Showing posts with label New October revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New October revolution. Show all posts

Friday, May 19, 2017

Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims.


Russia Special Counsel Mueller Worked with Radical Islamic Groups to Purge Anti-Terrorism Training Material Offensive to Muslims. HT: JudicialWatch.

Now that Robert Mueller has been appointed special counsel to investigate if Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election it’s worth reiterating his misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamic organizations as FBI director.

Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records back in 2013 documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Muslims after secret meetings between Islamic organizations and the FBI chief. Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.

As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical Islamic groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various Islamic organizations, including those with documented ties too terrorism. Among them were two organizations— Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case.

CAIR is a terrorist front group with extensive links to foreign and domestic Islamists. It was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine.

The records obtained as part of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit show that Mueller, who served 12 years as FBI chief, met with the Islamic organizations on February 8, 2012 to hear their demands. Shortly later the director assured the Muslim groups that he had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices nationwide.

The purge was part of a broader Islamist operation designed to influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at-large. The records obtained by Judicial Watch also show similar incidents of Islamic influence operations at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House. Hmmm....The moment i saw Holder & Mueller and Janet Napolitano in the same picture i knew enough. Read the full story here.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Hussein Obama’s $77 Billion climate fund stashes will be found and gutted


Hussein Obama’s $77 Billion climate fund stashes will be found and gutted. (Bloomberg)
Most recent estimate puts tab at $77 billion from 2008-2013             
President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.

There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did. The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration. In some cases, the idea was to make climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.

“Much of the effort in the Obama administration was to mainstream climate change,” said Jesse Keenan, who worked on climate issues with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and now teaches at Harvard University. He said all federal agencies were required to incorporate climate-change plans into their operations.

Meanwhile, a handful of lesser-known offices saw their funding increase while Obama was in office. The budget for NASA’s Earth Science program increased 50 percent, to $1.8 billion. Funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is mandated by Congress to report every four years on the state of climate change, rose 45 percent to $2.6 billion. At the National Science Foundation, the geosciences program almost doubled to $1.3 billion.

"The Trump Administration needs to defund the entire apparatus of the climate change federal funding gravy train," said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "In order to dismantle the climate establishment, agencies and programs throughout the federal government need to be targeted."

"The climate funding has spread to almost every aspect of the federal government with sometimes wacky results," said Morano, who doubts global warming and runs the website climatedepot.com. He cited one example of a Department of Transportation query about the link between climate change and fatal car crashes. Read the full story here.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Obama 'admin' sent taxpayer funds to Soros groups to foster leftist revolutions in foreign countries


Obama 'admin' sent taxpayer funds to Soros groups to foster leftist revolutions in foreign countries. (Freebeacon).

A group of leading senators is calling on newly installed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to immediately launch an investigation into efforts by the Obama administration to sway foreign elections by sending taxpayer funds to "extreme and sometimes violent political activists" that promote leftist causes, according to a copy of the letter.
The lawmakers disclosed multiple conversations with foreign diplomats who outlined active political meddling by the Obama administration's State Department, including the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist causes in Macedonia, Albania, Latin America, and Africa.
A portion of this State Department funding appears to have gone to organizations supported by the controversial liberal billionaire George Soros, according to the letter, which was authored by Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Ted Cruz (Texas), David Perdue (Ga.), and Bill Cassidy (La.).
The senators are asking Tillerson to launch a full-scale investigation into these funding efforts in order to determine how exactly the Obama administration sought to promote left-leaning causes and political parties across the globe.
The latest disclosures of this activity mirror efforts by the Obama administration to send taxpayer funds to Israeli organizations that opposed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the country's last election.
Political leaders from a range of nations spent months informing the lawmakers about these activities.
"Over the past few months, elected officials and political leaders of foreign nations have been coming to me with disappointing news and reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries," Lee said in a statement. "This includes reports of diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activists, and the U.S. government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles."
"This sort of political favoritism from our missions around the world is unacceptable and endangers our bilateral relationships," he said.
The lawmakers outline specific evidence of political meddling.
"We have received credible reports that, over the past few years, the U.S. Mission there has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia, as well as in the shaping of its media environment and civil society, often favoring left-leaning political groups over others," they wrote.
This activity was pushed by USAID and groups associated with Soros' Open Society Foundations, according to the lawmakers.
The organizations are said to have pushed a "progressive agenda" meant to "invigorate the political left" using taxpayer funds, according the letter.
"Respected leaders from Albania have made similar claims of U.S. diplomats and Soros-backed organizations pushing for certain political outcomes in their country," the lawmakers wrote.Read the full story here.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Flashback 2013: Dem Maxine Waters: Obama Campaign Database Has 'Information About Everything on Every Individual’.


Flashback 2013: Dem Maxine Waters: Obama Campaign Database Has 'Information About Everything on Every Individual’. (CNSNews)

Earlier this year, in an interview with TV One, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) praised President Barack Obama for putting together a campaign database that "will have information about everything on every individual."
“And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before,” Waters told “Washington Watch” host Roland, referring to Obama’s “Organizing for America,” which was changed from a campaign organization to a 501(c)(4) called Organizing for Action.
Martin had asked her about Obama’s agenda in his last term.
“The inauguration represented the beginning of his second term, but it also represented the countdown to the end of his presidency. And the reality is, like anything else, you better get what you can while he’s there because, look, come 2016, that’s it,” Martin said.
“I don’t know, and I think some people are missing something here,” Waters said.
The president has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” she added. “That’s going to be very, very powerful.
Martin asked if Waters if she was referring to “Organizing for America.”
“That’s right, that’s right,” Waters said. “And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.”
Waters said the database would also serve future Democratic candidates seeking the presidency.
“He’s been very smart,” Waters said of Obama. “I mean it’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

FlashBack 2009 - Obama 'Admin' Embraces Bush Position on Warrant less Wiretapping and Secrecy


FlashBack 2009 - Obama 'Admin' Embraces Bush Position on Warrant less Wiretapping and Secrecy. (EEF).
San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.
In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.
"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."
For the full motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf.
Related:
  Power Wars: How Obama Continued Bush's National Security State After Campaigning Against It.
CHARLIE SAVAGE: So, in this book, I have two chapters about surveillance. And one of them is only about what happened under Obama, both before and after Ed Snowden. And the other one tries to take everything that we now know, because of the Snowden leaks and then the government’s declassifications as a result of the Snowden leaks, of how surveillance developed from the '70s up until 2009, and put it together into a coherent story, because there's like this whole secret history of how technology and spying powers changed that we didn’t know. Now it’s knowable.
But I open that historical chapter with a briefing that Obama received on February 4, I think it was, 2009—right at that moment where I was thinking there was nothing left for me to do, but was also starting to realize, "Wait, what about these things they say they’re going to keep?" But we didn’t know about this at the time. So Obama comes into the Situation Room to receive a briefing on all these surveillance programs and, you know, the program that’s keeping records of all Americans’ domestic phone calls and emails, that we don’t know about until after the Snowden leaks. But he finds out about it at this briefing. And the sort of permanent security state—the FBI and the NSA and the CIA and the intelligence community—want to tell the new president, "Here’s what you’ve inherited."
And they brief him on all this stuff, and they also explain how George W. Bush had sort of put it in unilaterally, by fiat—"I’m the commander-in-chief. The law doesn’t matter. We’re going to do this"—after 9/11. But also, over time, it had become—it had been secretly put on a stronger legal basis. The intelligence court had begun issuing orders for it. They come up with this PATRIOT Act theory about why maybe it was authorized, counterintuitively, by statute. And so, their argument was: It’s OK now, because the legal basis for it is OK. And over and over, we see the pattern in the Obama administration of "What was the problem with Bush? Is it the problem that these programs are inherently bad, or is the problem that Bush was putting them in place in a way that violated statutes?"
And the very lawyerly minded Obama administration—Obama himself being a lawyer, a lot of the policymakers around him being lawyers—were overwhelmingly focused on the problem with Bush, if there was one, being a legal problem. And so, Obama says, "Well, I’m comfortable"—when he learns about these programs—"I’m comfortable with what you’re telling me, but I want my lawyers—Eric Holder, Greg Craig—to take a look. And are they satisfied?" And they were satisfied.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Obama's Dept. of Interior created Rule that Tries to Create Unconstitutional “Native Hawaiian Government”



Use the CRA to Repeal Obama's Dept. of Interior Rule that Tries to Create Unconstitutional “Native Hawaiian Government” HT: JudicialWatch.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) last year promulgated a rule intended to provide a way to organize “a Native Hawaiian government” that could “seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States.” In plain English, this is an attempt to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians by executive decree. The means for accomplishing this would be a vote, restricted by the regulation to those who had at least one drop of Native Hawaiian blood.

This atrocious rule, which is almost certainly unconstitutional, should immediately be repealed. Congress has the power to do so now under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law allows Congress a certain time to object to any new rule if it believes, for example, that an agency has overstepped its legal authority. If the President agrees, the rule is repealed.
The DOI’s regulation amounts to (another) attempt by the now-departed Obama Administration to use an executive order to circumvent Congress – and the Constitution
Starting in 2000 and for more than a decade, Hawaii’s Senator Akaka tried to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, popularly known as the “Akaka Bill.” The Akaka Bill would have granted Native Hawaiians a pathway to federal tribal status. But Congress never passed the bill.

Switching tactics, the Obama Administration decided to try to accomplish the same thing by executive action.


Even worse is what the DOI’s regulation does. It requires members of the Native Hawaiian community to adopt a “governing document” – meaning a constitution – and then to submit that document to a “ratification vote.” Under the DOI’s regulation, that ratification vote would be restricted to voters who can prove that they were descendants “of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.” A single drop of blood is enough to be allowed to vote. This is the same ugly standard applied during the Jim Crow era to define a person as black for the purposes of the segregation statutes. Read the full story here.

Hmmm........Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But..."I will keep plotting"

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Video - Paul Sperry: Obama Has Trained Tens of Thousands of Leftist Organizers at Alinsky Camps for His "Shadow Government"



Related: Obama’s Shadow Presidency.

You promised to “defend the Constitution” against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Now what?

All that fundraising Hussein Obama did till the last days in office was to fund a war chest!

  Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But..."I will keep plotting"


Wednesday, September 7, 2016

America and Obama’s resentment, The most divisive U.S. president Evah.


America and Obama’s resentment, The most divisive U.S. president Evah. (Aawsat). By AmirTaheri

While all attention is focused on what will happen at the forthcoming presidential election in the United States, the real question may well be: what will happen after the new tenant enters the White House?

The question is not fanciful. For two centuries the US has enjoyed a consensus under which the loser in every election accepts the results and offers to work with the winner for the public good. All those involved in American public life agreed, at least implicitly, that democracy cannot function without compromises that at times may even be humiliating for some.

This time things look different. The Republican nominee Donald Trump has circulated the rumour that unknown hands are at work to rig the election in favour of his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton, hinting that if that did happen his supporters might have recourse to violence.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton’s camp has fed its rumours into the machine, including the claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin may hack US electoral computers to ensure Trump’s victory.

Since the earliest days, all American presidential elections have generated a great deal of verbal violence and bitterness. However, the US has seldom been divided salami-style in accordance with ethnic, religious and ideological “identities.”

The Obama family have done more than their bit to promote the culture of what the French call “ressentiment” (deep seated resentment).  Read the full story here.

Related:  Been There - History never repeats itself....but it often rhymes.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Thomas Sowell: Simple-minded immigration: Indiscriminate policies endanger our health, wealth and security.


Thomas Sowell: Simple-minded immigration: Indiscriminate policies endanger our health, wealth and security. (TS).

Why would a country with the world’s largest Jewish population, outside of Israel, admit large numbers of immigrants from countries where hatred of Jews has been taught to their people from earliest childhood?

This question is ultimately not about Muslims and Jews.


It is about discussing immigrants in the abstract, rather than in terms of the specific concrete realities of particular immigrants in particular circumstances at a particular time and place — that time being now.

A hundred years ago, when immigration from other parts of the world was a major issue, there was a government study which provided voluminous statistics on how immigrants from various countries performed in American society — economically, educationally and in terms of social pathology.

Today, it would not be considered right — that is, not politically correct — even to ask such questions about immigrants, especially if immigrants were broken down by country of origin.
Insipid statements about how, “we are all descendants of immigrants” blithely ignore the fact millions of Americans are descendants of legal immigrants who were not allowed into the country until they met medical and other criteria.
Today people flood across the border and are dispersed to various communities around the country by the federal government, without even a notice to local authorities as to what history of diseases, or crimes, these immigrants bring — much less what risks of terrorism.

Such high-handedness is neither incidental nor accidental.

It is part of a much wider pattern, extending beyond immigration, and extending beyond the United States to many countries, where narrow elites imagine themselves so superior to the rest of us that it is both their right and their duty to impose their notions on us.

Many of these elites seem to see themselves as citizens of the world, and to regard national borders as unfortunate relics of the benighted past. Read the full story here.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Droves of African Migrants in Mexico Awaiting U.S. Asylum, Under what appears a Secret Obama 'admin' accord.


Droves of African Migrants in Mexico Awaiting U.S. Asylum Under what appears a Secret Obama 'admin' accord. HT: Judicial Watch.

Herds of African immigrants are being housed in shelters in the Mexican border town of Tijuana while they await entry into the United States under what appears to be a secret accord between the Obama administration, Mexico and the Central American countries the Africans transited on their journey north. 

A backlog of African migrants is overwhelming limited shelter space in Tijuana and Mexican officials blame the slow pace of U.S. immigration authorities in the San Isidro port of entry for granting only 50 asylum solicitations daily.

Details about this disturbing program come from Mexico’s immigration agency, Instituto Nacional de Migracion (INM), and appear this week in an article published by the country’s largest newspaper.

The concentration of foreigners towards Mexico Is based on an agreement that Mexico will help them gain entry into the U.S. so they can solicit asylum. Read the full story here.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Friday, August 19, 2016

Been There - History never repeats itself....but it often rhymes.


Been There - History never repeats itself....but it often rhymes. By rabbipruzansky. HT CarlInJerusalem.

Imagine for a moment a US presidential election between two candidates, neither of whom is particularly beloved to the populace. One candidate is an undistinguished former Senator and lackluster Secretary of State who had few if any accomplishments in office but is breaking a social barrier by running for the presidency, and the other is a wealthy businessman with dictatorial tendencies and a populist streak and inspires devotion in his followers and fear and loathing in his adversaries. Even members of his own extended family support his opponent. Imagine also that exactly four years after one of these individuals is elected – after four years in office of abject failure, with simmering problems and no solutions – that utter catastrophe befalls the nation.
We need not let our imagination run that wild because such was the fateful election of 1856 that pitted James Buchanan against John C. Fremont. Buchanan, a Democrat, had served without distinction in the House and Senate, and as Secretary of State under President Polk.

Democrats accused Fremont of being unfit for the presidency and claimed that he would surely provoke a civil war. In the end , of course, it was Buchanan who won and whose failures as president made the Civil War, the bloodiest in American history, inevitable. The election was closer than it seemed.  Buchanan won 45% of the vote to Fremont’s 33%, but the anti-immigrant Fillmore earned a startling 22% of the vote as the third-party candidate.

 Is past prologue? There has never been an election in American history as the one we are enduring this year, in which both major candidates are despised and distrusted by large majorities of the populace – the crank versus the crook. It is fair to say that this is the first election in which few, if any, supporters can make a plausible argument for the candidacy of their favorite, and must suffice with the contention that the other candidate is simply awful and whose election will be catastrophic. And perhaps everyone is correct.

Welcome to the election of 2016, whose analogies to an election 160 years ago should not be ignored. Somewhere, Buchanan, Fremont and Fillmore are smiling. Or, maybe, given the outcome of their election process and the horrendous war that broke out several years later, they too are crying. Read the full story here.


Related:  Black Lives Matter cashes in with $100 million from liberal foundations. (Watimes)

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.

It’s about time people woke up to the fact that big money is using people as pawns to stoke racial hatred and further their global agenda,” said the Federalist Papers Project’s C.E. Dyer. Read the full story here.



Friday, September 18, 2015

Obama 'admin' Gives Yemeni (Al Qaeda Hotbed) Nationals “Temporary” Amnesty.


Obama 'admin' Gives Yemeni (Al Qaeda Hotbed) Nationals “Temporary” Amnesty. HT: JudicialWatch.

Just when it seemed like President Obama’s immigration policies couldn’t possibly get worse, the administration is offering “temporary” amnesty to nationals of an Islamic Middle Eastern country well known as an Al Qaeda breeding ground.

You can’t make this stuff up! The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is offering Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to illegal aliens from Yemen, headquarters of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). 

In its latest Country Reports on Terrorism, the State Department reveals that AQAP militants carried out hundreds of attacks including suicide bombers, vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), ambushes, kidnappings and targeted assassinations. The media has also documented this for years with one in-depth report confirming that “Yemen has emerged as the breeding grounds for some of the most high-profile plans to attack the U.S. homeland.”


Why would the U.S. extend to a humanitarian measure designed to temporarily shield illegal immigrants from deportation during emergencies to citizens of this notorious terrorist hub?

A stunned Homeland Security official told Judicial Watch that this creates “obvious dangers” because the U.S. government has a “total inability to screen, ID or verify the records” of Yemeni nationals. Hmmm.....High Crimes and misdemeanors. Read the full story here.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Obama 'Admin' stonewalls SEAL Team 6 helicopter crash probe, watchdog says.


Obama 'Admin' stonewalls SEAL Team 6 helicopter crash probe, watchdog says.(WT).

The Obama administration is violating a judge’s order to turn over documents in the Aug. 6, 2011, shootdown of a U.S. helicopter — call sign Extortion 17 — that killed members of SEAL Team 6 in Afghanistan, a watchdog group is charging.

On the fourth anniversary of the worst one-day loss of military life in the war on terror, families of the dead say they are aghast that the government will not honor basic requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

“It has now been four years since Extortion 17 was shot down,” said Doug Hamburger, whose Army air crew son, Patrick, was one of the 30 Americans killed. “I find it quite disturbing that the government is not willing to give us the answers we deserve. I find it very irritating that we will not question the Afghans about their knowledge of what took place that night.”

U.S. Central Command’s official investigation concluded that a rocket-launched grenade from a Taliban fighter standing near the landing zone clipped a rotary wing, sending the Ch-47 Chinook into a violent downward spin. It was the worst day for fatalities in the history of naval special warfare.

The tragedy took some of the glow off SEAL Team 6’s grand achievement just three months earlier: A team penetrated Pakistan airspace, infiltrated a compound in Abbottabad and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The families accept the fact that a single shot brought down the helicopter. But some say the official report, which contained no direct criticism of decision-makers that day, did not delve deeply enough.

They believe SEAL Team 6 had a target on its back and that persons inside the Afghan National Security Forces may have tipped off the Taliban that night in Tangi Valley. That is why, they say, a fighter just happened to be stationed in a turret within 150 yards of a landing zone that had never been used before.

Since filing a lawsuit, Mr. Klayman says, he has been “stonewalled” by the Justice Department, the Defense Department, the CIA and the National Security Agency.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon in February signed an order requiring the Obama administration to release documents on a continual basis through the spring and summer. The Justice Department said at least 50 documents in the Pentagon have been identified as relevant, but only one has been turned over. And Justice unilaterally set a new deadline for the release and then ignored it, Mr. Klayman said. Throughout, he said, Justice lawyers have refused to take his phone calls.

“They don’t even produce under their own self-imposed deadline,” Mr. Klayman told The Washington Times. “We’re pleading with the judge to do something, and he’s just sitting on it.”

Mr. Klayman said the NSA has agreed to provide some information. Since the agency’s main task is to eavesdrop on phone and Internet messages, it may have recorded communications related to the attack.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said there would be no comment beyond its court filings. Its lawyers have told the judge that the process of locating relevant documents and removing classified information takes time. Hmmmm.......'When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' Read the full story here.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Pres Hussein Obama May not accept rejection of Iran deal by U.S. Congress.


Pres Hussein Obama May not accept rejection of Iran deal by U.S. Congress. (WND).
Kerry won't promise Hussein Obama 'Admin' will follow law if Congress negates agreement.
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State John Kerry dropped a quiet bombshell on an unsuspecting Democratic congressman who appeared to believe he was asking a routine question at the House Foreign Affairs committee hearing on the Iran deal Tuesday.

“Let’s say Congress doesn’t take your advice, we override a veto, and the law that’s triggered then imposes certain sanctions,” asked U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.

“Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?”

Kerry then refused to assure the congressman that President Obama and his administration would follow the law if Congress rejects his Iran deal.

Instead, he replied, “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are.”

A seemingly shocked Sherman responded, as though maybe he hadn’t heard correctly, “So, you’re not committed to following the law?”

No, I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all,” said Kerry, leaving the door wide open to the possibility the president would just ignore the law. Hmmm....L'Etat c'est moi. Read the full story here.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Obama 'Admin' Changes rules for waiver of 'Oath Of Allegiance For New Citizens'.


Obama 'Admin' Changes rules for waiver of 'Oath Of Allegiance For New Citizens'. (Americasfreedomfighters).

Thanks to Obama, immigrants coming to our country will no longer be required to pledge that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” or “perform noncombatant service” in the Armed Forces as part of the naturalization process. Why remove that part of the oath? What’s next-‘SO HELP ME GOD’?

Those lines are in the Oath of Allegiance that people recite as they become U.S. citizens. But the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said people “may” be able to exclude those phrases for reasons related to religion or if they have a conscientious objection.

Here’s the oath as it has stood until Obama.

Oath
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:

Support the Constitution;

Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;

Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
1.Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 
and 2. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or 
3. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; 
or 4. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

So let’s sum this up. We have terrorists entering our country legally as well as illegally and we let them skip the part about DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY for religious reasons? That’s insane.


New regulations :

A. Modified Oath for Religious or Conscientious Objections​ ​

1. General Modifications ​t​o the Oath​ ​

An applicant may request a modified oath that does not contain one or both of the following clauses:​ ​

•To bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; and​ ​

•To perform noncombatant service in the U.S. armed forces when required by the law.​ [1] ​

In order to modify the oath, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is unwilling or unable to affirm to these sections of the oath based on his or her religious training and belief, which may include a deeply held moral or ethical code.​ [2] ​ ​

There is no exemption from the clause “to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.”​ [3] ​

2. Qualifying for Modification to the Oath​ ​

Three-part Test​ ​

In order for an applicant to qualify for a modification based on his or her “religious training and belief,” the applicant must satisfy a three-part test. An applicant must establish that:​ ​

•He ​​or she is opposed to bearing arms in the armed forces or opposed to any type of Service in the armed forces;​ ​

•The objection is grounded in his or her religious principles, to include other belief systems similar to traditional religion or a deeply held moral or ethical code; and ​ ​

•His or her beliefs are sincere, meaningful, and deeply held.​ [4] ​

The applicant is not eligible for a modified oath when he or she is opposed to a specific war. Religious training or belief does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views. An applicant whose objection to war is based upon opinions or beliefs about public policy and the practicality or desirability of combat, or whose beliefs are not deeply held, does not qualify for the modification of the oath.​ ​ ​

Applicant is ​Not​ Required ​to ​Belong to a Church or Religion​ ​

In addition, qualification for the exemption is not dependent upon membership in a particular religious group, nor does membership in a specific religious group provide an automatic modification to the oath. The applicant is not required to:​ ​

•Belong to a specific church or religious denomination;​ ​

•Follow a particular theology or belief; or​ ​

•Have religious training.​ ​

However, the applicant must have a sincere and meaningful belief that has a place in the applicant’s life that is equivalent to that of a religious belief.​ [5] Because of this belief, for example, the applicant’s conscience may not rest or be at peace if allowed to become an instrument of war.​ [6] ​

Evidence Establishing Eligibility​ ​

An applicant may provide, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious organization (or similar organization), witness statement, or any other evidence to establish eligibility. An applicant’s oral testimony or written statement may be sufficient to qualify for the modification. An officer may ask an applicant questions regarding the applicant’s beliefs in order to determine whether the applicant is eligible for the modification of the oath, to include, a review of the following factors:​ ​

•General pattern of pertinent conduct and experiences;​ ​

•Nature of applicant’s objection and principles on which objection is based;​ ​

•Training in the home or a religious organization;​ ​

•Participation in religious or other similar activities; and​ ​

•Whether the applicant gained his or her ethical or moral beliefs through training, study, self-contemplation, or other activities comparable to formulating traditional religious beliefs in the home or through a religious organization.​ ​

An officer must not question the validity of what an applicant believes or the existence or truth of the concepts in which the applicant believes.​ [7] ​

Results​ ​

Depending on the specific modified oath, USCIS deletes the relevant clauses and the applicant recites the modified form of the oath at the regularly scheduled public naturalization ceremony.​ [8] An applicant is required to take the full oath if the applicant does not qualify for the modification. Otherwise, the applicant is not eligible for naturalization.​ ​

B. Affirmation of Allegiance in Lieu of Oath​ ​ ​

An applicant may request an affirmation in lieu of an oath. The applicant may request this affirmation in lieu of an oath for any reason.​ [9] In these cases: ​ ​

•The applicant substitutes the words “solemnly affirm” for the words “on oath”; and​ ​

•The applicant does not recite the words “so help me God.”​ [10] ​ ​

USCIS grants this modification solely upon the applicant’s request. The applicant is not required to establish that the request is based solely on his or her religious training and belief. Applicants are not required to provide any documentary evidence or testimony to support a request to substitute the words “on oath” or “so help me God.” ​ ​

USCIS must not require the applicant to recite the deleted portions of the Oath of Allegiance at the ceremony. The officer informs the applicant that he or she is not required to recite the deleted portions and that the applicant may take the oath in the modified form.​

Sunday, July 19, 2015

'We Keep scores' - Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.


'We Keep scores' - Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.(NYP).

A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.

So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.

Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.

Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.

The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.  Hmmmm........"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." That's what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press. Read the full story here.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...