State Dept., Saudis create turmoil in Middle East
The Obama administration was complicit in Clinton’s use of private, unsecured e-mail in exchanges with the White House.
“The email quotes an ‘individual with sensitive access’ stating information provided by French security services indicated the funding for both the Benghazi and Algeria attacks ‘originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia,’” Aaron Klein of WND reported. “Continued the purported email: ‘During July and August 2012, these financiers provided funds to AQIM contacts in Southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania.’”
THIS is why feds want to take over the Internet!
by KIT DANIELS | INFOWARS.COM | MARCH 5, 2015
Alternative media pioneer Matt Drudge and health activist Vani Hari, aka The Food Babe, are far more influential than President Obama, according to Time.com poll respondents.
The poll appears at the end of an article listing Time’s picks for the 30 most influential people on the Internet, and at the time of this writing Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report commands the lead with 29%, the Food Babe has second at 27% and President Obama comes in a distant third with only 6%.
“…The rise of [on-line] social networks has leveled the playing field, allowing unknowns to command audiences rivaling those of real-world leaders, even if by accident,” Time reported.
And that’s what’s motivating the federal government to take control of the Internet through the FCC, especially as the U.S. mainstream media, which routinely promotes the government’s and the GMO industry’s agendas, continues its steep decline in popularity.
“Mainstream media executives appear to be optimistic they can reverse these declines at some point, but they simply don’t realize there has been a fundamental paradigm shift when it comes to the news media in the U.S.,” social commentator Michael Snyder wrote. “The general population has lost a tremendous amount of faith in the mainstream media.”
“They are increasingly becoming aware it is deeply controlled by the establishment.”
The establishment, a vast network of the world’s most influential politicians, media moguls and industry titans, uses mass media to control public opinion and have been doing so since at least the 1920s with propaganda techniques developed during World War I.
The establishment believes that only the elite have the intellect and rationality to decide the public’s best interests. To them, the public is simply too dumb to manage their own affairs and therefore must be led like cattle towards the future world envisioned by those in control.
They want the public to be mere spectators in society, only participating on occasion during political elections to decide which one of the elites will “represent” them.
The establishment’s mass media propaganda program to “manufacture” public consent for their various agendas culminated with the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird late last century, and now the mainstream media is predominantly owned by six corporations with close ties to the government.
“Just a handful of global news corporations can, in one day, make billions of people around the world simultaneously aware of something that was completely unknown the day before,” Joseph Plummer wrote in Tragedy & Hope 101. “With this kind of power, the Network [the establishment] can choose to spread any lie, or withhold any truth, that it chooses.”
“At the end of the day, if people aren’t looking beyond the Network’s instruments for their information, they cannot expect to know what the Network doesn’t want them to know.”
Unlimited government requires the population be kept disorganized and distracted through purposeful deception, but independent media championed by Matt Drudge and on-line activism spearheaded by the Food Babe stands in the way.
“Dogmatic adherence to mealtimes is anti-science, racist…”
by MIKAEL THALEN MARCH 5, 2015
An article featured in the left-leaning news outlet Mother Jones this week declares the act of eating three meals a day to be racist.
In a piece entitled, “Why You Should Stop Eating Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner,” writer Kiera Butler asserts that strict adherence to mealtimes is not only “anti-science,” but “racist” as well.
“When European settlers got to America, they also imported their meal habits,” Butler says. “They observed that the eating schedule of the native tribes was less rigid—the volume and timing of their eating varied with the seasons.”
“Sometimes, when food was scarce, they fasted. The Europeans took this as ‘evidence that natives were uncivilized…’ So fascinated were Europeans with tribes’ eating patterns… that they actually watched Native Americans eat ‘as a form of entertainment.’”
Butler’s article goes on to chronicle the rising prevalence of meal schedules and their dominance in modern Western culture, insinuating that the tradition’s white European roots make the very practice inherently racist.
“Dogmatic adherence to mealtimes is anti-science, racist, and might actually be making you sick,” Butler writes.
While such absurd claims are often praised by hoards of “social justice warriors” scouring the depths of the Internet, commenters of the article were quick to reject the daft declaration.
“Add ‘eating’ to the list of ‘everything is racist…’” the article’s top comment states.
“I never realized that oatmeal was racist. I feel so ashamed!” another joked.
The obsession by some to label everything as racist is so pervasive that focusing merely on the topic of food can yield countless similar stories.
Last June online publication Slate argued that getting food poisoning after visiting an “ethnic restaurant” was racist and most likely being made up by the victim.
“Do you think an ethnic restaurant caused your food poisoning? You might be a little bit racist,” the article said.
An all-you-can-eat taco bar fundraiser hosted by a college sorority was also deemed racist and offensive last year due to the food’s association with Mexico.
Obama supporters speaking with media analyst Mark Dice last May stated that not liking Mexican food was a sign of racism as well.
Portland school officials labeled peanut butter and jelly sandwiches racist in November 2013, arguing that the meal represented white culture.
“What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” Verenice Gutierrez, principal of Harvey Scott K-8 School in Portland, said at the time.
In fact, according to the City of Seattle, even brown paper bags used to carry lunches are racist due to the brown coloring’s alleged tie to African Americans.
Justice Anthony Kennedy revealed Wednesday how he might justify a vote to save Obamacare, as the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a case that could gut the law.
“Perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute,” he told Michael Carvin, the lawyer representing the administration’s challengers, according to The New York Times. “[But] there’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument.”
Carvin is making the case that the government can’t subsidize plans purchased on Healthcare.gov, because the law states that only people who buy Obamacare “though an Exchange established by the state,” are eligible for subsidies.
If the Supreme Court rules that those federal subsidies are illegal, than the 7 million enrollees currently subsidized by the Internal Revenue Service could be faced with plans they can’t afford, and the entire law would be crippled.
The four liberal members of the court indicated strong support of the administration in the opening arguments, but will likely have to win the vote of either Chief Justice John Roberts or Kennedy. (RELATED: Supreme Court ‘Bitterly Divided’ Over Obamacare)
Roberts has been mostly silent, but Kennedy indicated that his vote is up for grabs, saying the challengers have a good point, but that ruling against the subsidies could place an unconstitutional burden on the states that don’t have an exchange.
“From the standpoint of the dynamics of Federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we’ll send your insurance market into a death spiral,” Kennedy told Carvin, according to the Washington Post.
That interpretation would mean the law is unconstitutional, unless the administration prevails in convincing the court that the greater context of the law makes it clear the federal subsidies are legal.
Since the doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires the court to avoid ruling on constitutional issues when possible, it seems Kennedy would be more likely to side with the administration.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt rebuffed Kennedy’s concern about illegal federal subsidies placing an unconstitutional burden on the states in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Thursday. Governors that opted not to create a state exchange knew exactly what they were doing, he wrote, and they are free to suffer the consequences.
“The states are not children that the federal government must paternalistically ‘protect’ from the consequences of their choices by rewriting statutes,” he wrote. “In our constitutional system, states are free to make decisions and bear the political consequences, good or bad, of those choices.”
The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on this case until June or July.
BY Jim DeMint
It is never the right time to do the right thing in Washington, D.C.
The phrase I heard most often from Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right time to have this fight.”
Whether the issue was balancing the budget, school choice, patient-driven healthcare, eliminating earmarks, raising the debt limit, ending big, crony handouts like the Export-Import Bank or any stand against the continued growth, favoritism and intrusion of big government, conservatives were always told to wait. Wait until conservatives have the majority. Wait until we have the White House. Wait until we are reelected.
We’re seeing that “wait” attitude in practice today as the House votes on a “clean” Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Despite the fact that Republicans have majorities in both the House and the Senate that were elected on a pledge to fight against President Obama’s executive amnesty, and despite forcing through a big spending bill at the end of 2014 with the promise they would fight later on Homeland Security appropriations, they are now punting the issue entirely.
Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times?
Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.
The phrase I heard most often from Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right time to have this fight.”
On the other side of the aisle, I noticed a much different attitude, especially on big, liberal goals like government-run healthcare. Despite being faced with strong public opposition and the potential end to their political careers, the Democrats used false promises and every imaginable procedural trick to pass the government takeover of a sixth of America’s economy, along with one of the largest tax increases in our history.
Every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare. And none of them even knew what was in it. Many have since lost their bids for reelection, but for liberals, the ends justify the means, and they are willing to accept huge political losses to advance their ideology.
Yet on the other side of the aisle—with the party that supposedly stands for individual freedom, limited government, free markets, American values and a strong defense—tomorrow never comes. Consider two major, pivotal issues in the future course of American history: Obamacare and executive amnesty.
The Republican leadership in Congress, K Street, Wall Street and all of their buddies in the media continue to rail that the conservative stand to defund Obamacare in 2013 hurt the party. But Republicans had one of their best elections in history in 2014, and one of the deciding issues in the election was repealing Obamacare.
The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare. And the leadership only pretended because of the pressure from conservatives who were demanding they follow through on their campaign promises.
However, there were times when I saw the Washington establishment will fight tooth and nail. They fight in bipartisan harmony against conservatives who push to eliminate earmarks.
I have seen the Washington establishment of Republicans and Democrats fight together for expensive bailouts, trillions in new debt, unfair and unaffordable amnesty, risky United Nations treaties, a misguided arms reduction treaty with Russia, a costly Internet sales tax, a new government travel promotion agency and more Washington control of education with No Child Left Behind.
I now hear some Republicans accepting and trying to “improve” Obamacare. And I see Republicans demanding that Congress fund the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty and “move on to other things.”
What “other things” could possibly be more important than blocking the president of the United States from shredding our Constitution?
Some are saying we should leave it to the courts to decide, but Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and members all take oaths to defend the Constitution. If members believe these actions are unconstitutional, how can they in good conscience fund them?
Once the president succeeds in giving work permits, legal status, American jobs and public benefits to 5 million illegal residents, the next obvious steps will be to legalize and give voting rights to the more than 10 million illegal residents.
The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare.
Twenty-six states have taken a stand against the president’s action, and one federal judge has temporarily stopped the processing of work permits. But Obama’s Justice Department has demanded an expedited appeals hearing.
Do Republicans not know that funding the president’s unlawful actions now will allow the president to argue that Congress has confirmed his actions? Federal courts don’t often rule against the concerted action of the two other branches of government.
The absurdity of this situation is that fighting the president’s executive amnesty through Department of Homeland Security appropriations was the strategy created by Republican leaders. Now that the time to fight has arrived, the generals are running from the battlefield and blaming the infantry they told to lead the charge.
If the Republican majority in both houses of Congress is not willing to take a stand and fight against the government takeover of America’s healthcare system or the president’s arrogant usurpation of the constitutional powers of Congress, then what will they fight for? Who will stand with freedom-minded Americans who sent this majority to Washington to fight for them? I hope my former colleagues will ask themselves: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”