*AUDIO* Mark Levin: Cliven Bundy Versus The Federal Leviathan


.

*VIDEO* Words Of Wisdom From Pastor Rafael Cruz, Father Of Senator Ted Cruz


.

President Obama Praises Racist Lyndon Johnson For Republican Civil Rights Act

President Obama Praises Lyndon Johnson For Civil Rights Act – In The Capital

.
….

.
In honor of President Lyndon Johnson and the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, President Barack Obama on Thursday honored Johnson, calling him a “master of politics and the legislative process” who paved the way for him to become the first African-American president.

“Because of the Civil Rights movement, because of the laws President Johnson signed, new doors of opportunity and education swung open for everybody,” Obama said. “Not just blacks and whites, but also women and Latinos; and Asians and Native Americans; and gay Americans and Americans with a disability. They swung open for you, and they swung open for me. And that’s why I’m standing here today – because of those efforts, because of that legacy.”

As the president faces a divided Congress and tries to recover from the rocky roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, Obama harkened back to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of significant pieces of legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act.

“Passing laws was what LBJ knew how to do,” Obama said. “No one knew politics and no one loved legislating more than President Johnson. He was charming when he needed to be, ruthless when required. He could wear you down with logic and argument. He could horse trade, and he could flatter.”

“What President Johnson understood was that equality required more than the absence of oppression,” Obama continued. “It required the presence of economic opportunity. He wouldn’t be as eloquent as Dr. King would be in describing that linkage… but he understood that connection because he had lived it. A decent job, decent wages, health care – those, too, were civil rights worth fighting for.”

Using Johnson’s legislative success as a backdrop, Obama made the case that government has a role to play in addressing economic inequality. “In a time when cynicism is too often passed off as wisdom,” Obama said, “it’s perhaps easy to conclude that there are limits to change; that we are trapped by our own history; and politics is a fool’s errand, and we’d be better off if we roll back big chunks of LBJ’s legacy, or at least if we don’t put too much of our hope, invest too much of our hope in our government.”

“I reject such thinking,” Obama added, emphatically.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
The Party Of Civil Rights – Kevin D. Williamson

This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.

Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism – or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement – would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this – we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party – and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.

Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing.

President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s – at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South – Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections – but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South – but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.

At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites – the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race – but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.

The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however – and here’s the surprise – even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.

There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.

Of course there were racists in the Republican party. There were racists in the Democratic party. The case of Johnson is well documented, while Nixon had his fantastical panoply of racial obsessions, touching blacks, Jews, Italians (“Don’t have their heads screwed on”), Irish (“They get mean when they drink”), and the Ivy League WASPs he hated so passionately (“Did one of those dirty bastards ever invite me to his f***ing men’s club or goddamn country club? Not once”). But the legislative record, the evolution of the electorate, the party platforms, the keynote speeches – none of them suggests a party-wide Republican about-face on civil rights.

Neither does the history of the black vote. While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North. This development was not lost on Lyndon Johnson, who crafted his Great Society with the goal of exploiting widespread dependency for the benefit of the Democratic party. Unlike the New Deal, a flawed program that at least had the excuse of relying upon ideas that were at the time largely untested and enacted in the face of a worldwide economic emergency, Johnson’s Great Society was pure politics. Johnson’s War on Poverty was declared at a time when poverty had been declining for decades, and the first Job Corps office opened when the unemployment rate was less than 5 percent. Congressional Republicans had long supported a program to assist the indigent elderly, but the Democrats insisted that the program cover all of the elderly – even though they were, then as now, the most affluent demographic, with 85 percent of them in households of above-average wealth. Democrats such as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Anthony J. Celebrezze argued that the Great Society would end “dependency” among the elderly and the poor, but the programs were transparently designed merely to transfer dependency from private and local sources of support to federal agencies created and overseen by Johnson and his political heirs. In the context of the rest of his program, Johnson’s unexpected civil-rights conversion looks less like an attempt to empower blacks and more like an attempt to make clients of them.

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South – but not that slow.

Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this – I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.

It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation – and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.

It was not the Civil War but the Cold War that shaped midcentury partisan politics. Eisenhower warned the country against the “military-industrial complex,” but in truth Ike’s ascent had represented the decisive victory of the interventionist, hawkish wing of the Republican party over what remained of the America First/Charles Lindbergh/Robert Taft tendency. The Republican party had long been staunchly anti-Communist, but the post-war era saw that anti-Communism energized and looking for monsters to slay, both abroad – in the form of the Soviet Union and its satellites – and at home, in the form of the growing welfare state, the “creeping socialism” conservatives dreaded. By the middle 1960s, the semi-revolutionary Left was the liveliest current in U.S. politics, and Republicans’ unapologetic anti-Communism – especially conservatives’ rhetoric connecting international socialism abroad with the welfare state at home – left the Left with nowhere to go but the Democratic party. Vietnam was Johnson’s war, but by 1968 the Democratic party was not his alone.

The schizophrenic presidential election of that year set the stage for the subsequent transformation of southern politics: Segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running as an independent, made a last stand in the old Confederacy but carried only five states, while Republican Richard Nixon, who had helped shepherd the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress, counted a number of Confederate states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee) among the 32 he carried. Democrat Hubert Humphrey was reduced to a northern fringe plus Texas. Mindful of the long-term realignment already under way in the South, Johnson informed Democrats worried about losing it after the 1964 act that “those states may be lost anyway.” Subsequent presidential elections bore him out: Nixon won a 49-state sweep in 1972, and, with the exception of the post-Watergate election of 1976, Republicans in the following presidential elections would more or less occupy the South like Sherman. Bill Clinton would pick up a handful of southern states in his two contests, and Barack Obama had some success in the post-southern South, notably Virginia and Florida.

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns – especially welfare and crime – are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

And The Federal Neo-Nazism Continues

Last Man Standing – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
A two-decades-old battle between a Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has resulted in officials armed with machine guns surrounding the ranch and forcibly removing the owner’s cattle, according to the rancher’s family.

Cliven Bundy, the last rancher in Clark County, Nev., has been fighting a “one-man range war” since 1993, when he decided to take a stand against the agency, refusing to pay fees for the right to graze on a ranch run by his family for centuries.

After years of court battles, the BLM secured a federal court order to have Bundy’s “trespass cattle” forcibly removed with heavy artillery, the family said.

“The battle’s been going on for 20 years,” Bundy told the Washington Free Beacon. “What’s happened the last two weeks, the United States government, the bureaus are getting this army together and they’re going to get their job done and they’re going to prove two things. They’re going to prove they can do it, and they’re gonna prove that they have unlimited power, and that they control the policing power over this public land. That’s what they’re trying to prove.”

Bundy said the government has brought everything but tanks and rocket launchers.

.

.
“They’re carrying the same things a soldier would,” he said. “Automatic weapons, sniper rifles, top communication, top surveillance equipment, lots of vehicles. It’s heavy soldier type equipment.”

His wife, Carol Bundy, said that roughly 200 armed agents from the BLM and FBI are stationed around their land, located about 75 miles outside of Las Vegas. Helicopters circle the premises, and the airspace and nearby roads remain blocked.

“We’re surrounded,” Carol Bundy said. “We’re estimating that there are over 200 armed BLM, FBI. We’ve got surveillance cameras at our house, they’re probably listening to me talk to you right now.”

A National Park Service spokesman denied there were armed guards rounding up the cattle in a conference call on Tuesday. However, she confirmed that there was “security” in place, citing threats to the contractors who are removing the cattle.

“Contractors are here and they are in place to round-up the cattle and to bring them to the impound area,” Christie Vanover said. “As for security, there [is] security in place, but that is merely to protect the contractors.”

“As you know, we have received threats and the contractors have received threats,” Vanover said. “Our personnel here and throughout the park service and throughout the BLM have received threats, as well. So security is in place to merely protect the contractors so that we can complete this operation.”

As of Monday, officials have seized 234 of Bundy’s 908 cattle. Impounding the cattle alone could cost the government as much as $3 million.

“They just brought a load down today,” she said. “They kind of harass us as well. When we leave they follow us.”

This afternoon eight helicopters surrounded the family after they began taking pictures, according to Bundy’s daughter, Bailey. Their son, Dave Bundy, was arrested for taking pictures on state road 170, which has been closed, and is being held by BLM.

.

.
The BLM said they took Dave Bundy into custody following his “failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands.”

Carol Bundy said five officials took Dave and “threw him on the ground.”

“One put his knee on his head, the other put his boot on his head and pushed him into the gravel,” she said. “He’s got quite a bruised head. Just bruised him up pretty good.”

Environmentalists are praising the government’s forceful actions, which are being taken to protect the “desert tortoise.”

“We’re heartened and thankful that the agencies are finally living up to their stewardship duty,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Gold Butte area has been officially designated as critical habitat for threatened tortoises – meaning the area is essential to their long-term survival as a species.”

“[Cliven] Bundy has long falsely believed that Gold Butte is his ranch,” added Terri Robertson, president of Friends of Sloan Canyon.

The BLM designated 186,909 acres of the Gold Butte off-limits for the “critical desert tortoise” population in 1998. Bundy had already lost his grazing permit five years earlier for refusing to pay fees for the land, which his family has ranched since the 1870s.

The “federal grazing fee” is $1.35 per “Animal Unit Month,” or the amount of forage needed per animal, each month. Bundy said he owes roughly $300,000 in back fees, while the BLM asserts he owes over $1 million. The BLM defended the removal because Bundy did not “voluntarily” give up his cattle.

“We’ve tried to do this through the legal and we’ve tried to do it through the political, and what we’re at right now, I guess we’re going to have to try to stand,” Cliven Bundy said. “We the people have to stand on the ground and get our state sovereignty back, and also take some liberty and freedoms back to where we have at least access to this land.”

“The story is a lot about the cattle, but the bigger story is about our loss of freedom,” Carol Bundy added. “They have come and taken over this whole corner of the county. They’ve taken over policing power, they’ve taken over our freedom, and they’re stealing cattle.”

“And our sheriff says he just doesn’t have authority, our governor says he doesn’t have authority, and we’re saying, why are we a state?”

“I’m a producer,” Cliven Bundy said. “I produce edible commodity from the desert forage, and all of these things are governed under state law. So, in other words, this type of government has eliminated all of our state law, eliminated our state sovereignty, and has took control over our public lands and even took control over our Clark County sheriff. They’ve taken the whole county over. The whole state, almost.”

“This is just about power of the government,” Carol Bundy said.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R.) voiced his concern about so-called “First Amendment Areas,” designated locations set up by the BLM where citizens can protest the removal.

“Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution,” he said in a statement Tuesday.

“To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the ‘First Amendment Area’ should be dismantled immediately,” he said. “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”

Sandoval also said his office has received numerous complaints about the BLM’s conduct, including road closures and “other disturbances.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related video:

.

.

Historians Claim They Have Proof That A Chalice On Display In A Spanish Museum Is The Holy Grail

Jewel-Encrusted Goblet Found Gathering Dust In Tiny Spanish Museum ‘Touched The Lips Of Jesus And Is In Fact The Holy Grail’ Say Two Historians With Evidence To Prove It – Daily Mail

It is a mystery dating back millennia.

But apparently, the long-lost Holy Grail has finally been found – on display in a Spanish museum.

The onyx chalice has been sat in the Basilica of San Isidoro in Leon, north Spain, for 1000 years – touted to visitors as a goblet belonging to 11th century Queen Urraca.
.

.
But in fact, there is ‘no doubt’ it contains the cup which touched the lips of Jesus Christ, two historians claim.

In an explosive book charting three years of ‘scientific research’, Margarita Torres and Jose Ortiza del Rio reveal there is conclusive evidence from scrolls in Egypt that confirm their theory.

The onyx vessel made between 200 BC and 100 AD, they claim, is trapped inside a bejewelled medieval chalice.

.

.
According to two medieval documents written in Arabic, it was stolen from Jerusalem by Muslims, who gave it to the Christian community in Egypt.

Centuries later, in around 1050 AD, it was sent as a gift to King Fernando I of Castile to thank him for sending aid during a famine, they say.

By that point, it had been concealed with opulent decorations.

.

.
Gold inside, with patterns etched around the edges, the revered ornament is covered with pearls, emeralds, amethysts and sapphires, which the Egyptian kings will have designed to honour the well-liked Fernando.

It was housed and used in the Basilica of San Isidoro, where it remained in storage until it was put on display in the museum which opened in the 1950s.

.

.
Ms Torres, a history professor at the University of Leon, said: ‘The only chalice that could be considered the chalice of Christ is one which went via Cairo to León, and this chalice did so.

‘This is a very important discovery because it helps solve a big puzzle.

‘We believe this could be start of a wonderful stage of research.’

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

@ Conservatives: How To Be Effective Culture Warriors Without Being Pro Filmmakers, Writers, Musicians, Etc.


Here’s my advice to you people, and I’ll keep this short and sweet: produce the types of YouTube videos you see below – even if they suck. After all, most Hollywood movies suck. Most books suck. Most paintings suck. Most songs suck. Most artistic endeavors suck!

The thing about leftists is that they don’t care if they suck, so they flood the world with their “art”, and even though most of it sucks, a lot of it sticks.

The problem with conservatives is that we worry so much about other people thinking we suck that we refuse to take a chance on openly sucking.

I say, why worry about that? IF WE SUCK, LET’S SUCK OUT LOUD! At least we’ll be in the game.

And so, I now share with you all the essentials of right-wing cyber-militancy.

(Or, how I stopped worrying about sucking and learned to embrace creativity.)

Take notice of the following CATEGORIES of videos. They are the keys to your effectiveness as culture warriors. Imprint them on your minds.

Or don’t. I mean, what do I know? It’s not like millions of people have viewed my YouTube channel or anything. *sarcasm off*

.

MASHUP & OVERDUB

.
.

.

.

.

.

JUSTAPOSITION & POINT-COUNTERPOINT

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PARODY & SATIRE

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

TRIBUTE & MEMORIAL

.
.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Andrew Klavan: The Culture War – How The Arts Influence Politics


.
Click HERE to purchase ‘Crisis In The Arts: Why The Left Owns The Culture And How Conservatives Can Begin To Take It Back‘ by Andrew Klavan.

.
………………….

“It [Crisis In The Arts] is, quite frankly, one of the most insightful and tough minded pieces we’ve ever published – something that will make you angry but give you hope.” – David Horowitz

Click HERE to visit Mr. Klavan’s website.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related video:

.

.
Click HERE to visit Bill Whittle’s website.

.

Ed’s Big List Of Free Online College Courses, Audio/Video Lectures, And eBooks


FREE ONLINE COURSES
Oedb.org
OpenCulture.com
Diyscholar.Wordpress.com
Coursera.org
Edx.org
Open.edu
Oli.Cmu.edu
AcademicEarth.org
AcademicEarth.org 2
Alison.com
KhanAcademy.org
Extension.Washington.edu
CovenantSeminary.edu
Whatcom.Ctc.edu
Education-Portal.com
Education-Portal.com 2
Sofia.Fhda.edu
My.GordonConwell.edu
Saylor.org
TopFreeClasses.com
Mooc2Degree.com
Canvas.net
OnlineCollegeCourses.net
MarcAndAngel.com
OnlineCollegeClasses.com
Class-Central.com
WorldScienceU.com
PyroElectro.com

IVY LEAGUE
Online.Hillsdale.edu
Ocw.Mit.edu
Webcast.Berkeley.edu
Itunes.Stanford.edu
Extension.Harvard.edu
Ocw.Tufts.edu
Is.Byu.edu
Princeton.edu
Oyc.Yale.edu

FREE ONLINE BOOKS
ReadAnyBook.com
Gutenberg.org
Free-Ebooks.net
GoodReads.com
TechDupportAlert.com
Bartleby.com
Archive.org
PageByPageBooks.com
Bibliomania.com
Monergism.com
BaenEbooks.com
ReadPrint.com
ManyBooks.net
Archives.gov
Online-Literature.com
FreeComputerBooks.com
Librivox.org
Authorama.com
WorldPublicLibrary.org
Questia.com
En.Wikibooks.org
Read.gov
OpenLibrary.org
Sacred-Texts.com
Files.Nyu.edu
Digital.Library.Upenn.edu


.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle: Gulliver, Unbound


.

Private Aerospace Company SpaceX To Launch The World’s First Reusable Booster

SpaceX Set To Launch The World’s First Reusable Booster – MIT Technology Review

.

.
Later this month, if all goes well, Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, will achieve a spaceflight first.

After delivering cargo to the International Space Station, the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket used for the flight will fire its engines for the second time. The burn will allow the rocket to reenter the atmosphere in controlled flight, without breaking up and disintegrating on the way down as most booster rockets do.

The launch was originally planned for March 16, but the company has delayed the launch until at least March 30 to allow for further preparation.

The machine will settle over the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of its Cape Canaveral launchpad, engines roaring, and four landing legs will unfold from the rocket’s sides. Hovering over the ocean, the rocket will kick up a salt spray along with the flames and smoke. Finally, the engines will cut off and the rocket will drop the last few feet into the ocean for recovery by a waiting barge.

Future flights of the so-called F9R rocket will have it touching down on land. For now, a water landing ensures maximum safety in case the rocket goes off course.

The test of SpaceX’s renewable booster rocket technology will be the first of its kind and could pave the way to radically cheaper access to space. “Reusability has been the Holy Grail of the launch industry for decades,” says Jeff Foust, an analyst at Futron, a consultancy based in Bethesda, Maryland. That’s because the so-called expendable rockets that are the industry standard add enormously to launch costs – the equivalent of building a new aircraft for every transatlantic flight.

SpaceX began flying low-altitude tests of a Falcon 9 first stage with a single engine, a rocket known as Grasshopper, at its McGregor, Texas, proving grounds in 2012. The flights got progressively higher, until a final test in October, when the rocket reached an altitude of 744 meters. Then, following a flight to place a communications satellite in geosynchronous orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in November, a Falcon 9 first stage successfully restarted three of its nine engines to make a controlled supersonic reentry from space.

The rocket survived reentry, but subsequently spun out of control and broke up on impact with the Pacific Ocean. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said in a call with reporters after the flight that landing legs, which that rocket lacked, would most likely have stabilized the rocket enough to make a controlled landing on the water. The March 16 flight will be the first orbital test with landing legs.

After recovering the rocket from the water on Sunday, SpaceX engineers and technicians will study it to determine what it would take to refurbish such a rocket for reuse. SpaceX also has plans to recover and reuse the second stage rocket, but for now, it will recover only the first stage and its nine Merlin engines, which make up the bulk of the cost of the rocket.

Even without reusable rockets, SpaceX has already shaken up the $190-billion-a-year satellite launch market with radically lower launch costs than its competitors. The company advertises $55.6 million per Falcon 9 launch. Its competitors are less forthcoming about how much they charge, but French rocket company Arianespace has indicated that it may ask for an increase in government subsidies to remain competitive with SpaceX.

Closer to home, SpaceX is vying for so-called Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, or EELV, contracts to launch satellites for the U.S. Air Force. Its only competitor for the contracts, United Launch Alliance, charges $380 million per launch.

Musk testified before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense meeting on March 5 that his company can cut that cost down to $90 million per launch. He said the higher cost for a government mission versus a commercial one was due to a lack of government-provided launch insurance. “So, in order to improve the probability of success, there is quite a substantial mission assurance overhead applied,” Musk said in the hearing. Still, SpaceX’s proposed charge for the Air Force missions is a mere 23 percent of ULA’s.

SpaceX is counting on lower launch costs to increase demand for launch services. But Foust cautions that this strategy comes with risk. “It’s worth noting,” he says, “that many current customers of launch services, including operators of commercial satellites, aren’t particularly price sensitive, so thus aren’t counting on reusability to lower costs.”

That means those additional launches, and thus revenue, may have to come from markets that don’t exist yet. “A reusable system with much lower launch costs might actually result in lower revenue for that company unless they can significantly increase demand,” says Foust. “That additional demand would likely have to come from new markets, with commercial human spaceflight perhaps the biggest and best-known example.”

Indeed, SpaceX was founded with human spaceflight as its ultimate mission. It is now one of three companies working with NASA funds to build ships capable of sending astronauts to the International Space Station. Musk plans to take SpaceX even further—all the way to Mars with settlers. And colonizing Mars will require lots of low-cost flights.

Michael Belfiore (michaelbelfiore.com) is the author of Rocketeers: How a Visionary Band of Business Leaders, Engineers, and Pilots Is Boldly Privatizing Space.

Updated on March 14, at 3 p.m. EST, to include mention of the delay.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Flashback: Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy Tons Of Ukrainian Ammunition, Small Arms And Anti-Aircraft Missiles

Flashback: Senator Obama Pushed Bill That Helped Destroy More Than 15,000 Tons Of Ammunition, 400,000 Small Arms And 1,000 Anti-Aircraft Missiles In Ukraine – Daily Mail

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.

In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.

The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.

After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.

.

.

.
Photographs from the trip show Obama inspecting a plant where Soviet-era artillery shells and shoulder-fired missiles were collecting dust, leftovers dumped in Ukraine after the USSR withdrew from Eastern bloc nations after the once-mighty communist nation fell apart.

The United Nations had already identified some 7 million small arms and light weapons, and 2 million tons of conventional ammunition, warehoused in more than 80 weapons depots spread across the country.

Many of the artillery shells shown in photographs from Donetsk, multiple weapons experts told MailOnline, would be the same types of ammunition required to repel advancing Russian divisions as they advanced to the west, had they not been destroyed.

Two experts said the ammunition, particularly small-arms rounds, would have been useful to train Ukraine’s armed forces and million-strong reserves.

‘Vast stocks of conventional munitions and military supplies have accumulated in Ukraine,’ Obama said in am August 30, 2005 statement from Donetsk. ‘Some of this stockpile dates from World War I and II, yet most dates from Cold War buildup and the stocks left behind by Soviet withdrawals from East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland.’

‘We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.’

More than a year later, President George W. Bush signed into law a proposal authored by Obama and Lugar.

.

.

.

.

.
Obama said then that the existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ‘has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists.’

Much of the Ukrainian small-arms supply was ultimately exported, not scrapped, by a Yushchenko regime that chose revenue from arms dealing over the cost of melting down metal.

In 2008 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that between 2004 and 2007, the Ukrainian Export Control Service told the UN that it sent 721,777 small arms and light weapons to 27 different countries.

The United States was the top recipient, with more than 260,000 of those weapons, followed by the UK and Libya, which each imported more than 101,000.

That flood of weapons exports has continued, with annual export records showing hundreds of thousands of new exports each year, covering everything from pistols and carbine rifles to heavy machine guns and anti-tank weapons.

.

.

.

.
But while today’s 130,000-strong standing Ukrainian military isn’t short on AK-47s, Russian troops have met little to no large-scale resistance from armored divisions or heavy artillery as they steamrolled their way into Crimea.

Some of that was Ukraine’s own doing – it sold 320 tanks to Pakistan in the 1990s, for instance – but Obama and Lugar accelerated the pace of the country’s arms liquidation.

While the Ukrainian army seems to have been careful to avoid provoking an even larger conflict, it’s impossible to know whether Putin would have behaved differently in the face of columns of heavy weapons that once belonged to the Soviet Union in whose KGB he held a high-ranking position.

Sky News video broadcast on Tuesday showed Russian troops firing automatic weapons over the heads of apparently unarmed Ukrainian Air Force personnel near a contested airfield in Crimea.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

IRS Finally Agrees To Provide Congress With All Of Lois Lerner’s Emails Since Tea Party Targeting Scheme Began

IRS Caves On Lois Lerner Documents, Will Provide Congress With All Of Her Emails Since Tea Party Targeting Scheme Began – Daily Mail

.

.
The powerful House Ways and Means Committee will get everything from disgraced former IRS official Lois Lerner’s email account since a few weeks before Barack Obama became president.

And Republican committee members are hoping they’ll find a smoking gun tying the Obama administration to the years-long scheme to play political favorites with nonprofit groups’ tax-exemption applications.

After eight months of back-and-forth stonewalling, the IRS has agreed to turn over the complete contents of Lerner’s email account, along with other documents that two congressional committees have been demanding.

‘If there’s not a Holy Grail email in this round of documents,’ a senior staffer to a Ways and Means committee member told MailOnline, ‘then we’re not going to find it.’

‘Whether that’s because Lerner covered her tracks or because the IRS is shredding documents, we’re probably never going to know.’

The committee’s chairman, Michigan Republican Rep. Dave Camp, seems eager to put his staff to work sifting through thousands of messages in search of an explanation for the program that has been a major embarrassment to the White House.

‘This is a significant step forward and will help us complete our investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups,’ Camp said Friday.

‘From the few Lerner documents we have received, we know that Washington, DC orchestrated the targeting of groups applying for tax-exempt status, surveillance of existing tax-exempt groups and formed the proposed 501(c)(4) rules designed to push conservative groups out of the public forum.’

Camp warned the IRS in a February 24 letter that he would start issuing subpoenas if the agency didn’t turn over the documents he wanted.

The IRS has proposed a rewrite of its regulations governing communications restrictions on ‘public benefit’ organizations that are exempt from paying federal income taxes.

That redesign of the rules began long before Lerner herself exposed the IRS’s pattern of holding up right-wing groups’ applications, often with dozens of intrusive questions over several years.

The effects of the agency’s desired rule change would be substantial: Organizations would be prohibited from emailing information, or publishing anything online, about candidates’ voting records during the last 60 days before an election.

Tea party groups, which began their rise to prominence five years ago, comprised most of the organizations that the IRS targeted beginning in 2010. Their political free-speech concerns have driven more than 146,000 public comments to the IRS, demanding that the regulatory revisions be scrapped.

Cleta Mitchell, a board member of the American Conservative Union Foundation, said Friday during that organization’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference that the new rules would affect the event where she was speaking.

‘It would mean that in even-numbered years, CPAC could have no speakers who are candidates for office,’ she said, dumbfounded.

Mitchell, an attorney, is representing some of the tea party groups in lawsuits related to the IRS targeting scheme.

The House Oversight Committee, chaired by California Rep. Darrell Issa, has cast a larger public shadow than Ways and Means has on the IRS targeting scandal.

Lerner has appeared before Issa-led hearings twice, both times invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to testify, despite President Obama’s insistence in a February interview that the IRS displayed ‘not a smidgen of corruption’ in the damaging episode.

Becca Glover Watkins, the Oversight Committee’s communications director, told MailOnline that Issa’s and Camp’s committee staffers are working hand-in-hand.

‘The Oversight Committee and the Ways and Means Committee have worked in partnership during the course of this investigation,’ Watkins said.

‘We expect the IRS will also be delivering a copy [of the complete Lerner files] to the Oversight Committee.’

A spokesperson for the Ways and Means Committee told MailOnline that it was the new IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, who broke the inertia after months of requests.

‘We have been asking for the materials for months, and after many discussions the new IRS Commissioner has said the IRS will comply with the request,’ said the committee’s Sarah Swinehart.

Lerner ‘was clearly at the center of the IRS targeting and was running it out of the Washington, D.C. office,’ she added. ‘We expect her documents to provide a fuller picture of this.’

Koskinen took over the tax agency on December 23, ending a 13-month period during which two interim commissioners served as caretakers.

The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

British Intelligence Specialist: Obama Born In Kenya; CIA, American Politicians Knew It Before ’08 Election



(see unedited version below)
.

Michael Shrimpton Résumé:

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

.
Unedited Version

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles:

.
Barrister Michael Shrimpton: Obama Born in Mombasa Kenya In 1960, CIA DNA Testing Confirms Obama Dunham Grandparents Not Linked, Wikipedia Scrubs Shrimpton Profile, British Intelligence Files – Citizen Wells

Barrister Michael Shrimpton Obama born in Mombasa Kenya in 1960, CIA DNA testing confirms Obama Dunham grandparents not linked, Wikipedia scrubs Shrimpton profile, British intelligence files

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.” …Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” …George Orwell, “1984″

I had to treat this story with skepticism.

Barrister Michael Shrimpton is real.

Are his claims?

His profile was scrubbed on Wikipedia.

From Birther Report February 25, 2014. – Bombshell: British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton; Obama Born In Kenya In 1960; CIA DNA Test

“Shrimpton reported Obama’s purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960. He said Kenya was under British intelligence files and that Obama’s father ran guns for the Mau Mau. He then dropped a bombshell claiming the CIA did covert DNA testing on Obama at a fundraising dinner and the test came back with no match to the claimed grandparents.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/bombshell-british-intelligence-advisor.html

Wikipedia scrubbed the Michael Shrimpton profile.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

23:46, 11 August 2012 Uncle G (talk | contribs) deleted page User: Michael Shrimpton (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton)

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Michael Shrimpton. If in doubt, please verify that “Michael Shrimpton” exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

From Wikipedia October 10, 2010.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michael Shrimpton : A short resume

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

Michael has a life-long interest in aviation which is informed by his knowledge of intelligence and defence affairs. His first solo was in 1979 on the British aerospace Bulldog T MK 1 aircraft, University of Wales Air Squadron. He is an Honorary Life Member Bomber Command Association, member of the Air League, member of Friends of the Royal Air Force Museum and RAF Historical Society. He has flown in many types of classic aircraft including a DC-3 (ex-RAF Dakota), Auster MK6 and a Stearman biplane.

He has contributed to aviation by combining intelligence related materials with original analysis of the history of various aircraft types. Notably Michael thinks he identified the covert programme of sabotage against de Havilland Comet airliners Yoke Peter and Yoke Uncle, which crashed in January and April 1954 off the Italian island of Elba (BOAC Flight 781) and in Stromboli (South African Airways Flight 201).

Michael also has other Defence interests and is a member of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Defence and Security Forum, London, Military Commentator Circle, London and the United States Naval Institute. This wide range of high-level western defence, security and intelligence contacts has not only been of relevant to the War on Terror but has also taken him to some interesting locations.

In February 2006, Michael was flown to the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) at sea in the North Atlantic as part of the US Navy’s Distinguished Visitor Program. He completed his first arrested carrier landing and catapult take-off cycle. In June 2003 he was on the Israel / Lebanon border when he came to within 50 yards of operational Hezbollah terrorists.

He has also travelled extensively by rail, is one of AMTRAK’s few UK Guest Rewards members having crossed Canada by train on the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver and on the Alaska Railroad from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Some other journeys include the Orient Express from Paris to Istambul, the Frederick Chopin from Warsaw to Berlin, the Moscow Express from Moscow to Berlin via Minsk and Warsaw, the Alpine Express in New Zealand and the Brisbane Limited and Sunlander in Australia. He has driven many thousands of miles by car in the USA, visiting over 30 states, twice driving coast to coast.

Michael’s reputation is not restricted to the aviation, intelligence and defence communities. With extensive media experience, including live radio and television, he has appeared on Tom Marr’s talkshow for WCBM Baltimore January 2004 and again in February 2006; on the John Batchelor Show; on BBC, ITV, Sky (UK), Danish, French, Italian, German, Swiss, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand television. He appeared in a CNN special on the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano for CNN’s Latin American service with a first appearance on Fox News March 2006. He was also Intelligence Consultant to BBC TV’s Spooks series, broadcast in the USA as MI5.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101010175917/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

More on Barrister Michael Shrimpton to come.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Barack Hussein Soebarkah? – Dr. Jason Kissner

One of the unexplained mysteries in the scanty documentation of the early life of the 44th President of the United States is the appearance of the name Soebarkah as his last name on an official document filled out by his mother.

In a recent contribution to American Thinker, Nick Chase offers very persuasive evidence that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery.

While in the midst of developing an argument supporting the idea that Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, Chase states:

Finally, we have Stanley Ann Soetoro’s 1968 application to extend her 1965 passport (now destroyed) for an additional two years, as shown in Figure PPA.

On the second page of the application, Ann moved to exclude her son Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the item has been crossed out – perhaps on the advice of the consulate in Jakarta, as this would have left seven-year-old Barry passportless – so it didn’t happen.

The appendage “(Soebarkah)” has never been satisfactorily explained by anyone, and I certainly don’t know what “Soebarkah” means, but it does seem to indicate a name change or change in citizenship status for the boy.

Clearly, just what constitutes “a satisfactory explanation” varies with respect to persons, subject matter, context, and so forth.

And yet, there is a very good – and simple – explanation for the seemingly random appearance of the sobriquet “Soebarkah” on Mother Soetoro’s passport application.

Believe it or not, the reason may be linked to one Loretta Fuddy.

Yes, that Loretta Fuddy – the Hawaii state health director who approved the release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate and who has apparently succumbed to a nasty case of post random plane crash induced arrhythmia.

Ann Soetoro and Loretta Fuddy appear to have one very odd thing in common: both have been linked to the Subud cult, which originated in, of all places, Indonesia and was founded by the Javanese Muslim Muhammed Subuh.

The smallish cult appears to have had, at least circa 2001 and according to this profile of sorts in the Honolulu Advertiser, 20,000 members worldwide. Notice the picture of Deliana Fuddy, then “regional helper” and member of the faith? Let’s return to her Subud status in a second.

Note also that the World Subud organization seems to have been based in, of all cities… wait for it…Chicago. Indonesia… Chicago… Hawaii… three locales linked to Obama’s life.

Next, observe that the Advertiser article states that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s (more on this in the conclusion).

Now to Ann Soetoro. She was linked to Subud by her biographer (and New York Times reporter) Janny Scott (Harvard ’77) in the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” reviewed by the New York Times here.

Loretta Fuddy was more than merely a follower of Subud; she worked her way up the ranks and became chairwoman of Subud USA, based in Seattle from 2006 to 2008, and was known to Subud not merely as Loretta Fuddy, but as “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy. In fact, you can see that in its headline, the official Subud “memorial” page drops “Loretta” and refers simply to “Deliana” Fuddy.

Ann Soetoro’s close association with members of the Subud cult will be documented below. But first, note in passing that of all the persons – Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, or you-name-it – that could have been installed as Director of the State Department of Health in Hawaii, Hawaii alighted on Fuddy – a leader of a small cult with roots in Indonesia and connections to Ann Soetoro – Obama’s mother. Second, observe that Fuddy assumed the Director position in Hawaii in January 2011, just a few months before the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Now to Ann Soetoro’s links with Subud and to a brief discussion of the Barry “Soebarkah” mystery associated with Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application.

Read the following excerpt from SubudVoice in 2011 (and please note that I have italicized a couple of sentences to emphasize that the Subud “Staff Reporter” is drawing on material from Janny Scott’s biography of Ann Soetoro; they aren’t simply making an anonymous, empty assertion that can’t be substantiated.)

Obama’s mother and Subud

By Staff Reporter…

A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,a biography of the mother of US President Obama, Ann DunhamSutoro, contains several references to Subud. As is generally known Obama lived with his mother in Jakarta for some years…

Arianne (no second name) wrote to me to say, “Talked to Irin Poellot who is reading the book about Obama’s mother and has already run into several literal mentions of Subud!!! I remember the late Mansur Madeiros mentioning he knew her in Indonesia and he is mentioned in the book! I can’t help wondering if we will get inquiries about Subud since it is mentioned often in a book which probably will be widely read. It also is a delicious fact that our Subud sister, Ms Fuddy, just was appointed to her post in the Health Dept in Hawaii in time to be involved in the documentation of fact that Obama was born there.”

I wrote back asking for more specific information and Arianne replied, “Irin kindly supplied some quotes:In chapter 4 “Initiation in Java” the Subud members are quoted. And then (on page 116): “…she (Ann) was hired to start an English-language, business-communications department in one of the few private non profit management-training schools in the country.”

Ann “found a group of young Americans and Britons enrolled in an intensive course in Bahasa Indonesia, the national language, at the University of Indonesia recalled Irwan Holmes, (a member of the original group). She was looking for teachers. A half dozen of them accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud, with a residential compound in a suburb of Jakarta..”

And… Mohammad Mansur Madeiros, a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts, and Harvard, whom Ann hired as a teacher, had immersed himself so deeply in Javanese culture, language and religion that friends nicknamed him Mansur Java. When he died in 2007, friends recalled his preference for the company of ordinary Indonesians – street vendors and becak drivers – over that of other Subud members and expatriates.”

But what might the Ann Soetoro, Deliana Fuddy, Subud links really have to do with the sobriquet Barry Soebarkah?

To help answer that, transport yourself backward in time and sit at the feet of the Indonesian Subud master Bapak circa 1963:

Question:1 Many people in Subud change their names. Is this necessary? Is it important? How does the change of a name affect us? Physically, spiritually or both?

Bapak: Brothers and sisters, whether it is necessary or not depends on what you want…

If changing one’s name for “spiritual reasons” was something frequently done by followers of Subud’s Bapak, and Stanley Ann Soetoro was in fact closely associated with Subud, it is reasonable to suppose that “Soebarkah” arose in the same way new names for others (like “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy?) associated with Subud did: as a matter of course depending on the case.

Readers might agree that the above is a quite reasonable account of the origin of Barry “Soebarkah.”

But there is something else. The above biographical material bonds Ann Soetoro to Subud members via an English language, business communications department post. According to the New York Times here, that would have been around 1970 or 1971. However, the passport renewal application with the name “Soebarkah” dates to 1968. This suggests that either the “Soebarkah” handle came from nowhere, or that matters are as we have discussed and that Ann Soetoro in fact came to Subud before 1970 – perhaps in Hawaii.

Clearly, we might want to recall that the above linked Honolulu Advertiser Subud profile indicates that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s.

In closing, the Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application raises the spectre of possible Obama birth certificate fraud yet again. Have a look at page 2 of the document:

“Sorebarkah” appears in the section labeled “Amend to Include (Exclude) Children.”

The name Barack Hussein Obama (Sorebarkah) is crossed out.

Nick Chase has concluded that this signifies that Ann Soetoro had improvidently decided to exclude Barack from her passport renewal. Chase thinks that Soetoro changed her mind about exclusion after having been informed by the Consulate that doing so would leave Barack passportless.

But there is another possibility – one just as valid on its face.

What if Soetoro was trying to include Obama in the renewal, but she wasn’t able to produce a birth certificate, and the Subud name “Soebarkah” just didn’t do the trick? (hat tip Louise Hodges for the “inclusion” possibility; one can’t be certain why she did not link the inclusion possibility to Soebarkah).

That could explain why the name Subud name “Soebarkah” appears nowhere else (that we are aware of anyway),

Of course, we might then have to wonder exactly how Obama did his traveling at certain points in time, but then perhaps Subud is, at least at times, more than a mere cult?

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin: Establishment Republicans’ Attacks On Ted Cruz Parallel Attacks On Ronald Reagan


.

How A Fanatical Environmentalist Deliberately Caused UK Flooding (Daniel Greenfield)

How A Fanatical Environmentalist Deliberately Caused UK Flooding – Daniel Greenfield

.

.
People? Who cares about people anyway? It’s easier to let it all go to the birds. Here’s what’s happening now.

Fire crews rescued 37 secondary school pupils after their bus got stuck in flood water near Faringdon, Oxfordshire. There are also more than 180 flood warnings across England and Wales, and about 300 flood alerts.

About 40 Royal Marines from 40 Commando, based in Taunton, were sent to the Somerset Levels to provide help sandbagging and moving householders’ property to higher levels; meanwhile soldiers have helped put out sandbags in Saffron Walden in Essex.

And here’s why it happened.

The Environment Agency has created a £31m bird sanctuary on the Steart peninsula, but can’t find a few million to dredge rivers, remove silt and improve river capacity. Farmers wouldn’t mind doing the job themselves, but then they discover that the silt is now classed as a controlled waste requiring removal to a licensed tip. They can’t simply dump it on farmland to the side, a practice that for centuries has produced, when combined with the natural peat, an incredibly rich soil. Not only that, they would be asked to take oxygen readings of the water.

There is a notion that flooding is inevitable and that strategic choices needed to be made. Rob Duck (no, honestly), professor of environmental geoscience at Dundee University, suggests that “as a nation we’re going to have to look at certain areas that we can – I wouldn’t say sacrifice – return to the sea in order that we can focus our efforts on the cities and other settlements”.

Some must be flooded for the good of the environment.

The problem began, they said, in 1996 when the new Environment Agency took overall responsibility for managing Britain’s rivers… The rivers have always been crucial to keeping the Levels drained, because they provide the only way to allow flood waters to escape to the sea. Equally worrying was how scores of pumping stations which carry water to the rivers were being neglected.

And although the drainage boards were still allowed to operate, their work was now being seriously hampered by a thicket of new EU waste regulations, zealously enforced by the EA. These made it almost impossible to dispose sensibly of any silt removed from the maze of drainage ditches which are such a prominent feature of the Levels.

But all this got markedly worse after 2002 when the Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour peeress, became the agency’s new chief executive. Dredging virtually ceased altogether. The rivers began dangerously to silt up. The Baroness, who had previously run the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Natural England, talked obsessively about the need to promote the interests of wildlife. She was famously heard to say that she wanted to see ‘a limpet mine put on every pumping station’. The experts I was talking to had no doubt that this apparent wish to put the cause of nature over that of keeping the Levels properly drained was eventually going to create precisely the kind of disaster we are seeing today.

A key part in this had been played by those EU directives which govern almost everything the Environment Agency gets up to – including two with which Baroness Young was already familiar when she presided over the RSPB – setting out the EU’s policy on ‘habitats’ and ‘birds’. But just as important was a 2007 directive on the ‘management of flood risks’, which required ‘flood plains’, in the name of ‘biodiversity’, to be made subject to increased flooding.

This was just what Lady Young was looking for. She had already been giving lectures and evidence to a House of Lords committee on the EU’s earlier Water Framework directive, proclaiming that one of her agency’s top priorities should be to create more ‘habitats’ for wildlife by allowing wetlands to revert to nature. As she explained in an interview in 2008, creating new nature reserves can be very expensive. By far the cheapest way was simply to allow nature to take its course, by halting the drainage of wetlands such as the Somerset Levels. The recipe she proudly gave in her lectures, repeated to that Lords committee, was: for ‘instant wildlife, just add water’.

In 2008 her agency therefore produced a 275-page document categorising areas at risk of flooding under six policy options. These ranged from Policy 1, covering areas where flood defences should be improved, down to category 6, where, in the name of ‘biodiversity’, the policy should be to ‘take action to increase the frequency of flooding’. The paper placed the Somerset Levels firmly under Policy 6, where the intention was quite deliberately to allow more flooding. The direct consequences of that we are now seeing round the clock on our television screens.

What we are looking at is literal environmentalist evil that could have cost human lives, including those of children, and unquestionably has cost large amounts of property loss.

This is how environmentalists think and act, not just in the UK, but also in the US, as we are seeing with the California drought, they are contemptuous of people’s lives and obsessed with restoring the world to some pristine pre-industrial and even pre-human state. And they are just as willing to kill and destroy in the name of their Green ideology as their Red colleagues were in the name of theirs.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Here’s A Presidential Address You’ll Never Hear Barack Obama Deliver

Here’s The Best Presidential Speech You’ve Never Heard – The Blaze

Below is Democrat President Grover Cleveland’s Second Inaugural Address dated Sunday, March 4, 1893.

Its themes are timeless, and the speech is representative of a man who was perhaps the last principled classical liberal to ever occupy the Oval Office.

All emphasis is ours.

.

.
My Fellow-Citizens:

In obedience of the mandate of my countrymen I am about to dedicate myself to their service under the sanction of a solemn oath. Deeply moved by the expression of confidence and personal attachment which has called me to this service, I am sure my gratitude can make no better return than the pledge I now give before God and these witnesses of unreserved and complete devotion to the interests and welfare of those who have honored me.

I deem it fitting on this occasion, while indicating the opinion I hold concerning public questions of present importance, to also briefly refer to the existence of certain conditions and tendencies among our people which seem to menace the integrity and usefulness of their Government.

While every American citizen must contemplate with the utmost pride and enthusiasm the growth and expansion of our country, the sufficiency of our institutions to stand against the rudest shocks of violence, the wonderful thrift and enterprise of our people, and the demonstrated superiority of our free government, it behooves us to constantly watch for every symptom of insidious infirmity that threatens our national vigor.

The strong man who in the confidence of sturdy health courts the sternest activities of life and rejoices in the hardihood of constant labor may still have lurking near his vitals the unheeded disease that dooms him to sudden collapse.

It can not be doubted that our stupendous achievements as a people and our country’s robust strength have given rise to heedlessness of those laws governing our national health which we can no more evade than human life can escape the laws of God and nature.

Manifestly nothing is more vital to our supremacy as a nation and to the beneficent purposes of our Government than a sound and stable currency. Its exposure to degradation should at once arouse to activity the most enlightened statesmanship, and the danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and conservative precaution.

In dealing with our present embarrassing situation as related to this subject we will be wise if we temper our confidence and faith in our national strength and resources with the frank concession that even these will not permit us to defy with impunity the inexorable laws of finance and trade. At the same time, in our efforts to adjust differences of opinion we should be free from intolerance or passion, and our judgments should be unmoved by alluring phrases and unvexed by selfish interests.

I am confident that such an approach to the subject will result in prudent and effective remedial legislation. In the meantime, so far as the executive branch of the Government can intervene, none of the powers with which it is invested will be withheld when their exercise is deemed necessary to maintain our national credit or avert financial disaster.

Closely related to the exaggerated confidence in our country’s greatness which tends to a disregard of the rules of national safety, another danger confronts us not less serious. I refer to the prevalence of a popular disposition to expect from the operation of the Government especial and direct individual advantages.

The verdict of our voters which condemned the injustice of maintaining protection for protection’s sake enjoins upon the people’s servants the duty of exposing and destroying the brood of kindred evils which are the unwholesome progeny of paternalism. This is the bane of republican institutions and the constant peril of our government by the people. It degrades to the purposes of wily craft the plan of rule our fathers established and bequeathed to us as an object of our love and veneration. It perverts the patriotic sentiments of our countrymen and tempts them to pitiful calculation of the sordid gain to be derived from their Government’s maintenance. It undermines the self-reliance of our people and substitutes in its place dependence upon governmental favoritism. It stifles the spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of American citizenship.

The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their Government its functions do not include the support of the people.

The acceptance of this principle leads to a refusal of bounties and subsidies, which burden the labor and thrift of a portion of our citizens to aid ill-advised or languishing enterprises in which they have no concern. It leads also to a challenge of wild and reckless pension expenditure, which overleaps the bounds of grateful recognition of patriotic service and prostitutes to vicious uses the people’s prompt and generous impulse to aid those disabled in their country’s defense.

Every thoughtful American must realize the importance of checking at its beginning any tendency in public or private station to regard frugality and economy as virtues which we may safely outgrow. The toleration of this idea results in the waste of the people’s money by their chosen servants and encourages prodigality and extravagance in the home life of our countrymen.

Under our scheme of government the waste of public money is a crime against the citizen, and the contempt of our people for economy and frugality in their personal affairs deplorably saps the strength and sturdiness of our national character.

It is a plain dictate of honesty and good government that public expenditures should be limited by public necessity, and that this should be measured by the rules of strict economy; and it is equally clear that frugality among the people is the best guaranty of a contented and strong support of free institutions.

One mode of the misappropriation of public funds is avoided when appointments to office, instead of being the rewards of partisan activity, are awarded to those whose efficiency promises a fair return of work for the compensation paid to them. To secure the fitness and competency of appointees to office and remove from political action the demoralizing madness for spoils, civil- service reform has found a place in our public policy and laws. The benefits already gained through this instrumentality and the further usefulness it promises entitle it to the hearty support and encouragement of all who desire to see our public service well performed or who hope for the elevation of political sentiment and the purification of political methods.

The existence of immense aggregations of kindred enterprises and combinations of business interests formed for the purpose of limiting production and fixing prices is inconsistent with the fair field which ought to be open to every independent activity. Legitimate strife in business should not be superseded by an enforced concession to the demands of combinations that have the power to destroy, nor should the people to be served lose the benefit of cheapness which usually results from wholesome competition. These aggregations and combinations frequently constitute conspiracies against the interests of the people, and in all their phases they are unnatural and opposed to our American sense of fairness. To the extent that they can be reached and restrained by Federal power the General Government should relieve our citizens from their interference and exactions.

Loyalty to the principles upon which our Government rests positively demands that the equality before the law which it guarantees to every citizen should be justly and in good faith conceded in all parts of the land. The enjoyment of this right follows the badge of citizenship wherever found, and, unimpaired by race or color, it appeals for recognition to American manliness and fairness.

Our relations with the Indians located within our border impose upon us responsibilities we can not escape. Humanity and consistency require us to treat them with forbearance and in our dealings with them to honestly and considerately regard their rights and interests. Every effort should be made to lead them, through the paths of civilization and education, to self- supporting and independent citizenship. In the meantime, as the nation’s wards, they should be promptly defended against the cupidity of designing men and shielded from every influence or temptation that retards their advancement.

The people of the United States have decreed that on this day the control of their Government in its legislative and executive branches shall be given to a political party pledged in the most positive terms to the accomplishment of tariff reform. They have thus determined in favor of a more just and equitable system of Federal taxation. The agents they have chosen to carry out their purposes are bound by their promises not less than by the command of their masters to devote themselves unremittingly to this service.

While there should be no surrender of principle, our task must be undertaken wisely and without heedless vindictiveness. Our mission is not punishment, but the rectification of wrong. If in lifting burdens from the daily life of our people we reduce inordinate and unequal advantages too long enjoyed, this is but a necessary incident of our return to right and justice. If we exact from unwilling minds acquiescence in the theory of an honest distribution of the fund of the governmental beneficence treasured up for all, we but insist upon a principle which underlies our free institutions. When we tear aside the delusions and misconceptions which have blinded our countrymen to their condition under vicious tariff laws, we but show them how far they have been led away from the paths of contentment and prosperity. When we proclaim that the necessity for revenue to support the Government furnishes the only justification for taxing the people, we announce a truth so plain that its denial would seem to indicate the extent to which judgment may be influenced by familiarity with perversions of the taxing power. And when we seek to reinstate the self-confidence and business enterprise of our citizens by discrediting an abject dependence upon governmental favor, we strive to stimulate those elements of American character which support the hope of American achievement.

Anxiety for the redemption of the pledges which my party has made and solicitude for the complete justification of the trust the people have reposed in us constrain me to remind those with whom I am to cooperate that we can succeed in doing the work which has been especially set before us only by the most sincere, harmonious, and disinterested effort. Even if insuperable obstacles and opposition prevent the consummation of our task, we shall hardly be excused; and if failure can be traced to our fault or neglect we may be sure the people will hold us to a swift and exacting accountability.

The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States not only impressively defines the great responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional commands as the rule by which my official conduct must be guided. I shall to the best of my ability and within my sphere of duty preserve the Constitution by loyally protecting every grant of Federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when attacked by impatience and restlessness, and by enforcing its limitations and reservations in favor of the States and the people.

Fully impressed with the gravity of the duties that confront me and mindful of my weakness, I should be appalled if it were my lot to bear unaided the responsibilities which await me. I am, however, saved from discouragement when I remember that I shall have the support and the counsel and cooperation of wise and patriotic men who will stand at my side in Cabinet places or will represent the people in their legislative halls.

I find also much comfort in remembering that my countrymen are just and generous and in the assurance that they will not condemn those who by sincere devotion to their service deserve their forbearance and approval.

Above all, I know there is a Supreme Being who rules the affairs of men and whose goodness and mercy have always followed the American people, and I know He will not turn from us now if we humbly and reverently seek His powerful aid.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama High School Classmate: Barry Was A Pathological Liar, Cocaine Freebaser And Obvious Homosexual (Video)

Obama Classmate Allegations : A Lying Drug Using Foreigner And More – Conservative Infidel

On the Manning Report, Dr. James David Manning interviews Mia Pope, a former high school acquaintance of B. Hussein Obama, whom she knew as Barry Soetoro. She said she was not really friends with Barry, nobody really was, characterizing him as a liar who used people.

.

.
Mia was born in 1963 in California, but moved to Hawaii as an infant. She met Barry Soetoro in 1977 at the age of 13 or 14. They were both members of a group that just hung out at the beach in Waikiki. She knew him as a foreign student and never gave it much thought. She was surprised years later when he reemerged under a different name as a candidate for president.

Dr. Manning conducts an informative and interesting interview with Mia, in which she details Barry Soetoro’s character or lack thereof back in his youth. She says she would not have even bothered having a conversation with the Dr. if Obama had changed or were not destroying the country. She says that in light of what is going on, she felt compelled, out of patriotism, to speak up.

She details how it was very well known that Barry was not into girls and his membership in the gay community, particularly around Diamond Head. Barry never exhibited any interest in women, she says, everybody knew he was strictly into men.

According to Pope, Soetoro had a serious cocaine habit and the source of his cocaine was the white men that he had relations with.

She talks about how the two of them really didn’t get along back then, that Barry was clearly a pathological liar. She says that, “every time Barry opened his mouth, the most outlandish stories would come out.” She remembers asking, “Barry, don’t you ever get tired of lying?” She remarks how he would lie about the most self-aggrandizing types of things, always something to egotistically boost himself. She recalls how he’d turn on the charm, just to get something from you. She used an example of the way he’d bum cigarettes, as they all did from each other, and then as soon as you gave him one he’d snap and turn away. “Like adding insult to injury”, she said.

It’s a very revealing interview and well worth the time to listen. Mia doesn’t have any interest in writing a book, she says she doesn’t have enough to fill up a book, and that she isn’t out to make a name for herself. She says what brings her forward is courage, and a need to speak up regarding the wrongs that are being committed against her nation.

She goes on record that she has no interest in and wouldn’t be discussing his sexual orientation or his drug use if he weren’t still the lying “scumbag” that he used to be. But he is and therefore, out of a sense of duty to her nation, she feels a need to expose the fraud for what he is. Many things don’t add up, such as Soetoro’s admission into the extremely expensive and exclusive Punaho School and the suspicious, still unsolved murders of three gay acquaintances of Obama from the Trinity Church in Chicago.

Perhaps more individuals from Barry’s past will now feel empowered to speak up regarding the curious circumstances. If you take the time to watch the video, you will hear a firsthand account of a person upon which a false presidential persona has been structured and applied.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEOS* It’s Sunday! Time For Walid Shoebat To School All You Heathens On The Difference Between Christendom And Islam



.

.

.

.
Click HERE to visit Mr. Shoebat’s official website.

H/T The Right Scoop

.

Within Hours Of FOIA Request For Bin Laden Death Pictures, Admiral McRaven Ordered Them Destroyed

Judicial Watch: Top Pentagon Leader Ordered Destruction Of Bin Laden Death Photos – Washongton Free Beacon

Judicial Watch announced Monday that it received documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing that Admiral William McRaven ordered the immediate destruction of any photos of Osama bin Laden’s death within hours of a Judicial Watch FOIA request.

.

.
According to the Pentagon documents, McRaven sent his email on “Friday, May 13, 2011 5:09 PM.” The documents do not detail what documents, if any, were destroyed in response to the McRaven directive. The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit seeking the documents was filed in the United States Court for the District of Columbia only hours earlier. Judicial Watch also announced the filing at a morning press conference. [...]

The move by McRaven to purge the photos appears to have come, at least in part, in response to aggressive efforts by Judicial Watch to obtain images of the deceased bin Laden that President Obama, in a rewrite of federal open records law, had refused to disclose. In addition to its May 2, 2011, FOIA request with the Pentagon Judicial Watch filed an identical request on May 3, 2011, with the CIA. When neither the Defense Department nor the CIA complied with the FOIA requests, Judicial Watch, in June 2011, filed FOIA lawsuits against both agencies. In the course of the litigation, the Pentagon claimed that it had “no records responsive to plaintiff’s request.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.