SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/11/2014 11:01:23 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Eric Holder Claims Argument With Louie Gohmert a Case of Racism Against Administration


By: Breitbart TV
nation.foxnews.com



At Al Sharpton's annual National Action Network Annual convention, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke about civil rights and referenced his back-and-forth at Tuesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, with Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas)...

"I have been proud to stand along side of you in supporting efforts to advance the cause of justice that has always been at the center of this, this administrations work I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and lasting reforms, even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted ugly adversity. And if you don't believe that, you look at the way ...forget about me... forget about me , you look at the way the Attorney General of the Untied States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me what Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment "


See more at Breitbart TV?






To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/11/2014 11:03:39 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Did Eric Holder Just Call Louie Gohmert a Racist?
................................................................................
April 9, 2014 By Matthew Burke


Eric Holder, the first sitting attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress (with 17 Democrats voting against Holder while 108 abstained), pulled out his heavily dog-eared race card today against Congressman Louie Gohmert (SEE VIDEO BELOW).

Yesterday at a congressional hearing, Holder snapped at Gohmert, pointing his finger at the Congressman from Texas while disrespectfully saying, “ You don’t want to go there, buddy!

Holder, speaking at an event held by race-hustling MSNBC host and former FBI mob informant, Al Sharpton, told an audience that he has been a victim of “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

But not wanting to take responsibility for the “unprecedented” lawlessness and corruption of the Obama regime and his Department of InJustice, Holder explained that the way he’s been treating has absolutely nothing to do with him, highly insinuating that it just must be another example of racism:
“I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms, even in the face…even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

“If you’ll believe that…you look at the way…forget about me. Forget about me. You look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee.”

“It had nothing to do with me. Forget me. What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”


youtube.com



To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/11/2014 11:08:32 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
slowmo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Eric Holder Publicly Declares That Those Who Question His Actions Are Racist
........................................................................................................
by Ulsterman on April 9, 2014 with 10 Comments in News
theulstermanreport.com



Knew some version of this was coming, but man, does Eric Holder go full on race card here.

Here is a man who promotes government officials responsible for Fast and Furious, has to date, refused to go after those responsible for the Benghazi Massacre (despite repeated promises from both him and Barack Obama to do so, ignores the still rampant abuses of the IRS, wants gun owners to essentially be “tagged” to allow government monitoring, and then cries “RACISM” when anyone brings these, or any number of other serious shortcomings up for questioning.

Make no mistake, this Obama administration has further divided America against itself and set race relations back decades, which sadly, appears all too likely to have been according to plan as some warned us years ago…



(via WHD)

Holder Goes Racial Attorney General Holder dropped the race card on the table today, throwing down a clear suggestion that the mistreatment he thinks he’s getting from Republicans is based not on the content of his character – which actually, it is – but on the color of his skin.


From remarks today at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention in New York City:

I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and lasting reforms, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity.

If you don’t believe that – forget about me – you look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee. It had nothing to do with me. Forget about that. What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?



I think, given he was doing Al Sharpton’s gig – with Al knowingly nodding behind him – and the “strides and lasting reforms” he’s talking about were to benefit minorities, it’s safe to assume he is charging racism.

Now that’s really unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive, isn’t it? LINK

_________________________

It is also dripping with irony that Holder’s race baiting defense was spoken at an Al Sharpton event, the very man stories are now indicating was a government informant who signed up for the gig decades ago to avoid a drug charge rap.

The same Al Sharpton whose own race baiting allegations caused New York rioting that led to the 1991 death of a Jewish visitor from Australia.

Days before that death, Sharpton was screaming out about the Jews as “diamond merchants” with the “blood of babies on their hands”.

THAT is the man the current Attorney General of the United States sat next to today while crying out his own allegations of racism against those who would question his crimes.

Cut from the same cloth indeed… -

_________________________



To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/11/2014 11:12:58 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
slowmo

  Respond to of 16547
 
BREAKING: Airspace Over Bundy Ranch Now A No-Fly Zone (NOTAM Issued!)

Friday, April 11, 2014 11:04:21 PM · by tcrlaf · 19 replies
FAA ^ | 4-11-2014 | TCRLAF





To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/12/2014 2:02:32 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
slowmo

  Respond to of 16547
 
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds


...........................................................................................
April 12, 2014 By LIZ FIELDS
abcnews.go.com







Showdown at Nevada Cattle Ranch









A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a " range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner," he said.

The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.

"It's not about cows, it's about freedom," Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.

"People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power," Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.

By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy's sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy's property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.

A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.

"We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard," said Cliven Bundy's sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.

But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.

As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.

Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy's family and supporters say the government's actions are threatening ranchers' freedoms.

"It's about the freedom of America," said another of Bundy's sisters, Margaret Houston. "We have to stand up and fight."

ABC News' Alan Farnham contributed to this report.



To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/12/2014 4:26:05 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
  • Eric Holder: ATF Planning to Use Drones







  • To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/13/2014 1:04:24 AM
    From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
     
    Senator Harry Reid: Cattle Rustler for Communist China

    .............................................................................................. s
    joemiller.us ^ | 12 Apr 2014 | by James Simpson



    To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/13/2014 6:03:13 AM
    From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
     

    The National Disgrace of Ft Hood ... Mark Steyn


    .......................................................................
    Steyn Online ^ | 11 Apr 2014 | Mark Steyn

    In After America (available here, he pleads, and the profits of which go to support my free-speech pushback against Michael E Mann), I write inter alia about Fort Hood, and in particular the disgraceful statement by General Casey, and the Pentagon's absurd decision to classify what happened as "workplace violence":

    In the days after the slaughter, the news coverage read like a satirical novel that the author's not quite deft enough to pull off, with bizarre new Catch-22s multiplying like the windmills of your mind: If you muse openly on pouring boiling oil down the throats of infidels, then the Pentagon will put that down as mere confirmation of your long-established "research interests". If you're psychotic, the Army will make you a psychiatrist for fear of provoking you. If you gun down a bunch of people, within an hour the FBI will state clearly that we can all relax, there's no terrorism angle, because, in a micro-regulated credential-obsessed society, it doesn't count unless you're found to be carrying Permit #57982BQ3a from the relevant State Board of Jihadist Licensing.

    And "Allahu akbar?" That's Arabic for "Nothing to see here".

    Pace General Casey, what happened was not a "tragedy" but a national scandal.

    Anwar al-Awlaki and his comrades have bet that such a society is too sick to survive. Watch the nothing-to-see-here media driveling on about "combat stress" and the Pentagon diversicrats issuing memos on "workplace violence" like gibbering lunatics in a padded cell, and then think whether you'd really want to take that bet. The craven submission to political correctness, the willingness to leave your marbles with the Diversity Café hat-check girl, the wish for a quiet life leads to death, and not that quietly. When the chief of staff of the United States Army has got the disease, you're in big (and probably terminal) trouble. And when the guy's on the table firing wildly and screaming "Allahu akbar!", the PC kindergarten teachers won't be there for you.

    That's true not just during the attack but for the ensuing half-decade: General Casey and the other "parade generals" (in that useful British phrase) and the vast swollen Pentagon bureaucracy have not been there for them. Mariah Blake has a piece in Mother Jones, of all places, that lays out in painstaking detail how, for Major Hasan's victims, the United States Government has spent the last four-and-a-half years adding insult to the injuries he inflicted.

    Full disclosure: If Ms Blake's name rings a bell with readers, she's the lady who interviewed me for the Mother Jones story about Mann vs Steyn. I wasn't too thrilled with the way that turned out, if only because it made me sound a bit of a loon. But, on reflection, I am a bit of a loon, so maybe Ms Blake just zeroed in on the salient feature. Be that as it may, her Fort Hood piece is unsparing in its bleak portrait of what happens after the President, the cabinet secretaries and the other bigshots have departed the memorial service and you've outlived your usefulness as photo-op prop. Take Army reservist Keara Bono-Torkelson, who was shot in the back by Hasan:

    She recalls the nurse at the Army hospital where she was rushed for treatment patting her on the head and telling her she was fine. Only weeks later, when she visited her family doctor in Missouri, did she discover that she also had a bullet lodged in her head.

    With her injuries, Torkelson—who suffers from back spasms, PTSD, and crippling headaches—?found it difficult to do her job. Rather than send her to a special unit for wounded soldiers, as it usually does with reservists wounded in combat, the Army pulled her off active duty and sent her home. She says her paycheck subsequently shrank from $1,400 a month to roughly $200 and she lost her military health insurance, leaving her no access to medical care. ?

    So who did provide her with "access to medical care"? Ross Perot:

    The billionaire Texas businessman and former presidential contender paid for Torkelson to go to the Mayo Clinic, where doctors quickly pinpointed the source of her headaches: Besides the slug that had been removed from her scalp, she had multiple bullet fragments in her skull—something her military doctors could have detected with a simple x-ray.

    If only they'd bothered. I was in a car accident a few months back - nothing too serious, I thought. But the doctor was concerned enough to make me have a CT scan. Yet, if you're shot in the head by a terrorist at a military base, an x-ray is too much trouble: Take four Aspirin and call me in a year.

    Staff Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford took seven bullets, one in the head:

    Several months after the incident, Lunsford tried to check into an Army PTSD clinic near El Paso. But he says he was turned away on the grounds that he wasn't injured in combat. Eventually, Lunsford, who served in the Army for 22 years, managed to get into a Navy clinic in San Diego. The Army was supposed to pick up the tab. But instead, he says, it deducted most of the expenses from his paycheck.

    Those strictly enforced PTSD rules are fascinating, if only because, when Major Hasan opened fire, much of the media was eager to put it down to "stress". From After America again:

    Newsweek called the mass murder "A Symptom Of A Military On The Brink":

    "A psychiatrist who was set to deploy to Iraq at the end of the month, Hasan reportedly opened fire around the Fort Hood Readiness Center," wrote Andrew Bast. "It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad."

    No mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim," but Mr Bast was concerned to "get at the root causes of soldier stresses". As in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Operative word "post": you get it after you've been in combat. Major Hasan had never been in combat.

    But, just as they effortlessly extended the subprime mortgage crisis to explain the Times Square bomber, the same conformicrat "experts" redefined "post-traumatic stress disorder" to apply to a psychiatrist who'd never been anywhere near a war zone. Until November 5th 2009, PTSD was something you got when you returned from battle overseas and manifested itself in sleeplessness, nightmares, or, in extreme circumstances, suicide. After November 5th, PTSD was apparently spread by shaking hands and manifested itself in gunning down large numbers of people while yelling "Allahu akbar!"

    The Government of the United States eventually decided, with a straight face, that the mound of corpses at Fort Hood was the result of an outbreak of "workplace violence":

    Nine months after Major Hasan's killing spree, the Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered "a series of procedural and policy changes that focus on identifying, responding to and preventing potential workplace violence".

    Last week we learned how well that worked out for Fort Hood. But for the victims of the first attack the designation of "workplace violence" was to have profound consequences. From Mariah Blake's report:

    Since the attack, Lunsford, who also received help from Perot, has retired because of his injuries—he's missing half his intestines, is blind in one eye, and has trouble walking (a side effect of the bullet lodged in his thigh). He also suffers from bouts of debilitating pain. "Sometimes, I'm immobile in bed for a month," he says. "I can't even go to the bathroom by myself. My wife literally has to wipe me."

    If his wounds were classified as combat or terrorism related, he would get three quarters of his active-duty pay, on top of his modest VA disability payments, for the rest of his life. But as it stands, he isn't eligible.

    Why not? Fort Hood is no different from Pearl Harbor: That's to say, in both cases domestic military bases were attacked by agents of avowed enemies of the United States. Why should a soldier have to scrape by on 200 bucks a month because euphemizing a jihadist attack as "workplace violence" is more politically convenient for the government?

    In her story on the Mann vs Steyn litigation, Ms Blake and Mann's counsel commented on my own public statements about the case. So I note mordantly one detail from her Fort Hood piece - that Army lawyers leaned on the victims not to go public with their dissatisfactions on the grounds supposedly that it would "prejudice" the case against Major Hasan. This is beyond pathetic. Hasan's first words at the eventual trial were: "The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter."

    A couple of paragraphs back, I compared Fort Hood and Pearl Harbor as enemy attacks on US military bases. They're different in one key respect, of course: These days a sclerotic republic can't even convict a confessed killer in less time than it took to win the Second World War. Pearl Harbor to the Japanese surrender: three years, eight months, eight days. Fort Hood to the opening of Hasan's trial: three years, nine months, one day.

    Do read Mariah Blake's story in full. These people are invisible because they're inconvenient to the official lies agreed by the government, advanced by the media, and acquiesced in by too many of these soldiers' fellow Americans:

    Private First Class Amber Gadlin, who was 19 at the time, braved gunfire to drag other soldiers to safety, even after being shot in the back. During the 2009 Fort Hood memorial, the president praised her for her valor.

    That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte:

    Gadlin, who says she can only sit for a half hour at a stretch because of severe back pain, scrapes by on her $1,400 a month disability payment from the Department of Veterans Affairs and has struggled to get treatment for her depression and PTSD. "Having to fight for benefits on top of the injuries and the money worries has made things far worse," says her mother, Lisa Bahr Pfund. "There have been plenty of times I've been expecting a phone call saying she's gone. Meaning, you know, she's taken care of her problems permanently."

    It is striking to me that a country responsible for over 40 per cent of the planet's military spending apparently has no money to treat its returning warriors with a modicum of dignity. That it should do the same to men and women gunned down by a traitor who set off every alarm bell and was still allowed to proceed to that table at Fort Hood is an absolute disgrace.






    To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/13/2014 9:25:50 PM
    From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
     
    Bundy’s name came up in a solar project that the government currently wants to put in place with the Chinese communists using Nevada land



    To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/13/2014 9:35:46 PM
    From: joseffy1 Recommendation

    Recommended By
    slowmo

      Respond to of 16547
     
    Chilling Truth: The Siege of the Bundy Ranch Reaches into the White House

    April 13, 2014
    By Sara Noble


    Cliven Bundy, can a cowboy defeat the Marxists?

    In the end, there is only one reason why the Bundy ranch was besieged. President Obama had to have taken the lead. He knew it was going on and he sanctioned it. Beyond oil, solar, and Chinese Communists with money, lurks Obama’s Agenda.

    InfoWars has found a smoking gun in the case of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy. A lucrative contract – which will benefit Harry Reid and his son Rory Reid – specifically mentions the need to rid the land of Cliven Bundy. In addition, Natural News pointed out that the BLM is in the business of selling lucrative oil and gas leases. It does answer the question, Why now?

    There is a much bigger picture in all of this, however, and that is the fact Mr. Obama believes the government should control the land and water in the United States. He sees the government as the protector of the nation’s resources. It is his belief. He does not respect private property – it is the government’s to take. That should now be obvious to everyone.

    Mr. Obama is social engineering citizens off their land into congested hubs to preserve the land for nature and to have it available for government use, maybe even to share the resources with U.N. member nations such as China, because he believes in globalism, an extreme form of globalism. He has already expressed a desire to share the wealth from our resources with the world through treaties such as The Law of the Sea treaty.

    Natural News reported that the Bureau of Land Management is in the business of leasing government lands to energy companies. Significant exploratory drilling is being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870's. The “Gold Butte” area can be clearly seen in the map of areas drilled (purple demarcations).



    Oil has been found in nearby areas but oil and gas drilling have worked alongside ranching over the years without a problem. Of course, if the government can lease the land on which the cattle graze, it will be lucrative for them.

    In July 2011, the federal government agreed to allow China to buy up 600,000 acres of gas & oil fields in Texas. This is the same administration that would not allow new drilling; kicked Shell out of Alaska after billions of dollars of investments; shut down most offshore drilling; and tried to shut down Texas oil fields on the remote possibility that it might harm a tiny useless lizard that was most often known for being road kill.

    The acreage takes in the Gold Butte area where Bundy grazes his cattle.

    Mr. Obama prefers solar and windmills to oil and gas however.

    Bundy’s name came up in a solar project that the government currently wants to put in place with the Chinese communists using Nevada land This time.

    InfoWars posted documents found on the BLM website which BLM has since taken down. One document is titled, “Cattle Trespass Impacts” and it states that Bundy’s cattle negatively “impacts” solar development and would prevent the construction of utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

    They are talking about a very lucrative “investment” of $5 billion by Chines communists who will set up an enclave – a Chinese communist enclave – on U.S. land in Nevada.

    Check out the document:



    The first segment of the document was pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

    Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” ( BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

    Check that out:



    The second segment of the document was also pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.

    The person who will directly and immediately benefit from this is “Dirty Harry” Reid. His son, Rory, is the lobbyist for the project and will also rake in the dollars.

    It goes much further than that, reaching into the White House, to a president who is seizing land under the guise of necessary preservation.

    A leaked memo uncovered in 2010 exposed the Obama Administration’s land grab initiative that is intended to spread across other western states. The land grab in this memo alone covered 10 million acres of Western land in 11 states.

    As part of Obama’s “Great Outdoors Initiative”, the administration met quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land.

    It’s a stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life. Michelle Malkin had a thorough description of what the government was doing.

    In April 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors”, calling for officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to identify places that mean the most to Americans and leverage the support of the federal government to “protect” outdoor spaces. The memo bragged about the federal government being the nation’s “largest land manager.”

    They looked at millions of acres and Secretary Vilsack pleaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”

    Democrats put in a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters.

    The amount of land the federal government owns or controls is shocking. Check out the map. Areas in red are the federal government’s to control and we now know they are willing to shoot American citizens to keep it that way.



    The Obama administration believes in Agenda 21 and, no, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it is clearly outlined on the U.N. website. ICLEI, its offshoot, is active throughout the United States. Agenda 21 sees the government as the best protector of the land, water and resources. The government must own the land and dole out the resources for humans and animals. That is what Mr. Obama believes.

    Toads, chickens, and tortoises are excuses for a much larger vision, a vision that will give the government the power and the wealth of the country’s resources.


    Recently, the EPA seized the entire town of Riverton, Wyoming and gave it to the Native-Americans. They did this because they believe they own the land and have the right to do it.


    The EPA seized control over all the water in the nation, even ditches with a “rule” that is actually an unconstitutionally-written law.

    The EPA is redefining the meaning of the word ‘water’ in such a way as to allow them to seize control over all water and, as a consequence, all private property in the United States.


    The Supreme Court of the United States has defined the meaning of ‘water’ as ‘navigable water.’ The EPA seeks to redefine the meaning of water as all ‘connected water,’ and they are seeking to define ‘connected water as all water, so they can assume power to regulate every body of water in the United States. Any water, even ditches, on private property will be controlled. They are using a bizarre theory found in a study which says all water is connected underground.

    On August 2011, Executive Order 13575 was issued and it gave the government control over 16% of our rural lands. For what reason? Are the rural lands doing badly? Did the farmers ask for this?

    Executive Order 13575 allows the President to develop “sustainable communities. The government has no constitutional authority to do this but they are. Last year, Mr. Obama announced his plan to develop “promise zones.” He’s starting small.

    The order is in complete agreement with the UN’s Agenda 21 - The UN’s View on Property Rights – Straight From the Marxist Manual.


    Obama created the White House Rural Council, chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture. It includes 25 Cabinet secretaries. Their mission, which will cover every government everything, is to promote prosperity and quality of life in rural USA.

    This is the beginning of a complete takeover of rural lands and it won’t matter who owns them. Obama’s agencies have been besieging farmers with regulations since he came into office.

    All over rural America, Obama’s agencies are seizing private property, but most particularly in the West, and they use toads, tortoises, frogs and wildflowers to make it happen.

    They often assume control through sue and settle cases by working hand-in-hand with radical environmental groups. It isn’t about the toads and the wildflowers per se. It’s about the federal government controlling all the land, water and resources in this country.

    Remember his plan to map every neighborhood throughout the country? He plans to shuffle the resources and the people among neighborhoods until all share equally in the pie regardless of how much each contributes. He has a mortgage redistribution scheme to be executed through HUD that will help make this happen. A lazy person will gain the most under this system. It is social engineering and Obama believes in it.

    Before the Bundy ranch was besieged, in March, The Center for Biodiversity, a truly powerful and radical environmental agency, released a memo falsely claiming that the tortoises were “suffering” because of cattle grazing and demanded the government do something. It specifically cited ranchers who “trespass cattle” for free, destroying the vegetation.

    Why did they choose to do that at this time? Were they working with someone in the administration?


    In November 2012, Obama gave 9.5 million acres of Western land to the spotted owl, even though the owl already had 4 million acres. It isn’t only about the owl. It’s about all the wildlife. He believes they should have preference to the humans in the area.

    President Obama has been using executive orders (EO’s) in ways they have never been used before. He is using them to do end-runs around Congress by legislating from the White House. Some EO’s are dormant but pose a potential future threat.

    One of those is EO 13603 which he signed on March 16, 2012. The purpose of the EO is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. It provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.

    It’s an update to prior National Preparedness Orders and normally it wouldn’t be a concern but there were some subtle changes that seem unnecessary. The definition of “national emergency” was made broader and left quite vague. There are no checks and balances within the EO but it includes all of the Executive Branch agencies, agencies that would have unlimited power if the president declared a “national emergency”.

    The Executive Branch would completely control our lives through the “industrial and technological base,” and he would have the power over all commodities and products capable of being ingested by human beings and animals; all forms of energy; all forms of civil transportation; all usable water from all sources; health resources; forced labor such as military conscription; and federal officials could issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”

    EO 13603 is the plan to control our economy and our lives in the event of a crisis endangering our national security; there are no checks and balances written into the EO and “national emergency” is too broadly defined.

    Could a cyber threat be used as an excuse to use this authority? Could an economic crisis cause the president to take over retirement funds using this EO?

    In Obama’s hands, this EO does give one pause.

    President Obama was most certainly aware of the two-week siege in Nevada. He most certainly sanctioned it or the BLM wouldn’t have been there, hiding behind cars, fully armored with helmets, wielding military-grade weapons.
    The entire affair was an overreaction on the part of the government. Could they overreact to an alleged national emergency as well?

    The point of mentioning EO 13603 is to point to a pattern of behavior coming from this administration. Everything must be controlled by the Big Government.

    One of the Big Government commissioners in Nevada Tom Collins threatened to kill people according to Darin Bushman, a Utah commissioner, who called him to offer help. Bushman wrote this on his Facebook page: “I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of ‘inbred bastards’ and if we are coming to Clark County NV to support Cliven Bundy we all ‘better have funeral plans’. We should ‘turn our asses around and mind our own f-ing business’. Now there’s some classy leadership for you.”

    That’s a little more alarming than having one’s personal sensibilities ruffled. This man was threatening violence if people didn’t do as he and his Big Government colleagues demanded. The BLM law enforcement – their army of armed bureaucrats – threatened, repeatedly, to shoot the protesters at the Bundy Ranch because they had a court order, which in the 80% Democratic Clark County wouldn’t be hard to get. The BLM already roughed people up and tasered the son of the ranch owner.

    Remember in 2008 when Mr. Obama said he’d build a domestic army?

    Obama certainly knew about the attack on the ranch and when Harry Reid’s solar plan was tied into the BLM, the attack was called off. Our government wants the land, the water and the resources to dole out as they see fit. That is the goal. That is the reason Bundy’s ranch was under attack.

    credit longnshort



    To: slowmo who wrote (9452)4/14/2014 1:04:31 PM
    From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
     
    Obama 'champion' Amnesty activist scrubbed from WhiteHouse.gov after indictment
    ........................................................................................................................................
    Published: 20 hours ago
    by Aaron Klein
    wnd.com

    Indicted immigration activist Bonnie M. Youn

    Without any explanation, the White House has scrubbed from its website an amnesty advocate who was honored by President Obama but who was then indicted for immigration fraud.

    Immigration attorney Bonnie M. Youn was picked by the White House as one of 11 Cesar Chavez “Champions of Change”
    activists who purportedly embody the spirit and legacy of Chavez, a labor leader and civil rights activist.

    According to a Breitbart report, however, on April 1, Youn was indicted on three criminal counts related to harboring illegal aliens. The charges included perjury, harboring an illegal alien for commercial and private financial gain and tampering with the witness testimony of an illegal alien.

    In touting her as one of Obama’s 11 “Champions of Change,” the White House website originally listed Youn as “a recognized Asian American & Pacific Islander (AAPI) community leader in Georgia.”

    Without any explanation or recognition of the alteration, however, the White House website quietly sliced the 11 “Champions of Change” to only 10 so-called champions.


    “The White House honors 10 community leaders who embody the spirit of Cesar E. Chavez’s legacy,” reads the new WhiteHouse.gov text.


    The online link for Youn’s bio now brings readers to a page that states: “UPDATE We’re updating the White House privacy policy, which will go into effect on April 18.”

    Youn’s name, however, is still visible on the page as one of the “Champions of Change” (highlighted in red below):



    With research by Brenda J. Elliott.

    Read more at wnd.com