All my life I worked so hard Chasing the American Dream Bought a great big house A big fine car A foolproof retirement plan Sent my kids to school Don't want to raise no fool I was doing everything just right Paid my union dues Took my wife on a cruise My future, man, it looked so bright I woke up one day Heard the newsman say Oh no! We lost it all last night We lost it all last night I wanna walk that walk I wanna talk that talk I want to shine some light...all around Open up my heart I want to free my mind I want to leave something beautiful behind Credit card debt I can't keep score Repo man is at my door Got my notice just the other day Thought my job was here to stay But like my world is crumbling down All my friends, they left this town Took so much I never tried to give Got to find a better way to live I wanna walk that walk I wanna talk that talk I want to shine some light all around Open up my heart (Whoa) I want to free my mind I want to leave something beautiful behind Yeah, I want to leave something beautiful behind It's all crumbling down...all around Say Good Bye....say good bye The American Dream It's not what it seems Say Good Bye..the American Dream It's just a great big, a great big Ponzi scheme Say good bye....say good bye The American Dream My My My..better leave something beautiful behind (repeat)
Worlds in Collision paperback book cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Worlds in Collision is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky and first published April 3, 1950. The book postulated that around the 15th century BCE, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object, and passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world. Many of the book's claims are completely rejected by the established scientific community as they are not supported by currently available evidence.
The book was first published on April 3, 1950, by Macmillan Publishers.[1] Macmillan's interest in publishing it was encouraged by the knowledge that Velikovsky had obtained a promise from Gordon Atwater, Director of the Hayden Planetarium, for a sky show based on the book when it was published.[2] The book, Velikovsky's most criticized and controversial, was an instant New York Times bestseller, topping the charts for eleven weeks while being in the top ten for twenty-seven straight weeks.[3] Despite this popularity, overwhelming rejection of its thesis by the scientific community forced Macmillan to stop publishing it and to transfer the book to Doubleday within two months (Friedlander 1995:14).
Core ideas
In the book's preface, Velikovsky summarized his arguments:
Worlds in Collision is a book of wars in the celestial sphere that took place in historical times. In these wars the planet Earth participated too. [...] The historical-cosmological story of this book is based in the evidence of historical texts of many people around the globe, on classical literature, on epics of the northern races, on sacred books of the peoples of the Orient and Occident, on traditions and folklore of primitive peoples, on old astronomical inscriptions and charts, on archaeological finds, and also on geological and paleontological material.
The book proposed that around the 15th century BCE, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object, passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axial inclination, causing innumerable catastrophes which were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world. Fifty-two years later, it passed close by again, stopping the Earth's rotation for a while and causing more catastrophes. Then, in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, Mars (itself displaced by Venus) made close approaches to the Earth; this incident caused a new round of disturbances and disasters. After that, the current "celestial order" was established. The courses of the planets stabilized over the centuries and Venus gradually became a "normal" planet.
These events lead to several key statements:
Venus must be still very hot as young planets radiate heat.[4]
Venus must be rich in petroleum gases, and hydrocarbons.[5]
Venus has an abnormal orbit in consequence of the unusual disasters that happened.
Velikovsky suggested some additional ideas that he said derived from these claims, including:
The rotation of the Earth can be affected by electromagnetic fields.
Velikovsky arrived at these proposals using a methodology which would today be called comparative mythology - he looked for concordances in myths and written history of unconnected cultures across the world, following a literal reading of their accounts of the exploits of planetary deities. In this book, he argues on the basis of ancient cosmological myths from places as disparate as India and China, Greece and Rome, Assyria and Sumer. For example, ancient Greek mythology asserts that the goddess Athena sprang from the head of Zeus. Velikovsky identifies Zeus (whose Roman counterpart was the god Jupiter) with the planet Jupiter. Velikovsky identifies Athena (the Roman Minerva) with the planet Venus. This myth, along with others from ancient Egypt, Israel, Mexico, etc. are used to support the claim that "Venus was expelled as a comet and then changed to a planet after contact with a number of members of our solar system" (Velikovsky 1972:182). –
Forward by Bob Barney: I have held the belief that the American Indians are descendants from the Edomites (meaning red-men) and whose tribal leaders are called "Chiefs" in the Bible. This is a different and well researched alternative to my theory:
When Joshua invaded the Promised Land he set in motion a powerful chain of events that would have far reaching implications across the Atlantic Ocean in North America. As his victorious army smashed Canaanite resistance, survivors of the onslaught fled southwest into North Africa and northwards into Anatolia. From these points large migrations of the Canaanite tribes were launched into Europe and the British Isles -- and thence to the North American continent. This article tells the story of one group of Canaanites that found their way across Siberia and the Bering Strait to the wild hinterland of what is now the United States and Canada.
by: John D. Keyser
When Joshua the son of Nun entered the Promised Land at the head of the children of Israel, he set about implementing the commands of YEHOVAH God regarding the Canaanites in the land:
"When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He DISLODGES many nations before you -- the HITTITES, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations much larger than you -- and the Lord your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter....this is what you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their SACRED POSTS, and consign their images to the fire....You shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God delivers to you, showing them no pity....The Lord your God will DISLODGE those peoples before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them at once, else the wild beasts would multiply to your hurt. The Lord your God will deliver them up to you, throwing them into utter panic until they are wiped out. He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you shall obliterate their name from under the heavens..." (Deuteronomy 7: 1-2, 5, 16, 22-24. Tanakh).
When Joshua and the Israelites crossed the Jordan river just north of the Dead Sea, they camped a while at Gilgal, then moved to take Jericho and Ai. Afterward, they returned to Gilgal (Joshua 1-8). After making peace with Gibeon, Joshua led the Israelites through the Valley of Aijalon and defeated the five Amorite kings (Joshua 9-10). From Makkedah, Joshua launched a SOUTHERN campaign against Lachish, Hebron, Debir and Gaza. Those of the inhabitants who were not put to the sword by the Israelites, FLED TO EGYPT and sought refuge there. Samuel Purchas, in his book Relations of the World and the Religions Observed in All Ages, records this flight:
"Procopius...affirms, that all the seacoast, in those times, from Sidon to Egypt, was called Phoenicia: and that when Joshua invaded them, they [those that weren't killed] LEFT THEIR COUNTRY, and FLED INTO EGYPT..." (1613. Book I, chapter XVIII, p. 85).
After a victorious campaign, Joshua and the Israelites returned to Gilgal for a period of time before launching any more campaigns against the Canaanites. The Canaanites who had fled the country, however, pushed further into Africa: "...there [in Egypt] multiplying, [the Canaanites] pierced further into Africa; where they POSSESSED ALL THAT TRACT, UNTO THE PILLARS OF HERCULES, speaking half Phoenician" (Ibid., same page). Close to the Pillars of Hercules, on the African side, the vanquished Canaanite refugees built two cities: "They [the Canaanites] built THE CITY OF TINGE AND TANGER IN NUMIDIA, where were two pillars of white stone, placed near to a great fountain, in which, in the Phoenician tongue, was engraven: WE ARE CANAANITES, WHOM JOSHUA THE THIEF CHASED AWAY" (Ibid., same page). In The Complete Works of Josephus, translated by Wm. Whiston, is a footnote on page 110 that corroborates Purchas' record --
"Moses Chorenensis sets down the FAMOUS INSCRIPTION AT TANGIER [TANGER] concerning the old CANAANITES driven out of Palestine by Joshua thus: 'We are those exiles that were governors of the Canaanites, but have been driven away by Joshua the robber, AND ARE COME TO INHABIT HERE'" -- Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids. 1988.
In time these inhabitants of Northern Africa became known as Berbers and Moors. From Numidia the Canaanites soon made it across the Straits of Gibraltar and reached as far north as Scandinavia and the British Ises. In these countries (and Europe in general) they have left evidence of their existence over large areas of land, and are known to the anthropologists as the "Beaker People."
Oswald when he served in the US Marine Corps (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Bob Barney
Today, in an attempt to find the Warren report as being accurate, we have many "experts" now claiming the Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter, and that the claim that he couldn't make the shot is wrong. These experts, like Bill O'Reilly try to tell us that Oswald was a Marksman shooter in the Marine Corps. Sounds pretty convincing, until you understand that being a marksman in the Marine Corp is akin to being able to hit the broad side of a barn at 50 feet!
In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy:
In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.
Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.
To this date, as far as I know, no one has ever duplicated the marksmanship attributed to Oswald.
Former Marines recall that Oswald was a poor shot. Nelson Delgado said Oswald on the firing line was “a pretty big joke” because he got a lot of complete misses. Delgado told researcher Mark Lane that Oswald just was not that interested in guns. He was always being penalized for not taking proper care of his rifle or cleaning it regularly.
Sherman Cooley, another Marine, said “If I had to pick one man in the entire United States to shoot me, I’d pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There’s no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.”
Henry Hurt, author of “Reasonable Doubt” interviewed many of Oswald’s fellow Marines. Hurt said “On the subject of Oswald’s shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado’s opinion that it was laughable.
Many of the Marines said that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that they felt was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot.”
When he was a member of a hunting club in Minsk, Russia Oswald’s fellow members considered him a bad marksman.
Craig Roberts was a former Marine sniper who later wrote a book on the JFK assassination called “Kill Zone.” Roberts visited the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and instantly realized that Oswald could not have performed the shooting feat because he knew that he himself could not. And he was a professional.
Roberts interviewed Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor at the Marines Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. Roberts asked Hathcock if he thought Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did. Hathcock said no.
Hathcock reconstructed the assassination at Quantico: the angle, moving target, time limit etc. he told Roberts, “I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.
Again, we are talking about professionals. Men who completely outclass Oswald in raw shooting ability. But further, these are professional assassins who practice their skills almost daily.”
Dean Andrews, an attorney in New Orleans who met Oswald testified before the Warren Commission.
Andrews said “I know good and well Oswald did not kill the President. With that weapon, he couldn’t have been capable of making 3 controlled shots in that short time. I am basing my opinion on 5 years as an ordnance man in the Navy. You just don’t pick up a rifle or a pistol or whatever weapon you are using and stay proficient with it. You have to know what you are doing. This boy could have connived the deal, but I think he is a patsy.”
The CBS Reenactment Test
CBS news did a reenactment in 1967 involving several expert riflemen firing from a 60 foot tower at a moving sled using a similar Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. None of these expert riflemen hit the target twice on their first try and 7 of them failed to do so on any try. They also were able to fire several practice rounds before the test.
The Warren Commission’s tests were equally bad. The WC paid 3 expert riflemen to duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat. These shooters fired 18 rounds using Oswald’s gun and scope.They fired 3 rounds with just the iron sites. These shooters missed the head and neck area of the target 18 out of 18 times using the telescopic sight and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sites.Some of the shots missed the target completely. They were able to take as long as they wanted for the first shot. They were firing from a height of only 30 feet. Oswald fired from a height of 60 feet. They were also shooting at stationary targets instead of a moving limousine.
What many do not know is that the only man that CBS hired that was finally able to make the shot, came to the conclusion that Oswald DID NOT! Howard Charles Hinman Donahue first came to national attention in 1967 when CBS television investigated the Warren Commission report and had several gunning experts test-fire the same make and model of the Mannlicher-Carcano Italian rifle that was used by Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot at Mr. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas. He was the only one of these experts that "made the shot" --- After Several Tries! - In fact he discovered Oswald's gun wasn't even sighted correctly!
One thing remains 50 years after the killing of a president. If Oswald did it, he was the luckiest lousy shooter ever to have lived. Given the track record of the honesty of our government, I doubt that conclusion....
The New Statesman's Kennedy hagiography is pure conjecture
We're fast approaching the 50th anniversary of the tragic Kennedy assassination, and the cult of JFK is already in full swing. The New Statesman is running a cover story asking what might've happened if Lee Harvey Oswald had changed his mind – and the answer seems to be "world peace by 1965". Of course, we're debating hypotheticals here but – hypothetically speaking – the New Statesman is talking nonsense. Kennedy was a significant president but far from a great one.
The full article isn't available at time of writing but, according to the press release, historians James G Blight and janet M Lang make the following claims – followed by my fisking:
Vietnam: JFK would have continued to resist a US war in Vietnam. Even though the Saigon government, weak and corrupt, was destined for the dustbin of history, he would have resisted those calling on him to send US combat troops to Vietnam. He might have ended all military involvement. We believe that would have been his ultimate objective.
Photo portrait of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the Oval Office, leaning on a chair. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
(NEWSMAX) President Lyndon B. Johnson knew about and supported President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, New York Times bestselling author Dr. Jerome Corsi tells Newsmax.
As the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy approaches, Corsi released his latest book Wednesday, “Who Really Killed Kennedy?” looking at who was really behind the assassination of the president and the veracity of the Warren Commission, who headed up the investigation.
“Jack Kennedy was going to replace Lyndon Johnson in [the] 1964 ticket and a major scandal in the Bobby Baker case was about to break in LIFE magazine, which would have ruined Lyndon Johnson’s career,” Corsi said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV.
In October 1962, the world held its breath. On the edge of the Caribbean Sea, just a few miles from the Florida coast, the two great superpowers were at a stand-off. Surrounded by twelve US destroyers, which were depth-charging his submarine to drive it to the surface, Captain Vitali Grigorievitch Savitsky panicked. Unable to contact Moscow and fearing war had begun, he ordered the launch of his submarine’s nuclear torpedoes. As the two sides inched perilously close to nuclear war—far closer than we ever knew before–just one man stood between Captain Savitsky’s order and mutually assured destruction.
Set over four hours on October 27, 1962, the tensest moments of the Cuban Missile Crisis, this program tells the powerful but forgotten story of Vasili Arkhipov and Soviet submarine B-59. With most of the action set in a claustrophobic submarine running out of air, “The Man Who Saved the World” combines tense drama with eyewitness accounts and expert testimony about some of the most critical events in the Cold War.
Recently, news reports surfaced that a different type of forensic test on body tissues of a deceased celebrity reveals that she probably was poisoned rather than having died of natural disease causes as originally stated in 2009, i.e., pneumonia and anemia. Actress Brittany Murphy’s father persevered and followed through in his quest to find his daughter’s actual cause of death. The story is told here.
Brittany’s husband, Simon Monjack, coincidentally died five months after her death, apparently suffering from a similar fate.
The toxicology tests, which Angelo Bertolotti, Brittany’s father pursued, indicated there were 10 heavy metals with load levels higher than what the World Health Organization considers high levels. She was poisoned by heavy metal toxicity! According to Julia Davis’s report on examiner.com, where the heavy metal test results conducted by The Carlson Company, LLC, were published, Brittany’s body tissue (hair) contained exorbitant amounts of the following heavy metals. I have estimated how many times higher Brittany’s hair values were than the Carlson’s stated high value limits:
On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner referred to the most famous speech ever given by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called the Gettysburg Address a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."
There are five known copies of the speech in Lincoln's handwriting, each with a slightly different text, and named for the people who first received them: Nicolay, Hay, Everett, Bancroft and Bliss. Two copies apparently were written before delivering the speech; the remaining ones were produced months later for soldier benefit events. Despite widely-circulated stories to the contrary, the president did not dash off a copy aboard a train to Gettysburg. Lincoln carefully prepared his major speeches in advance; his steady, even script in every manuscript is consistent with a firm writing surface, not the notoriously bumpy Civil War-era trains. Additional versions of the speech appeared in newspapers of the era, feeding modern-day confusion about the authoritative text.
Bliss Copy
Ever since Lincoln wrote it in 1864, this version has been the most often reproduced, notably on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. It is named after Colonel Alexander Bliss, stepson of historian George Bancroft. Bancroft asked President Lincoln for a copy to use as a fundraiser for soldiers (see "Bancroft Copy" below). However, because Lincoln wrote on both sides of the paper, the speech could not be reprinted, so Lincoln made another copy at Bliss's request. It is the last known copy written by Lincoln and the only one signed and dated by him. Today it is on display at the Lincoln Room of the White House.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The Stone of Scone in the Coronation Chair at Westminster Abbey, 1855. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
PROOF FROM THE BIBLE AND THE IRISH ANNALS
By
John E Wall
ONE of the most beloved stories of traditional literature written by those who support the modern identity of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel is the story of the coming of the prophet Jeremiah to Ireland. According to this story shortly after c. 586 BCE when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, conquered Jerusalem, Jeremiah the prophet, accompanied by his scribe Baruch, and the daughters of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, fled that country and for a short time resided in Egypt. From there they took ship to Ireland, where one of the daughters married Eochaidh the high king (heremon or ard ri) of Ireland. A variation says that the marriage took place in Jerusalem. The royal couple governed the Emerald Isle from their capital at Tara in County Meath. Jeremiah, at that time an old man, was also reputed to have established a sort of ministerial training college at Tara. He became a revered figure in Irish legend.
Over the course of the centuries the royal line established at Tara was transferred from Ireland to Scotland to England where it survives today in the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A wondrous stone, variously called the Stone of Destiny, Stone of Scone, or Coronation Stone, upon which Her Majesty and her predecessors on the thrones of the three kingdoms were crowned, thought to be the stone that the patriarch Jacob slept on at Bethel (Genesis 28:18-22) was also believed to have been brought to Ireland by Jeremiah.
It is claimed that the story of Jeremiah coming to Ireland can be found in the ancient annals, histories and other literature of the Irish, and indeed references to it abound in the works written by traditional Ten Tribes scholars, especially 19th- century writers. Yet rarely, if ever, do these writers point to any specific history in which this tale may be found, vague references to “Irish annals” usually being made. A few examples will suffice:
One authority states that “Irish historians are unanimous that about 580 B.C. there arrived in Ulster a notable man [Jeremiah], a patriarch or saint, accompanied by an Eastern princess, and a lesser person by the name of Simon Brach or Barech”.(I)
Further that, “Irish tradition tells us that Jeremiah married the princess Tamar Tephi to Eochaidh king of Ireland”.(2)
However, the historians are not named, nor is any particular tradition cited.
Another writer says that “The ancient records of Ireland bear ample testimony to this [Jeremiah’s coming to Ireland] as an historic fact, not only recording the event itself, but also supplying confirmatory evidence by giving the actual date or period of their arrival correctly”.(3)
Again, disappointingly, this author does not name the “ancient records” in which the Jeremiah story may be found; rather we read phrases such as, “the records conclude .. .“(4) and “The royal records state .. . “.(5)
He dates the coming of Jeremiah to Ireland at late in 583 BCE or early 582 BCE.
The closest that any writer comes to naming names is a contemporary author and archaeologist, E. Raymond Capt. In his book, Jacob’s Pillar: A Biblical Historical Study, Capt makes reference to The Chronicles of Eri, The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, The Annals of Clonmacnoise, and The Chronicles of Scotland. He quotes briefly from the latter and gives an extensive recounting of the entire Jeremiah legend in his notable book. However, like the learned writers cited above, Capt does not directly cite any passage in any ancient chronicle which explicitly mentions Jeremiah.(6)
This lack of corroboration of the Jeremiah legend has caused some to doubt the validity of the entire story.
But I will show in this article that Jeremiah is mentioned in the Irish annals and histories, albeit under another name. His Judahite ancestry and prophetic identity are clearly stated and even a brief physical description is given. His friend and amanuensis Baruch is also mentioned. Furthermore, I will name names and give the reader of this article the references by which he may corroborate the story himself.
First, however, in order to understand the proper chronological context of Jeremiah’s coming to Ireland, a brief review of Irish history prior to his arrival is necessary.
English: The bell from the SS Edmund Fitzgerald on display at the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Anniversary to be marked by a service at the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum at Whitefish Point, Michigan.
Forward from Bob Barney: Gordon Lightfoot asked this question: "does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours...." I know God's love is still there, but, we all sometimes ponder this question.....
(Whitefish Point, MI) - 38-years-ago Wednesday, a brutal November storm roared across the Lake Superior. On November 10, 1975, the 729-foot steamer Edmund Fitzgerald was lost in that infamous storm near Whitefish Point, Michigan with her entire crew of 29 men.
The Fitzgerald’s story is extremely well known due to Canadian folksinger Gordon Lightfoot's song a year later. The cause of the ship's sinking remains a mystery to this day.
First Published in The Plain Truth in the Fall of 2009! Yes, we are ahead of our time!
There have been a lot of comparisons of Obama to Roosevelt or Reagan
or Kennedy but I am beginning to think he is more like Nixon. Yes, that
Nixon...)
but to this story..........
The Star-Ledger, the largest newspaper in New Jersey,
endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election last October. A little more than a year later, the paper’s editorial board has drawn parallels with Obama and Richard Nixon.
AP
Specifically, the newspaper cited his
widely disputed statements on Obamacare, the National Security Agency’s
spying on foreign allies, and on dealing with Syria’s chemical weapons,
and asked, “What’s the public to believe?”
In the editorial,
which carried the headline, “Obama’s Growing Credibility Gap,” the
board wrote: “It’s more than not just an old wives’ tale that a
politician is only as good as his word. It’s mostly true.”
“(A politician) can lose an election —
even more than one, as Richard Nixon proved — and still win the voters
favor,” the editorial said of the president who left office in disgrace
after the the Watergate scandal. “But he’s in real trouble if the paying
public stops believing what he says, as Nixon also discovered. That’s
why President Obama’s real problem is not so much the botched rollout of
the Affordable Care Act, but the growing sense he doesn’t tell the
whole truth, or doesn’t know it. Either can be fatal for leader.”
The editorial referred to Obama’s
tortured explanation for having “sworn on a stack of speeches that
everyone who’s happy with his or her current health insurance can keep
it under Obamacare.”
The Star-Ledger did not directly accuse Obama of lying, but assumed he either didn’t know or decided to “fudge” the truth.
You may have your suspicions about what’s going on behind closed doors at the White House.
But according to one of President Obama’s former body guards it’s much worse than we can even imagine.
Dan Bongino has protected numerous Presidents over his career,
including President Obama. He has been within ear-shot of many a
discussion in the Oval Office, but up until this administration has
stayed out of the lime light. Apparently, however, the activities of
this administration are so abhorrent that he could no longer keep quiet.
Bongino is so upset with what he witnessed that he is now running for
Congress because he feels it’s the only way to take America back from
the sycophants who have made every effort to enrich themselves with
money and power at the expense of the American people.
English: President Barack Obama writes at his desk in the Oval Office 3/3/09. Français : Le président Barack Obama signant un document sur son bureau dans le bureau ovale, 03/03/09. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
WASHINGTON – After multiple top generals
described to WND what they regard as a full-scale “purge” of the
U.S. military by the Obama administration, the commander of U.S. Army
Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of duty and his civilian deputy
reassigned, pending a “misconduct” investigation.
Nine generals and flag officers have been
relieved of duty under Obama just this year – widely viewed as an
extraordinary number – and several sources put the total number of
senior officers purged during the five years of the Obama
administration as close to 200. More>>>>>>>>
In conventional political terms, Mitt Romney’s challenge in picking a VP presented a complex puzzle. With the GOP convention in Tampa less than a month away, he was running four to six points behind Barack Obama
in the national polls. Mitt was hurting with women, hurting with
Hispanics, hurting with blue collar whites. His standing in the
industrial Midwest and the West was shaky. The Republican base remained
unenthused by him and the middle of the electorate unimpressed. The
quandary was which of these maladies he should try to heal with his
running mate. For many members of the Republican smarty-pants set, one
thing was increasingly clear: Romney needed a game changer.
Romney didn’t see it that way, at least not at the start. When he
tapped longtime adviser and confidante Beth Myers to lead the search for
his VP, Mitt put forth two criteria and a precept. The criteria applied
to the candidates: that they be qualified and immediately perceived as
qualified to be Commander in Chief, and that there be nothing in their
background that could become a distraction for the campaign. The precept
applied to Myers and her assignment. When decision time came, Romney
said, he wanted to have a choice—not be informed, with the clock
ticking, that there was really only one viable option.
Myers set up her operation in a third-floor office on Boston’s
Commercial Street that became known as “the clean room.” Because the
Romney campaign’s servers were under continual assault by Chinese
hackers, the computers in the clean room were not connected to the
Internet. Myers insisted that the team be extremely cautious about what
they put in e-mail when using their regular computers. Ted Newton and
Chris Oman, two veep background checkers, concluded it was best to
communicate in code. Based on their junk-food-saturated vetting diet,
they called their undertaking Project Goldfish (after the
crackers)—ultimately giving each of the VP finalists an aquatic code
name. Myers’ plan was to have Project Goldfish completed by Memorial
Day. In April she presented Romney with a list of two dozen names, which
he whittled down to 11: Kelly Ayotte, John Cornyn, Chris Christie,
Mitch Daniels, Bill Frist, Mike Huckabee, Bob McDonnell, Tim Pawlenty,
Rob Portman, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
In a recent interview with the London Telegraph, Bill Gates has now claimed that his Foundation’s massive push for vaccination is not just an exercise in philanthropy but that it is, in fact, “God’s work.”
Gates, who, according to the Telegraph, is worth an estimated $65 billion, is now dedicating his life to the “eradication of poliomyelitis,” or, at least he is dedicating himself to the vaccination program allegedly aimed at achieving these ends.
“My wife and I had a long dialogue about how we were going to take the wealth that we’re lucky enough to have and give it back in a way that’s most impactful to the world,” he says. “Both of us worked at Microsoft and saw that if you take innovation and smart people, the ability to measure what’s working, that you can pull together some pretty dramatic things.
“We’re focused on the help of the poorest in the world, which really drives you into vaccination. You can actually take a disease and get rid of it altogether, like we are doing with polio.”
In January 2009, President of the United States of America, George W. Bush invited then President-Elect Barack Obama and former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter for a Meeting and Lunch at The White House. Photo taken in the Oval Office at The White House. All the above helped destroy America's liberties.(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A few weeks ago, President Obama advised graduates at Ohio State
University that they need not listen to voices warning about tyranny
around the corner, because we have self-government in America. He argued
that self-government is in and of itself an adequate safeguard against
tyranny, because voters can be counted upon to elect democrats
(lowercase “d”) not tyrants. His argument defies logic and 20th-century
history. It reveals an ignorance of the tyranny of the majority, which
believes it can write any law, regulate any behavior, alter any
procedure and tax any event so long as it can get away with it.
History has shown that the majority will not permit any higher law or
logic or value – like fidelity to the natural law, a belief in the
primacy of the individual or an acceptance of the supremacy of the
Constitution – that prevents it from doing as it wishes.
Under Obama’s watch, the majority has, by active vote or refusal to
interfere, killed hundreds of innocents – including three Americans – by
drone, permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants,
bombed Libya into tribal lawlessness without a declaration of war so
that a mob there killed our ambassador with impunity, attempted to force
the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance policies that cover
artificial birth control, euthanasia and abortion, ordered your doctor
to ask you whether you own guns, used the IRS to intimidate outspoken
conservatives, seized the telephone records of newspaper reporters
without lawful authority and in violation of court rules and obtained a
search warrant against one of my Fox colleagues by misrepresenting his
true status to a federal judge.
James Rosen, my colleague and friend, is a professional journalist.
He covers the State Department for Fox News. In order to do his job, he
has cultivated sources in the State Department – folks willing to speak
from time to time off the record.
One of Rosen’s sources apparently was a former employee of a federal
contractor who was on detail to the State Department, Stephen Jin-Woo
Kim. Kim is an expert in arms control and national defense whose lawyers
have stated that his job was to explain byzantine government behavior
so we all can understand it. When he was indicted for communicating top
secret and sensitive information, presumably to Rosen, his lawyers
replied by stating that the information he discussed was already in the
public domain, and thus it wasn’t secret.
Prior to securing Kim’s indictment, the Department of Justice
obtained a search warrant for Google’s records of Rosen’s personal
emails by telling a federal judge that Rosen had committed the crime of
conspiracy by undue flattery of Kim and appealing to Kim’s vanity until
Kim told Rosen what he wanted to hear. In a word, that is rubbish. And
the FBI agent who claimed that asking a source for information and the
federal judge who found that the flattering questions alone constituted
criminal behavior were gravely in error.
Reporters are protected in their craft by the First Amendment, and
the Supreme Court has ruled that they can ask whatever questions they
wish without fear of prosecution. If Kim revealed classified information
to Rosen – a charge Kim vigorously denies – that is Kim’s crime, not
Rosen’s. The Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that it is
not a crime for a journalist to seek secrets, to receive them, to
possess them and to publish them so long as they affect a matter of
material public interest.
The government’s behavior here is very troubling. Government lawyers
and FBI agents are charged with knowing the law. They must have known
that Rosen committed no crime, and they no doubt never intended to
charge him, and they never have. They materially misled the judge, who
saw the phrase “probable cause” of criminal activity (taken from the
Fourth Amendment) in their affidavit in support of the search warrant
they sought, and he signed. The judge should have seen this for the ruse
it was. It is inconceivable that a person could conspire to commit a
crime (release of classified information) that is impossible for that
person to commit, particularly with a Supreme Court case directly on
point.
This misuse of the search warrant mechanism by misrepresentation of
the status of the target continues the radicalization of federal
criminal procedure now typical of this Department of Justice. It has
claimed that it can release military weapons to foreign criminal gangs
just to see where the weapons end up, and that its agents cannot be
prosecuted for harm caused by those who received the weapons. It has
held that the serious consideration given in the White House by
high-ranking government officials to the identity of persons the
president wants to kill somehow is a constitutional substitute for due
process and thus enables the president to use drones to kill people
uncharged with federal crimes. It has extended the public safety
exception to the Miranda rule from the few seconds at the scene of the
crime spent securing the prisoner, where the Supreme Court has said it
resides, to more than 72 hours.
And now this.
The reason we have the due process safeguards imposed upon the
government by the Constitution is to keep tyranny from lurking anywhere
here, much less around the corner. Due process is the intentionally
created obstacle to government procedural shortcuts, which, if
disregarded, will invite tyranny to knock at the front door and sneak in
through the back. Justice Felix Frankfurter warned of this 70 years ago
when he wrote, “The history of liberty has largely been the history of
the observance of procedural safeguards.” That was true then, and it is
true now.
Do you expect the Department of Justice to cut constitutional corners against you?
