Skip to content

Smart Cities to Spy on You in New Ways – Marching to Zion Documentary – Crimes of Asset Forfeitures – Planned Parenthood Exec. Haggles Over Baby Parts – No Driver’s License Required in America – Inside a Tornado – Shark Attacks Pro Surfer

July 24, 2015


MSNBC Shills For Planned Parenthood As Second Damning Video Is Released

Social Security Disability Trust Fund Could Be Depleted by Late 2016

Republican Operatives Plot To Sabotage Trump – But That Could Turn Him Into Their Worst Nightmare

“Smart Cities” to Spy on You in Ways Orwell Never Imagined

Police Seek Others Involved in Black Confederate Activist’s Death

“Global Warming” Expedition Foiled by Record Ice

Top U.S. Warfighting Experts: Drones INCREASE Terrorism

Pornography a public health crisis, say experts

Your Smart TV Is Spying on You

Georgia No-knock Raid Indictment: Deputy’s Lie Led to Toddler’s Injuries

Family Threatened With Government Fine For Parking Cars in Their Own Driveway







Friday, 24 July 2015

Oklahoma DA Used Asset Forfeiture Money to Pay His Student Loan

Written by 

There are state government officials in Oklahoma paying off personal debts and partying with funds seized through the civil asset forfeiture process.

The examples of such deplorable and despotic behavior are shocking to the conscience of friends of liberty. Reason reports a couple of the abuses:

An assistant district attorney in the state of Oklahoma lived rent-free in a house confiscated by local law enforcement under the practice of asset forfeiture. His office paid the utility bills. He remained there for five years, despite a court order to sell the house at auction.

Another district attorney used $5,000 worth of confiscated funds to pay back his student loans.

Believe it or not, those are but a tiny sample of the reports of gross misconduct described in a recent hearing held in the Sooner State legislature looking to get to the bottom of this behavior.

Oklahoma Watch published a fuller exposé of the various violations of the law perpetrated by local law enforcement officials.

In several counties throughout Oklahoma, agents of state and local law enforcement — including lawyers working in the district attorney’s offices in the state — would confiscate property and then fail to report it or record it. Then, even worse, they would use the appropriated property to pay off personal debts.

One state lawmaker is fed up with the practice and wants to cut it off immediately.

“The more I learn about it, the more upset and outraged I get that we’ve allowed this process to get to where it’s at.” said State Senator Kyle Loveless, the sponsor of a bill that would clamp down on asset forfeiture. “Your property is considered guilty until proven innocent. It is up to the individual to petition the government after they’ve seized it to prove that it is innocent. To me, that, on its face, is un-American.”

He’s right.

Civil asset forfeiture is an assault on several of the most fundamental individual liberties.

The practice, as described by Oklahoma Watch: “Forfeiture involves law enforcement agencies seizing private property and money believed to have been used in drug trafficking or other crimes. After the assets are forfeited in court, authorities can keep the money or property even when the suspect is never convicted or charged.”

In an earlier statement, Loveless criticized this despicable miscarriage of justice. “Reform of civil asset forfeiture is not a partisan issue,” he explained. “It is a constitutional issue. Justice should be dealt out in a courtroom, not on the shoulder of a highway,” he said.

Civil forfeiture procedures are based on the premise that a person’s property can be complicit in the commission of a crime. This is laughable and legally unreasonable. The Constitution was specifically written to protect citizens from this and all other forms of unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), as well as to place due process protections between the governors and the governed (Fifth Amendment).

As is the frequent habit of those who participate in such practices, several law-enforcement officials and representatives of the district attorney’s general offices are criticizing Loveless and touting the necessity of asset forfeiture in the fight against crime.

Oklahoma Watch reports on the opposition:

Law enforcement officials counter that forfeiture is necessary to combat drug trafficking and say that abuses are rare. They say Loveless is hyping the issue and using scare tactics to push his bill.

“I’m very concerned that’s the line he’s taking in that,” said District Attorney Greg Mashburn, who represents Cleveland, Garvin and McClain counties and sits on the commission overseeing the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. At the commission meeting Tuesday, he referred to statements that Loveless made Monday about forfeiture misuses during a  Garvin County Republican meeting.

“That may be something we need to address at our next quarterly (commission) meeting, just to stay on top of it, because it’s going to be an issue that we need to address and educate people on. They’re telling scary stories on the other side, and it’s just not accurate,” Mashburn said.

Yes, let’s kick the can down the road and discuss this at some future meeting. Meanwhile, money and property is illegally seized and spent by agents of the state government.

Some advocates of the current forfeiture culture weren’t quite as quibbling as Washburn.

As The New American reported in May, “Canadian County (Okla.) Sheriff Randall Edwards was especially vocal against the legislation introduced by Loveless, calling it the ‘most asinine and devastating bill I have ever seen for this state and local law enforcement.'”

Should Loveless’s bill become law, money and property seized would be forfeited only if the owner were found guilty of the crime of which he was accused.

It is telling that such a requirement should have to be specifically spelled out in the law and that a county sheriff would describe such a prohibition on property seizure as “asinine.”

What is perhaps the most revolting facet of the forfeiture tale is the unsurprising participation in the practice by the federal government.

As the Washington Post reports:

Since 2008, thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the Justice Department called Equitable Sharing.

The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them “adopted” by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. It allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.

With this kind of money up for grabs, it is little wonder that the plague of asset forfeiture has spread across the 50 states.

Paul-Martin Foss, president and executive director of the Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking, an Arlington, Virginia-based think tank dedicated to educating the American people on the importance of sound money and sound banking, wrote: “Hardly a week goes by without a mention of some innocent person who is arrested and/or imprisoned for violating an unconstitutional law, an arcane regulation, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For completely innocuous conduct, they find themselves at the mercy of an uncaring, unfeeling bureaucratic apparatus that chews them up and spits them out.”

As with so many of the other ongoing assaults on the vestigial liberty enjoyed by Americans, civil asset forfeiture is justified by its perpetrators as a means of keeping the people safe.

Senator Loveless told Oklahoma Watch that his bill should come up for an “interim study” sometime in September.

In the meantime, money and property will be subject to seizure. And, although the suspected “criminal” will be “free to go,” his money will have to stay behind.


Supreme Court Decision Brings Shame upon the Nation

July 21, 2015

By John K Rooney

Recently, the US Supreme Court stooped to new lows when activist justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy and Sotomayer voted to cram homosexual marriage down the throats of the states. A practice that has, from the beginning of America’s history, been considered deeply immoral and illegal was recently celebrated with rainbow colors across the taxpayer-funded White House.

Not only did the court bring shame upon the United States, for which the whole world is witness, it again trampled over the US Constitution as if it were a piece of trash.  Nowhere in the document is there a provision enumerating the power to the US government to even touch the issue of the family or marriage.  Yet, in the wisdom of 5 ideologues, they found the nerve to advance the cultural Marxists’ goal to upend society as we have known it. Emerging from the Jewish dominated Frankfurt School on the 1920s, cultural Marxists (communists) merged the ideas of Marx and Freud into a scheme that might successfully bring the “workers’ revolution” to the US.  They believe cultural upheaval will precipitate the totalitarian takeover in which they have dreamed.

If the states do not nullify the court’s decision, and if Americans do not begin to take a stand for basic, common-sense morality, this will not end well. It cannot.  Partially at fault is the church in general, which to a large extent, has been relatively mute on the issue.  In an effort to gain earthly success, many pastors adopting a seeker-sensitive approach, have refused to proclaim the full counsel of God, expecting the Holy Spirit to do all the work.  Deluged under a tidal wave of pro-gay propaganda and entertainment, Christians have been cowed into going into their closets by the millions, fearing any talk against perversion might offend people. While the church hides in their closets, millions of sexually confused and demonically-enslaved homosexuals are coming out of theirs. Unfortunately, many who have resisted temptations here and there will decide to experiment, just to see if they like it. 

Special thanks must go to those African American churches that overwhelmingly supported Obama, regardless of his position on abortion and fondness toward aberrant lifestyles.  A quick search of Larry Sinclair and Obama should provide sound warning, however, it’s like the old 70’s song by Steely Dan, they’ll “go back jack and do it again.”  As much as I love the black churches, many have sponsored an incredible amount of evil upon the land in recent days.  Am I implying they should vote Republican?  Really, neither party deserves our commitment, and what I mean to say is exactly what I said. I only vote for oddball candidates outside the establishment, whom I think are truthful and committed to the Constitution and limited government, period.  In other words, in a majority of instances, I do not vote. There are brilliant black thinkers, top leaders in the liberty movement such as Walter E Williams and Thomas Sowell who should be followed, should be presidents, but they are wrongly portrayed as “Uncle Toms,” thus squandering the potential benefits of such great minds.

It is law that when a judge has a conflict of interest or bias, he or she must recuse themselves from the case. Two justices, Kagan and Ginsberg, had previously officiated over a same-sex marriages and should have recused themselves. It might also be of interest that 3 of the 5 voting for SS marriage are of a similar ethnic background.  Correlations like this are important in order to identify ideological agendas that may be un-American.

Finally, the court’s decision will encourage the brazenness of homosexuals, instead of encouraging them to repent from what was, until 1974, clinically labeled as a mental disorder.  Just a few days ago, a young man contacted me about a diamond ring that I had for sale.  In his inquiry, he mentioned that he might offer his body for the ring. I didn’t quite understand, this was the first time I’d heard such a thing. Then he asked me by text if I was into guys!  Folks, it will only get worse.  Be assured, there is no hatred here for the man. He is a victim of a deteriorating and ungodly society.  I kindly encouraged him to seek Jesus for deliverance and he confessed he had been considering this very thing.  This is just a small example of how destructive the SCOTUS decision was, including the following celebration at the White House.  Finally, pray especially for young people like the man I mentioned and shine your light!  Light is more powerful than darkness, so let it shine.  Let Congress, state reps and others know, we cannot tolerate government approval of perversions such as homosexual marriage.

John K Rooney

Tri-Cities Liberty Alliance


US Conspiring with Oligarchs to Overthrow Putin – Greece: Banksters Seize Sovereignty and Assets – Carl Medearis: Bringing Christ to Muslims – Freedom Index: How Does Your Congressman Rate? – Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts

July 16, 2015

 Texas Launches Gold-backed Bank, Challenging Federal Reserve

The Secret Bank Bailout

Freedom Index: Congressional Scorecard Based on the Constitution

U.S. Conspiring With Russian Oligarchs to Overthrow Putin, Says Duma Member

“We don’t believe it’s a symbol of racism,” Confederate flags fly downtown as President drives in

Black Market Profiteering: Planned Parenthood Sells Aborted Baby Parts

Okla. Gov. Defies State Court Order to Remove 10 Commandments Monument

How Student Loans Create Demand for Useless Degrees

House Republicans Fast-Track Bill to Prevent States from Labeling GMO Foods

Obama Readies a Transgender Military







What if you had to personally force people to participate in Social Security?

You may believe some good result makes Social Security a necessary exception to the Zero Aggression Principle, but please consider…

What if there were no armed tax collectors to compel people to participate in Social Security? What if you had to enforce participation yourself?

You would feel like a hero if you used force to stop a beating, burglary, or murder. But what if you had to point a gun at your friends, family, or neighbors to make them participate in Social Security against their will? Would you still feel you were doing something moral?

It’s easy to ignore moral principles when the violations are hidden from you, and when you don’t have to do the dirty work yourself. But does that mean no wrong has been done?

Stated differently…

Does initiating force against others become morally okay if you delegate the violence to someone else?

Shouldn’t you stop asking politicians to impose things on other people? Shouldn’t you allow people to opt out of Social Security, forgoing both the benefits and the taxes? Isn’t this Zero Aggression approach the moral position?

Does this argument influence your inclination? Use the slider to show your current stance.

Click the dot to activate the slider. Move the dot to your answer. Submit your answer. You’ll see how others responded. If you choose unsure, or some degree of support, you’ll be asked a new question, “Does Social Security really require the use of violence?” You can also use the form below at any time to sign a petition for or against mandatory Social Security.


Tuesday, 14 July 2015

The Great Greek Yard Sale

Written by 

The great capitulation by Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras last weekend will shortly be followed by the great Greek yard sale. Calling it an agreement rather than an ultimatum, the Eurozone statement from its ministers spelled out in painful detail the degree to which Greece will have lost its sovereign powers if the country’s parliament agrees to it.

First, Greece must accomplish the following no later than midnight Wednesay, July 15:

• Reform Greece’s notoriously complex value-added-tax (VAT) by broadening its base and eliminating discounts currently allowed certain jurisdictions;

• Reform its overgenerous pension system to improve its “long-term sustainability”;

• Provide new rules that keep Greece’s statistical agency ELSTAT from fudging the numbers;

• Create an outside fiscal group with authority to inflict automatic budget cuts if certain targets are not met on time.

And that’s just the beginning. Market reforms (read: regulations) affecting Sunday shopping, the length of “sales periods,” rules on the sale of milk and baked goods, and the dispensing of pharmaceutical drug prescriptions must be immediately undertaken. Rules on collective bargaining, including dismissing of workers, must be completely revised according to standards imposed by the EU.

The EU parliament must be allowed to tell the Greek government how to run itself, including ridding the Greek parliament of the troublemakers that, in the EU’s view, precipitated the crisis in the first place. This is how the agreement reads: “The Greek authorities shall … modernize and … put in place a program, under the auspices of the European Commission … for de-politicizing the Greek administration.”

The EU will have veto power over all legislation even before it is presented to Greece’s parliament or to the citizens: “The government needs to consult and agree with the Institutions on all draft legislation … with adequate time before submitting it for public consultation or to Parliament.”

Rubbing salt in the wound, those “Institutions” are populated by the very people that Tsipras kicked out of his country a month ago: the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

The agreement makes it clear that Greece is not allowed to demand a reduction in the amount it owes, while affirming that it will pay back every cent:

The Euro Summit stresses that nominal haircuts on the debt cannot be undertaken. The Greek authorities reiterate their unequivocal commitment to honor their financial obligations to all their creditors fully and in a timely manner.

Most telling, and chilling, is the declaration that national Greek assets no longer belong to the nation but must be sold off to pay down some of the debt:

Valuable Greek assets will be transferred to an independent fund that will monetize the assets through privatization and other means.

The monetization of the assets will be one source to make scheduled repayment of the [proposed] new loan … a targeted total of 50 billion euros.

As Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the president of the Eurogroup and the author of this part of the so-called “agreement,” told Bloomberg, the fund “is going to be an independent fund … [made up of Greece’s] airplanes, airports, infrastructure and most certainly banks.” He added that this is good for everybody:  “That is good for Greece but also good for us. We are, in the end, the ones from whom the money was borrowed.”

Anthony Fatola, writing in the Washington Post, called this a “fire sale” of Greek assets, much like the liquidation at auction of a farm that could no longer meet its financial obligations. It would include “even plots of land on its famed islands.”

Sources close to the Greek government say that Tsipras has successfully cobbled together a gaggle of members of parliament from both Left and Right sufficient to pass the “agreement,” an agreement that only “starts the negotiations with the Greek authorities.” Assuming that is true, by midnight Wednesday Greece will have passed into history as a sovereign nation and will begin its new status as a vassal or slave state, a mere inconvenient and formerly noisy province of the supranational European Union.

A graduate of an Ivy League school and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at, primarily on economics and politics.



The Troika Swindle: The Greeks Owe Nothing – Jewish Tyranny at the Supreme Court – “We’re Training ISIL” Obama Slips Up – Seattle Schools Give IUDs to 11-Year-Olds – Kenneth E Hagin: How to Receive From God

July 7, 2015

Big Business Supports War Against Marriage, Family

‘We’re Training ISIL': White House Website Corrects Obama’s Speech Blooper

Congress Should Protect Itself From The Executive Branch

To Avoid Prison, You Must Read This Before Taking Your Money Out of the Bank

Is Puerto Rico America’s Greece?

Seattle Schools Give IUDs to 11-year-olds Without Parents’ Consent

Jim Carrey condemns California Governor as ‘corporate fascist’ in Twitter rant over new vaccination law

More Proof People Are Moving From High Tax States

Confirmed: Secret U.S. Bases in Somalia, U.S. Boots on the Ground







The Troika Swindle: Greeks Owe Nothing

€245 billion debt was fraudulently dumped on the country
The Troika Swindle: Greeks Owe Nothing

by Kurt Nimmo | | July 6, 2015

In June the Greek “Truth Committee on Public Debt” established by Zoi Konstantopoulou the speaker of the Greek parliament “came to the conclusion that Greece should not pay this debt because it is illegal, illegitimate, and odious.”

The establishment media has hidden from view the facts behind the debt and has sided with the banks in declaring the population of Greece deserves austerity and its attendant poverty and misery because of the Greek government’s intransigence and refusal to accept the harsh conditions of the Troika, consisting of the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank.

Left unsaid is the fact a large portion of the debt totaling about €245 billion was fraudulently dumped on the country in the course of huge bank bailouts in 2010 and 2012.

“And since the huge bank bailouts, ‘Greek debt’ exists only on the basis of the Wall Street practice for unpayable debt, known as ‘extend and pretend.’ Its interest and repayment terms have been so dramatically changed by the creditors — in a backhanded admission that it cannot be paid — that in debt-market terms, it is nearly worthless,” Paul Gallagher wrote in February.

Gallagher explains that the Greek debt swindle is similar to the TARP scam foisted on the American people following the subprime fiasco and a move by the Federal Reserve to print $4 trillion of new money to cover the gambling debt of the financial class. “Its political perpetrators are the same huge banks, and the European Central Bank working with the Federal Reserve,” he writes.

In the course of buying up toxic mortgage securities and derivatives from the United States, the European banks engaged in their own subprime scam and made unrepayable loans to governments in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Hungary.

“Big Wall Street banks were involved, particularly Goldman Sachs, which created ‘magic’ derivatives in 2001: Take a bank loan to Greece, make it look like a mere ‘currency swap’ rather than a debt — but turn it into a much bigger debt ten years later,” Gallagher points out.

But most of the loaned money did not stay in Greece. More than 90% went directly and immediately to Deutschebank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, “and their fellow sharks, with small amounts crumbling to the hedge funds swimming alongside.”

Former Greek Labor and Social Security Minister and chair of the National Bank of Greece Louka Katseli said Greece actually spent a meager 3% of the $275 billion loaned by the banksters.

“One of the reasons that everybody is so determined to keep Greece in the euro is so that the banks do not have to take a serious hit on their faulty lending policies,” Nigel Farage, Member of the European Parliament from the UK Independent Party, told RT in 2011. “It is almost as if there is an unholy alliance of politicians and bankers versus ordinary people.”


Chelsea Schilling is a news and commentary editor for WND and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has a bachelor’s degree in journalism and also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.

Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Christian owners of a former bakery were officially ordered Thursday by the Oregon labor commissioner to pay $135,000 in fines to a lesbian couple after the bakers declined to bake a wedding cake for the couple due to their religious beliefs.

The ruling, issued by Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, upheld an earlier finding by administrative judge Alan McCullough, who determined that Sweet Cakes owners Aaron and Melissa Klein had discriminated against the women based on their sexual orientation.

The Kleins said their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage had prevented them from complying with the cake request. The Kleins were forced to close their storefront in Gresham, a suburb of Portland, Oregon, in 2013 shortly after the lesbian couple filed a civil rights complaint against them. At that time, same-sex marriage still wasn’t legal in Oregon.

The lesbian couple will receive the funds for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering.”

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote, according to the Oregonian. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

See the big list of “same-sex marriage” entrapment and Christian coercion

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said, while the Oregon Equality Act of 2007 includes an exemption for religious groups and schools, it doesn’t allow business owners to deny service to customers.

Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman – $150,000 total – during a hearing on damages in March. Under the commissioner’s ruling, Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her “wife,” Laurel Bowman-Cryer, will collect $60,000. The couple testified in March to the emotional stress they attributed to their experience with Sweet Cakes, including the glare of media attention that followed.

The Kleins are likely to appeal, according to their attorney, Anna Harmon.

“That’s up to our clients,” Harmon said, according to the Oregonian. “I believe at this point they are intending to preserve their constitutional rights as much as they can, and that would look like an appeal.”

In a statement through attorney Paul Thompson, the lesbian couple thanked the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries for “sending a clear message that discrimination will simply not be tolerated in our state.”

“This has been a terrible ordeal for our entire family. We never imagined finding ourselves caught up in a fight for social justice,” they said. “We endured daily, hateful attacks on social media, received death threats and feared for our family’s safety, yet our goal remained steadfast. We were determined to ensure that this kind of blatant discrimination never happened to another couple, another family, another Oregonian.”

Aaron Klein also testified that his family had suffered because of the case. Reporters came to his home, his company car was vandalized and broken into twice, and photographers and florists severed ties with the business.

As WND reported, a fundraiser was set up for the Kleins, but after the account had reached more than $109,000, the GoFundMe site shut it down.



Shameful SCOTUS Rules for Faux Marriage – Supreme Court Saves Obamacare by Rewriting it – IRS Deleted 24,000 Lois Lerner Emails After Subpoena – Trade Pacts Destroy Jobs – James Traficant’s Last Public Speech – Fast Track the Way to Loss of Sovereignty – Should We Bless the Jews?

June 26, 2015

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Supreme Court Once Again Saves ObamaCare by Rewriting It

IRS Deleted Backups Of 24,000 Lois Lerner Emails Months After Subpoena

Obamacare Travesty: The Supreme Court Continues To Make Stuff Up Out Of Thin Air

Warren Buffett: Derivatives Are Still Weapons Of Mass Destruction And ‘Are Likely To Cause Big Trouble’

FBI: Obama’s Trusted Advisor Jarrett Related to Communists

Confederate Flag Controversy: Will Obama Resign Because His Family Owned Slaves?

The TPP Isn’t Over: It Can Still Be Stopped

No Jobs from Trade Pacts

US Will Provide Weapons for NATO Commandos to Attack Ukrainian Separatists

WikiLeaks: bin Laden’s Death Certificate Doesn’t Exist

Every Mass Shooting Shares One Thing In Common & It’s NOT Weapons





Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Cruz Flips Against TPA/ Fast Track; Sessions Hammers ObamaTrade

Written by 

Citing corruption, “backroom deal-making,” and leaks that show the Obama administration is violating its assurances not to include immigration in its trade agreements, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas; shown on left) reversed his earlier support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and voted Tuesday against the cloture measure to end debate on Fast Track authority for the president. Even with Cruz’s defection, however, President Obama and his Republican allies in the Senate succeeded in getting the 60-vote super-majority they needed to cut off debate. The 60-37 vote sets up a vote on TPA itself, which is scheduled for Wednesday. If it passes then, it will go to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law. Although most commentators are viewing TPA passage now as a done deal, it is still possible that it could be derailed again, as recent history has shown the battles over these pseudo-“free trade” pacts are full of surprises.

In an op-ed published on today, Senator Cruz explained why he has switched from pro to anti on TPA. “The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress,” Cruz wrote. “And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.”

As a general matter, Cruz said, he supports free trade. “But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include,” the Texas senator noted.

Since his earlier pro-TPA vote on May 22, Cruz says, two troubling material changes have come to light. The first was the revelation by WikiLeaks regarding the secret Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, which President Obama is attempting to use to open the immigration floodgates.

Another straw that broke the camel’s back for Cruz was the deal-making by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), promising a corporate welfare plum to Democrats and Republicans alike, in the form of billions of dollars for the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.; shown top-right), who has been the leading principled opponent of Fast Track in the Congress, provided many more reasons why his colleagues should vote against handing TPA/Fast Track to President Obama. In a speech on the Senate floor, Sessions pointed out that the main objection to TPA is that it will almost guarantee passage of three major ObamaTrade packages that threaten our national sovereignty: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA).

Among the many crucial arguments Sen. Sessions makes are:

• Contrary to arguments of GOP leaders that TPA “empowers” Congress, it is a surrender of Congressional authority “for six years,” not only to President Obama, but to whomever follows him to the White House;

• The TPP/TTIP/TiSA, according to the Obama administration and our foreign partners, are “living agreements”  that will continue to evolve, meaning they will mutate into whatever the trade architects (or future leaders) want them to be;

• The TPP/TTIP/TiSA subject the United States to rulings of international tribunals;

• TiSA could be used to undermine our immigration laws by forcing the U.S. to issue more temporary worker visas;

• President Obama is “breaking arms and heads” not to increase trade, but to get the political “trans-national union,” with international law that can be used against America’s interests.

Photos at top: Senators Ted Cruz (left) and Jeff Sessions


Friday, 26 June 2015

Supreme Court Once Again Saves ObamaCare by Rewriting It

Written by 

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, using the acronym for the court, declared Thursday as a majority of his colleagues once more rewrote the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to save it.

In the case of King v. Burwell, the court ruled 6-3 that the plain language of the ACA means something entirely different. Although the law specifically states that refundable tax credits for the purchase of insurance are available only when coverage is bought on “an exchange established by the state,” the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — found this phrase “ambiguous.”

“If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms,” Roberts wrote for the majority. Indeed, he observed, “petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning … are strong.” But Roberts, who also helped rescue ObamaCare in 2012 by recasting its penalties as taxes and changing the terms of its Medicaid expansion, found that “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

“The phrase ‘an exchange established by the state’ … may be limited in its reach to state exchanges,” Roberts argued. “But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all exchanges — both state and federal — at least for purposes of tax credits.”

In truth, the language of the law is unambiguous. It quite clearly states that the tax credits — which, by virtue of being refundable, are actually subsidies — are available only on state exchanges, and with good reason. “The ACA’s legislative history,” noted columnist George Will, “demonstrates that the subsidies were deliberately restricted to distribution through states’ exchanges in order to pressure the states into establishing their own exchanges.” ACA architect Jonathan Gruber, too, was under this impression, telling an audience in 2012, “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

Unfortunately for Democrats, 34 states have thus far refused to establish exchanges, forcing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to do so in their stead. Rather than see ObamaCare undermined by the lack of subsidies — the individual mandate kicks in only when coverage is deemed affordable, and absent subsidies, it rarely is — the Internal Revenue Service declared that the tax credits would be offered to anyone buying exchange coverage regardless of whether that exchange was established by a state or by HHS. Four Virginians took the Obama administration to court over the regulation, and that is the case that wound up before the Supreme Court as King.

Roberts and his cohorts also apparently believe it is their job to modify the law, or at least ratify the Obama administration’s modifications, in order to preserve the ACA. Their opinion goes into great detail about the reasons for including the tax credits and the supposedly “calamitous” consequences of enforcing the law as written — namely that the exchanges would collapse into a “death spiral” once so many people were exempted from the individual mandate and only those in immediate need of insurance actually bought it.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

“In other words,” blogged Reason’s Peter Suderman, “there would have been policy implications to a ruling for the plaintiffs. That is almost certainly true, but it is not an excuse to rewrite the clear language of the law.”

Simply ruling that the law means what it says, after all, would not necessarily have put an end to ObamaCare. Congress could have reinstated the subsidies or come up with other ways it (mistakenly) thought the law could be made to work. And, yes, it might have repealed the ACA.

“The Supreme Court, however, decided not to take any chances on democracy, so … it effectively changed the statute,” observed David French of National Review.

That was too much for Scalia, who penned a withering and often humorous dissent in which he was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

“Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is ‘established by the state,’” Scalia remarked. “But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Scalia referred to the court’s assertion that “established by the state” means “established by the state or the federal government” as “quite absurd,” adding that “the court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.” He called various portions of the court’s reasoning “feeble,” “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” a “defense of the indefensible,” a “dismal failure,” and “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”

Scalia agreed that the phrase needed to be read in the context of the entire law. “Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.” He also pointed out that the majority ignored context where it did not help them reach their seemingly foregone conclusion.

Scalia summarized the majority opinion thus: “The court’s interpretation clashes with a statutory definition, renders words inoperative in at least seven separate provisions of the act, overlooks the contrast between provisions that say ‘exchange’ and those that say ‘exchange established by the state,’ gives the same phrase one meaning for purposes of tax credits but an entirely different meaning for other purposes, and … contradicts the ordinary meaning of the words Congress used.”

“Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty,” Scalia wrote. The two cases in which the court has upheld ObamaCare in the face of plain English, he maintained, “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Of course, not everyone was upset with the court’s decision. President Barack Obama, for one, praised it, saying, “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

Republicans, meanwhile, vowed to continue fighting to overturn or at least modify the law — though, as the Washington Post reported, “party leaders were privately breathing a sigh of relief” because now they won’t have to come up with a solution to lost subsidies. Still, the ruling is likely to increase the pressure on GOP candidates to come up with ObamaCare alternatives should the party retake the White House next year.

But whether ObamaCare is repealed, replaced, or left unchanged, the damage has been done. The court’s decision not to interpret the law as written but to change it to make it work, Will lamented, “facilitates what has been for a century progressivism’s central objective, the overthrow of the Constitution’s architecture,” turning the three branches of government from checks on each other to partners in crime.



Globalists Plan to Ram Through TAA – Bilderberg’s Secret War on Cash – Chinese Tyranny 2.0 – Chuck Baldwin: Christ’s Last Words to Israel – 9-11 Cover Up: Will the 28 Pages Implicating Saudi Arabia be Exposed?

June 16, 2015

Mr. Congressman, READ the Secret ObamaTrade Bills BEFORE You Vote!

Make sure you call a number of US representatives in opposition of TAA, Fast Track and the trade agreements.

Globalists Plan to Ram Through TAA Next Week

Happy Birthday Magna Carta

Seeing Red: Will Communists Take Over Spain?

Secret War on Cash: “Discussions at Bilderberg Centered Around Capital Controls, Abolition of Cash”

Dallas Shooter Said He Attacked Police Because he Was Angry at them for Taking his Child

Rand is right: Release the 28 pages, expose 9/11!

Just who exactly is going to the Bilderberg meeting?

(It should be noted that in 2012 about 45% of US attendees to Bilderberg were of Jewish descent, think about that.)

11 Year Old Boy Kidnapped By CPS, Parents Arrested, After He Played In Back Yard Alone For 90 Minutes







Tuesday, 09 June 2015

Chinese Tyranny 2.0

Written by 

Survivor Lizhi He, a practitioner of the spiritual discipline Falun Gong, spent 1,280 miserable days in a Chinese gulag. At a 2013 summit attended by this writer in the Israeli Knesset that focused on Communist Chinese organ harvesting, the survivor of the regime’s prison camps told his story to the assembled lawmakers and dignitaries, and described the savage torture he endured — months of being forced to sit motionless, severe beatings, being soaked in cold water in the winter, electroshock torture, humiliation, dehumanization, and much more. Many victims never make it out alive, though, so Lizhi, who almost lost his life at the hands of his captors, was fortunate in at least one respect.

Charged and prosecuted in a “sham” court for allegedly “sabotaging the implementation of the law,” Lizhi was imprisoned for his unwavering beliefs that defied the official orthodoxy espoused by China’s totalitarian rulers. The regime considers Falun Gong — a discipline it once promoted — to be an “evil cult” that must be suppressed at all costs. So when Lizhi, an award-winning engineer with the Construction Ministry, was caught sending letters to friends and colleagues explaining what he viewed as the truth about the movement, the reprisals were swift and horrifying. He was abducted in Tiananmen Square and hauled off to be tortured and brainwashed.

The prison camp was brutal. “In addition to the physical torture … we were forced to read literature defaming Falun Gong,” he explained after describing the barbaric torture methods employed against him and his fellow inmates — especially other prisoners of conscience and Falun Gong practitioners. “I was shocked by high-voltage electric batons…. All of these atrocities targeted my beliefs and conscience. Falun Gong prisoners were never treated like humans unless we gave up our beliefs.” He was also conscripted as a slave laborer making products for export.

Even today, countless victims remain in China’s notorious prison camps because of their beliefs. “It is sad to say that my experience of incarceration was just one of the hundreds of thousands of experiences of innocent Chinese people who practice Falun Gong,” Lizhi explained, urging the world to speak out. “Such tragedies are still happening in China in the name of law.” While the Canadian government helped rescue Lizhi and his wife, and Amnesty International and other organ­izations took up his cause, many others have not been so fortunate. At the same summit in Jerusalem where Lizhi told his story, a documentary entitled Free China: The Courage to Believe highlighted other atrocities — and it is all ongoing.

Despite claims to the contrary, the regime ruling mainland China remains brutal and authoritarian to the core — and it is now being groomed to play a leading role in what globalists and the dictatorship itself refer to as the “New World Order” (see the related article “China: Staking Claim in the New World Order“). If the Communist Party regime is going to “own” the New World Order, as globalist billionaire and Obama ally George Soros put it, what might such an order look like? To get a sneak preview, a look at the regime itself offers many hints.

Suffering, Suffering

Many Westerners today have a much more positive image of the People’s Republic of China than that reflected by Lizhi’s testimony at the Israeli Knesset or by other eyewitness accounts. Even many who are aware that the regime has been one of the most totalitarian in history nonetheless believe that the PRC has “reformed” and is no longer even “communist.” But why should the word “communist” no longer apply to China when the regime itself officially claims to be communist? And why should we believe that despots have suddenly become “democrats” when mass murderers have not been brought to justice, and when, in fact, the regime still honors past communist rulers such as the blood-drenched Chairman Mao?

Of course, apologists for the regime who claim that Beijing today is less authoritarian than Mao’s Communist Party have a point. After all, under Mao, the Chinese Communists murdered more human beings than any other cabal of criminals and mass-murderers in all of recorded human history. To be less murderous than Mao and company, then, is hardly a noteworthy accomplishment. However, the claim that the “new and improved” Chinese tyranny is much different or superior to the “old” is more than a little disingenuous. The post-Mao regime, which is a product of Mao’s legacy, has never relinquished absolute, unrestrained power over its citizens. This was made very evident by the infamous Tiananmen Square massacre of peaceful protesters on June 4, 1989. And it is evident today, for anyone who is willing to open his eyes and look at the regime’s actions.

For example, while the outright mass extermination of dissenters has largely gone by the wayside, mass murder remains a hallmark of Beijing rule. The regime continues to slaughter millions of unborn children in forced abortions — part of its savage “one-child policy” — with assistance from the U.S. taxpayer-funded UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and Planned Parenthood, according to congressional testimony by experts. Despite allegedly “easing” the grotesque one-child policy, millions of women and unborn children in China continue being subjected to forced abortions, in addition to mass forced sterilizations and other crimes.

Just last month, an international scandal erupted when a teacher, five months pregnant, was ordered to have her child slaughtered — after having previously obtained permission from authorities to have a second. “Their experience dramatically demonstrates what I’ve been saying all along: China is continuing its horrific practice of late-term forced abortions,” Reggie Littlejohn, the president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, told LifeNews. “This is savagery and it must be stopped.” That particular kill order was halted, but only thanks to tremendous domestic and international pressure. To give some insight into just how little value China’s ruling cabal attaches to human life or the rights of women, consider that a few years ago at a UN “climate” summit attended by this writer in Copenhagen, an official representative for Beijing bragged about how China’s coercive one-child policy is reducing its “carbon footprint.”

Beyond mother and unborn children, other family members can also be punished when a woman has more than her allotted children. Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer who was ruthlessly persecuted by the regime for his activism before escaping to the United States via the U.S. embassy, recently testified in Congress about the savagery. “To achieve its goal of population control, the Communist Party has established a vast system to carry out its policy. The Party has also signaled to those on the front line that jailing, beating, eviction, demolition and other such policies are not beyond the red line, even at the cost of life,” he explained. “In my village and neighboring villages, we could often hear and see groups of people, from a dozen to several dozen and headed by their local party chiefs, acting like bandits, beating villagers, and holding them in defiance of legal procedures, day and night. We could hear screaming and crying during these operations…. If these Communist bandits failed to get the pregnant woman to submit to a nighttime operation [abortion], they would take away family members, relatives such as uncles and aunts, siblings, and even other neighbors within a diameter of 50 meters of the target, usually including 10-20 households, by force, often with cruelty.”

Other classes of Chinese citizens are also butchered on a regular basis by China’s communist leaders for various reasons — especially members of the spiritual movement known as Falun Gong, to which Lizhi belongs. According to countless defectors, experts, survivors, and other sources, Beijing literally harvests body organs from political prisoners such as Falun Gong practitioners. Former Canadian Member of Parliament David Kilgour, also a former minister of state for the Asia-Pacific region, described the ghoulish slaughters in a book on the subject entitled Bloody Harvest. The book documents the author’s long investigation into China’s well-established organ trade. It concludes that the bazaar of organs comes not just from criminals sentenced to die, but from Falun Gong practitioners persecuted for their beliefs.

Those in disfavor with the regime who are not killed for their organs by Beijing’s butcher squads often face brutal treatment in China’s re-education gulags. A report released last year by Chinese Human Rights Defender (CHRD) about the regime’s “black jails” noted that in these secret gulags, whose occupants are up to 80 percent women, savage acts are perpetrated against “unofficial” prisoners. The victims never even have the benefit of a sham trial in one of the autocracy’s kangaroo courts. The report, “We Can Beat You to Death With Impunity”: Secret Detention & Abuse of Women in China’s “Black Jails,” describes the abuses in horrifying detail. “Inside these shadowy detention cells, the predominantly female detainees — including elderly women, migrant women, women who lost land or were victimized by forced eviction, women with disabilities, and mothers with young children — are subjected to appalling abuses, from physical and sexual assaults to deprivation of medical treatment,” the human-rights group explained.

Falun Gong practitioners are hardly the only targets of Beijing belief-focused persecution. Among others, the regime ruthlessly persecutes Christians and other minorities, as well as anyone and everyone who dares to challenge its tyranny, through denial of work permits, imprisonment, and even death. And despite claims that the persecution is easing, the facts say otherwise. According to China Aid, a Christian human-rights organization, the dictatorship’s crackdown on believers last year reached levels unseen in at least a decade, surging by more than 10,000 percent over 2013 in terms of the number of believers sentenced for practicing their faith, particularly in underground churches. But even regime-approved and -managed churches have found themselves in the autocracy’s cross hairs.

China Aid’s 2014 Annual Report of Religious and Human Rights Persecution in China, dubbed “The Year of ‘Persecution and Endurance,’” shows that religious persecution and human-rights abuses perpetrated by the regime in Beijing have risen by a shocking 153 percent over 2013 overall, based on six specific categories of persecution. In addition to the number of believers sentenced (which jumped from 12 in 2013 to 1,274 in 2014), the other categories of persecution are: the number of religious persecution cases, the number of believers being persecuted, the number detained, the number of severe abuse cases, and the number of individuals in severe abuse cases. Every category saw drastic increases in 2014 over the year before, Texas-based China Aid documented in its report.

China Aid has documented 572 cases of persecution in which 17,884 religious practitioners were persecuted — a 300-percent increase over the prior year. Because information is so tightly controlled by the communist regime and its Orwellian censorship and repression apparatus, the real figures of abuse are almost certainly much higher, China Aid acknowledged.

Beyond oppressing Christians, the government also seeks to control them, establishing regime-controlled “Protestant” and “Catholic” denominations that take orders from the atheist Communist Party of China, rather than Scripture or the Vatican and other church hierarchies. “The sinicization of Christianity amounts to de-Christianizing the church in China and eradicating the universal nature of Christianity under the appearance of constructing a ‘Christianity with Chinese characteristics,’ and, in the name of prioritizing the interests of the Communist Party, usurping Christian doctrine that ‘Christ is the head of Church,’” explains the 2014 China Aid report documenting the actions.

China’s government is even oppressive outside is own borders. Enduring decades’ worth of brutal occupation and terror are the people of Tibet, a country that has illegally been occupied by Communist China for more than six decades. More than a few analysts have accused Beijing of “genocide” in the formerly sovereign nation as China works to destroy the Tibetan culture and people — even importing massive quantities of Han Chinese to displace the previous occupants. Estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of Tibetans have disappeared. Tibetan monks have been treated especially ruthlessly, with the regime regularly murdering, kidnapping, and forcibly “re-educating” (brainwashing) them with “patriotic re-education.”

In 2011, the barbarity made headlines worldwide when communist “security” forces surrounded the Kirti monastery after a monk set himself on fire to protest the extermination of Tibetan culture by Beijing. Some 100 monks were “disappeared.” “As a former political prisoner, I have personally experienced the kind of torture inflicted on Tibetans in Chinese prison,” said Lukar Jam, the vice-president of a Tibetan organization of former political prisoners. “The Kirti monks are innocent and are under attack for simply expressing their internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.” Beijing says it is all for their own good.

Also suffering from Communist Party of China persecution is the Muslim Uighur population of Western China in Xinjiang. Many of the locals are against being ruled by Beijing and are seeking to regain independence. In response, the dictatorship has engaged in a brutal crackdown, with its “security” agents reportedly massacring protesters on the spot and firing indiscriminately into crowds of civilians on a regular basis — most recently killing four and wounding dozens after shooting into a protest in May 2014. “China is consciously hardening its policies against Uighurs,” Seyit Tumturk, the vice president of the World Uyghur Congress, told Al-Monitor. “Especially the harsh crackdown on religious values that the Uyghurs respect has nothing to do with combating terror. It is ethnic and cultural genocide on pretext of combating terror.”

Moreover, Beijing is working on a plan to uproot hundreds of millions of Chinese farmers from rural areas and forcibly relocate them to centrally planned new cities built precisely for that  reason. The New York Times described the scheme as the “Great Uprooting,” evoking memories of Mao’s ghoulish “Great Leap Forward.” Those who resist the forced evictions will face the wrath of the regime, as hundreds of millions of innocent Chinese have in years past. But, it will all be “legal,” as the regime’s constitution makes clear that all land is owned collectively.

But isn’t this “uprooting” the price of progress? Today, apologists for the regime often point to the growing prosperity of China and its alleged turn toward liberalizing the economy as evidence that Beijing has learned the error of its ways. Even here, though, the facts — and the regime itself — say otherwise. Consider, as just one example, the fact that virtually all of China’s major companies are actually owned and run by the regime, which can crack down on workers — dictating pay, where they live, etc. — on a whim. Even those firms that are not technically “state-owned” are largely run by pseudo-“capitalist” cronies of the ruling communist oligarchs. Foreign companies in China, meanwhile, must agree to extreme restrictions — often including participation in joint ventures with Chinese “companies” and “sharing” their technology and intellectual property — as a condition of operating in China. In late May, the Communist Politburo even approved a “regulation” ordering every workplace, even at nominally “private” companies, to have a Communist Party unit so that party policies can be “implemented across society.”

In other words, despite the appearance of markets, the giant Chinese companies are in actuality just extensions of the regime, and the economy is firmly under the iron fist of Beijing’s tyrants. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks 178 countries based on how free they are economically, Communist China, in 139th place, is “mostly unfree” and among the most controlled in the world. The autocracy describes its “state-capitalism” regime as “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

There are certainly no “free markets” in China, then, except perhaps underground, but there is even less of a “free market” when it comes to ideas and opinion. The Chinese dictatorship operates the most sophisticated censorship regime on the planet, strictly controlling the Internet and the state-owned “news [propaganda] media.” The Orwellian information-control apparatus, often dubbed the “Great Firewall of China,” denies Chinese subjects access to anything the regime does not like. If they dare express themselves publicly, the comments will be censored and the thought-criminals duly punished. Only a totalitarian state fears and suppresses freedom of speech, religious freedom, and a free press.

Despite claims that Communist China is moving in the direction of greater freedom, the facts on the ground show otherwise. The tyranny may be slightly less obvious and overt, but the tyrants remain as ruthless and autocratic as ever. To borrow a phrase from George Orwell, if you want to know what a future “New World Order” led by Beijing might look like, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” Americans must resist.

Photo: AP Images

This article is an example of the exclusive content that’s available only by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

Related article:

China: Staking Claim in the New World Order


10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose TTP and TTIP – Freedom Act Passes, Freedom Dies – Untold Dark Story of Transgenderism Bilderberg Attendee List – Kenneth Hagin: Love is the Way to Victory – How to Deal With Traffic Stops – Guy Martin Isle of Man

June 9, 2015

 10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose TPP and TTIP

FREEDOM Act Passes Senate, Freedom Dies

Bilderberg 2015: Full Attendee List & Agenda

TPP Begins to Unravel as Obama Launches Final Push For Votes

2 Things That Are Happening Right Now That Have Never Happened Outside Of A Recession

UN “Death Targets” Will Mean Reduced Healthcare for Elderly

Study Shows 40 Percent of Unemployed Have Given Up on Finding a Job

Land of the Unfree – Police and Prosecutors Fight Aggressively to Retain Barbaric Right of “Civil Asset Forfeiture”

Anxiety and Pain Meds Linked to Homicide Risk

CIA Admits It Creates Terrorism

A Cat Lady Culture







Monday, 08 June 2015

Senator Sessions to Obama: Stop Fast Track Push, Release Secret Trade Documents

Written by 

Today, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, publicly released a letter he had sent to President Obama on June 5, demanding answers to questions he had asked in a similar letter a month earlier, as well as requesting information about the new global governance structure to be created under the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty. Senator Sessions has been one of the leading Republican voices in Congress opposing not only President Obama, but also the leadership of his own party, with regard to the radical ObamaTrade agenda. (See: “GOP Senators Isakson and Sessions Duel Over TPP ‘Trade’ Scheme.”)

“On May 6th of this year, I sent you a letter (enclosed) regarding your request for Congress to grant you fast-track executive authority,” Senator Sessions reminds in his new letter to President Obama. “Under fast-track, Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers. These concessions include: the power to write legislation, the power to amend legislation, the power to fully consider legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote.”

This latter point is especially important, the senator notes, “since, having been to the closed room to review the secret text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is clear it more closely resembles a treaty than a trade deal. In other words, through fast-track, Congress would be pre-clearing a political and economic union before a word of that arrangement has been made available to a single private citizen.”

The senator’s May 6 letter, to which Obama has not replied, asked several fundamental questions that Sessions says, “Congress ought to have answered before even considering whether to grant the executive such broad new powers.”

Nevertheless, when the GOP-led Senate voted 62-37 on May 22 to pass TPA, only four other Republican senators joined Senator Sessions to break ranks with the Obama-aligned Republican leadership by voting nay — Susan Collins (Maine), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Richard C. Shelby (Ala.). The full Senate roll call for the May 22 vote on Trade Promotion Authority (“Fast Track”) can be viewed here.

New EU-style TPP “Governance Commission”
In his June 5 missive to Obama, Sessions reminds the president of his earlier unacknowledged requests: “I asked that you make public the section of the TPP that creates a new transnational governance structure known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. The details of this new governance commission are extremely broad and have the hallmarks of a nascent European Union, with many similarities.”
Senator Sessions’ latest letter underscores one of the most offensive aspects of the TPP (and its sister agreements, the TTIP and TISA): the secrecy with which they are being negotiated and the withholding of the documents from the American public and elected members of Congress, whose constitutional duty it is to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and, more importantly, to protect our constitutional Republic from threats such as those posed by TPP/TTIP/TISA.

Open-ended “Living Agreement”
“Reviewing the secret text, plus the secret guidance document that accompanies it,” says Sessions, “reveals that this new transnational commission — chartered with a ‘Living Agreement’ clause — would have the authority to amend the agreement after its adoption, to add new members, and to issue regulations impacting labor, immigration, environmental, and commercial policy. Under this new commission, the Sultan of Brunei would have an equal vote to that of the United States.”

President Obama and his Republican allies never tire of making appeals to, and boasts of commitment to, transparency and openness. Senator Sessions is trying to hold their feet to the fire on this matter, with a straightforward appeal to bring the TPP out of the shadows and into the light — rather than trying to slam it through Congress on Fast Track, before Congress and the American people can thoroughly examine and debate it.

“The implications of this new Pacific Union are extraordinary and ought to be discussed in full, in public,” Sessions wrote, “before Congress even contemplates fast-tracking its creation and pre-surrendering its power to apply the constitutional two-thirds treaty vote. In effect, to adopt fast-track is to agree to remove the constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures before those structures are even made public.”

What Law Justifies This Secrecy?
Senator Sessions concludes his letter by challenging President Obama to “provide to me the legal and constitutional basis for keeping this information from the public and explain why I cannot share the details of what I have read with the American people. Congress should not even consider fast-tracking the transfer of sovereign power to a transnational structure before the details of that new structure are made fully available for public review.”

Will Senator Sessions — and, perhaps, other members of Congress, too — summon the courage to make good on their oaths of office and defy the outrageous and unconstitutional secrecy that has been clamped on the subversive TPP/TTIP/TISA process? Does even one member of Congress have the mettle to dare being arrested for the “crime” of telling his constituents what schemes are being devised behind closed doors by government officials and powerful special interests? Does even one member of Congress have the fortitude to call Obama’s hand on this issue, and to stand against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner on this existential threat to our sovereignty and our liberty? The many dangers we already know about in these pseudo-free trade agreements have been revealed almost completely through unauthorized leaks. Perhaps with sufficient urging, some Senator or Representative (or a group of the same) will step up to the plate and directly challenge this new form of secret oligarchical rule by boldly revealing what is in the “trade agreements” that we, the American people, are not supposed to see.

Related articles:
GOP Senators Isakson and Sessions Duel Over TPP “Trade” Scheme

TISA Leaks: Another Secret ObamaTrade Deal, More Reasons to Stop “Fast Track” 

7 Reasons Why Trade Promotion Authority/Fast Track Must Be Defeated 

10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose TPP and TTIP

Senate Passage of “Fast-Track” Could Slide U.S. Further Downhill 

GOP-run Senate Rescues ObamaTrade, Puts TPA Back on Fast Track 

“Living,” “Evolving” Dangers Are Hidden in ObamaTrade (TPP & TTIP) 



Untold dark story of transgenderism

10 years after? Mental difficulties, and then it gets worse

Published: 3 hours ago

Unfortunately, the tragedy of sexual-reassignment surgery has a sordid history.

The heinous idea of all of this began with well-known sexual-perversion advocate Dr. Alfred Kinsey. He contended that we are “sexual from birth” by experimenting on babies during World War II. His legacy stands largely unchallenged today by the American Medical Association, despite his advocacy of bestiality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, incest and more.

“Kinsey has given the sexual revolutionists their license to sexually pervert our culture,” said Judith Reisman, author of “Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences” and current director of the Liberty School for Child Protection.

In an interview with WND, she added, “We have a sexual revolution brought about by sexual revolutionaries.”

Walt Heyer, author of “Paper Genders” & “Gender, Lies and Suicide,” tells the secret that the medical journals are not telling, and that news media today are largely ignoring in glorifying sexual reassignment and transsexualism.

Following Kinsey and his understudy, Harry Benjamin, Dr. John Money took up the sexual revolutionary mantle. In 1967, he was asked by a set of broken-hearted parents to simply repair a botched circumcision on their baby (one of twins). Money convinced the trusting and distraught couple to raise the boy as a girl due to his “damaged” gender. He removed his genitalia when David was a baby, and David was raised as “Brenda.”

Read the first person story of someone who doesn’t exist – at least according to “gay” advocates. Janet Boynes has written “Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom” about her departure from a 14-year walk in same-sex relationships.

Glowing medical journal reports that followed (and are still cited today) were nothing more than the medical industry circling wagons.

By age 12, David was severely depressed. By 14, his parents told him about the surgery and he begged to be made whole again. He underwent yet another surgery to try to reverse the damage done to him by Dr. Money and his Kinseyan colleagues, but continued to be haunted by it all.

It was later reported that Dr. Money had, in fact, sexually molested both of the twin boys the during “exam” procedures, and he forced them to have incestuous sexual activities with one another, at the tender age of 7.

Ultimately, both brothers committed suicide within months of one another.

Though tragic, this isn’t the only story like it. Dr. Paul McHugh, a former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital and author of “Try to Remember: Psychiatry’s Clash over Meaning, Memory, and Mind,” says that the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered.

In a Wall Street Journal commentary, McHugh calls a sex change “biologically impossible.”

He cites a 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden that followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery for up to 30 years. The study showed that about 10 years after the surgery, transgendered people began to have increased mental difficulties. As they progressed through life, their suicide mortality rose almost 20 times above the comparable nontransgender population. McHugh points to the data as evidence that the high suicide rate trumps the typical surgery prescription propagated by many as the answer to gender confusion.

What do YOU think? Is transgenderism still a mental illness? Sound of fin today’s WND poll

McHugh points his finger at the “everything is normal” movement for allowing, even advocating for this tragedy exacted on the transgendered population, now cluttered with casualties of this sexual revolution. He says that the transgendered suffer assumption disorder, much like other amorphic disorders, such as anorexia. The difference is that body parts are not amputated in an effort to “cure” other assumption disorders.

“For the transgendered, this argument holds that one’s feeling of ‘gender’ is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one’s mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society’s tolerance of this ‘personal truth’ but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for ‘transgender equality,’ the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.”

McHugh adds that just as it is incumbent upon the medical community to begin to speak about truth on this matter, it is equally incumbent upon the mental health community to challenge the concept that what is in the mind can never be questioned.

“Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry’s domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field,” he said.

But that is exactly what states like Massachusetts, California and New Jersey have already done. Even upon parental request, mental health professionals in those states are banned from trying to help children in crisis regain their natural feelings of gender.

Instead, they are told to refer these children to endocrinologists to prescribe gender bending/gender delaying hormone treatments, that obviously still do not address the fatal psychological components that lead to the dramatic increases in depression and suicide.

These hormones have other physical side effects, too, such as delayed growth, sterility and more.

More compelling, perhaps is the recovery data. Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic tracked those who forewent gender reassignment, and found that 70 percent to 80 percent of those who face the confusing identity crisis, but do not ultimately have the surgery, report that their feelings dissipate over time.

Johns Hopkins ended their sexual reassignment surgery in 1970 for the above reasons. Still there is little in the news about that.

McHugh says that “given that close to 80 percent of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to abuse.” He recommends a prescription of devoted parenting instead.

“They simply reject the factual data,” Reisman told WND. “Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often enough, soon everyone is repeating it, too. That is what has happened. Fact checking seems to be a way of the past.”

Some suggest this all be added to sex education courses. Reisman says sex education in schools is a bad idea from the start.

“Sex ed is going to make things better? What do those who teach our children the most about sex even really know about sex? The truth is not much. People who know very little are talking the most about sex. That’s not education, that is indoctrination.”




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers