Tony Adkins. “Even further to the right,” according to the SPLC, are Oath Keepers (founded by Stewart Rhodes), Judicial Watch’s Larry Klayman, and, yes, yours truly.

I take special delight in knowing that the SPLC ALWAYS puts me on or near the top of their most “dangerous” patriot lists. (Richard Mack and Stewart Rhodes also seem to merit this same attention.) I can’t tell you what a relief this is to me! I would hate to think that all of this work that I’m doing would somehow be overlooked by an extremist left-wing hate group like the SPLC. Plus, every time the SPLC puts me on one of their lists, donations, contributions, and support for my work always skyrocket. So, if you want to put your money behind a man who especially irritates the SPLC, you can donate to Chuck Baldwin Live here:

Donate To Chuck Baldwin Live

The SPLC maintains that 2012 saw a dramatic increase in the number of right-wing “hate groups.” Again, according to the SPLC, there are no left-wing hate groups. Of course, the SPLC doesn’t bother to name or locate these groups. Everyone is just supposed to take their word that they exist.

In addition, the SPLC maintains that anyone who opposes the UN’s Agenda 21 is also part of the “radical right,” as is anyone who belongs to the John Birch Society. Predictably, the SPLC report associates any and all of the above with neo-Nazis. This is a typical tactic of the SPLC (and other ultra-liberal organizations) to discredit conservatives by associating them with Nazis.

See the SPLC report at:

SPLC: The Year In Hate And Extremism

Back in 2010, the SPLC issued its list of 40 patriot leaders: people whom they consider to be part of the “radical right.” And, yes, Chuck Baldwin is at the very top of the list. Others who made the list in 2010 include Stewart Rhodes and Richard Mack (again), Alex Jones, Devvy Kidd, Cliff Kincaid, Jack McLamb, John McManus, Daniel New, Larry Pratt, Joel Skousen, Edwin Vieira, Jr., Andrew Napolitano, and Ron Paul.

See my column on this report at:

SPLC Publishes Patriot Hit List

The SPLC is such a paranoid, extremist, ultra-liberal organization it would seem that only those who are the most biased and prejudiced in their liberal philosophy could even take them half-way seriously. Unfortunately, however, the SPLC is one of the most-often quoted sources by the mainstream media. Of course, most Americans realize that the mainstream media, for the most part, is itself extremely biased in favor of a left-wing agenda, so it is not surprising that they would gravitate to the left-wing paranoia that emanates from the SPLC.

However, even more unfortunate is the fact that the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C., also gives credence to the SPLC’s ultra-left-wing propaganda. This is the most disturbing part of the SPLC hysteria: the nation’s law enforcement agencies that receive instructions, bulletins, memos, briefs, etc., from the DOJ are watching the feds regurgitate the left-wing propaganda of the SPLC. This is why State police agencies, such as what we saw happen in Missouri’s MIAC report, end up characterizing conservatives as “extremist hate groups.” They got it from the DOJ, which got it from the SPLC.

So, how is it that a private extremist organization such as the SPLC is given this kind of notoriety and credibility by the federal government?

In a previous column, I pointed out that the SPLC and DOJ enjoy a very cozy relationship. In that column I said, “The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Alabama, has long been used by the federal government and the national press corps to paint conservative organizations as ‘extremists,’ ‘anti-government,’ ‘hate groups,’ etc. No sooner would the SPLC issue some attack piece in their newsletter and police agencies all over the country would be issuing bulletins to their officers regurgitating what the SPLC had just spewed out. No private organization has this kind of connection to, and influence over, police agencies nationwide without collaboration with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. Well, now, we have evidence that such a collaboration exists.

“Brietbart.com has just released a report by Judicial Watch confirming that the DOJ and the SPLC are intricately tied to the hip. The report states, ‘Judicial Watch (JW), a Washington D.C. based non-partisan educational foundation, released some two dozen pages of emails it obtained on Tuesday revealing connections between the Department of Justice Civil Rights and Tax divisions and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).’”

See the column at:

If You Are Going To Take A Stand, You Must Take It Now!

That the DOJ has such a cozy relationship with this type of ultra-liberal organization should be cause for concern by all Americans. After all, justice is supposed to be adjudicated equally to all men–conservatives or liberals–according to the rule of law, not parceled out with the taint of bias and prejudice.

So, the SPLC is at it again. And, once again, I am flattered to be included in their list, because a man is known as much by his enemies as he is his friends. If the SPLC is attacking me, I must be doing something right.

The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.

Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.

It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2^nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.

I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2^nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/lets-stick-to-the-facts-when-discussing-gun-control.html/

The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.

In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”

Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.

Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2^ndAmendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:

“In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys…”

Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball?

Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.

Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).

Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.

The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic. A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns. He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership. Blodget somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives…

What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment. The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon:

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx

What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home. A police officer on scene after the event noted that “she handled her first shooting better than he did…”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing two. The student was subdued by the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt (Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of these attacks goes way down):

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html

And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be shot down by a conceal carrying citizen:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few

These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore. Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal. He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn’t.

After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points:

“First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.

The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident…”

To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that theNew York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.

“…Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.”

The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.

The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.

“Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)”

Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?

Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?

The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.

By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.

Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed because it used a small number of people as a test group”, all common assertions by gun control fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed 5000 households.

A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that 74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck’s study.  The hypocritical nature of the anti-gun mindset is revealed again…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-poll_n_2498840.html

Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:

“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.”

He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey (also used widely by gun grabbers) did not contradict the Kleck study, and that the argument of “too few participants” was unfounded:

“I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”

According to survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminologyentitled ‘Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment’, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.

Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us.

If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”. Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.

The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.

Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market

Next Page »