C4

Anti-Immigrant Activist On Deporting Child Refugees: 'We're All Going To Die Someday'

Yesterday, the Daily Show aired an interview with the Minuteman Project’s Jim Gilchrist on his plan to patrol the border with vigilante groups to stop what he calls a “Trojan Horse invasion” of Central American children fleeing violence in their home countries. Gilchrist dismissed concerns about the safety of the children — at least five of whom have been murdered after being deported from the U.S — in home countries that are plagued by drug-related violence.

“It’s unfortunate, but throughout history there have been children in one country who could not get to another country,” Gilchrist told the Daily Show’s Michael Che. “We’re all going to die someday. We can’t stop that.”

Trying to catch himself, Gilchrist added, “I’m not giving a death wish on these children coming here or the illegal aliens, I’m just saying that there are some things, realistically, you cannot stop.”

Back in July, Gilchrist sympathized with a caller to a radio show who suggested putting the child migrants in a prison camp and gassing them to death.

Trent Franks: Nuclear Terrorist Attack Will Hit US Because Obama Went Golfing

Rep. Trent Franks appeared on Fox News last week to accuse President Obama of encouraging unaccompanied minors to cross the southern border, which he said could potentially lead to a nuclear attack.

The Arizona congressman suggested that ISIS may link up with Iran, even though the two are sworn enemies, to attack America while Obama is busy golfing.

“This president has ignored the intent of enemies like ISIS to exploit our porous border and if they ever gained the capacity to hurt us, with Iran on the cusp of potentially gaining a nuclear weapons capability, we could see a situation where terrorists could gain access to nuclear weapons and the shadow of nuclear terrorism could fall across this world and if that happens this president will be remembered in history as the one who stood by with a golf club in his hand and let it happen,” he said.

HT: RWW reader Bruce.

Infighting Among Anti-Choice Groups Intensifies With Personhood Trademark Feud

The effort of hardline “personhood” groups to break free of an anti-choice movement they see as too compromising is hitting a roadblock as the two major groups advocating fetal personhood are now feuding with each other .

The conservative website Z Politics printed an email this week from Personhood USA, the group that brought radical “personhood” initiatives to states like Colorado and Mississippi, announcing that it has cut ties with a new group, the National Personhood Alliance (NPA), which was founded this year by the disgruntled former Georgia chapter of the National Right to Life Committee. NPA hoped to bring together activists who believe that the strategy of groups such as NRLC to chip away at abortion rights doesn't go far enough, pledging to instead enact personhood laws that would give legal rights to zygotes.

Personhood USA initially supported the new group, as did its national spokeswoman Rebecca Kiessling, and Z Politics reports that NPA’s founder, Dan Becker, “initially gained support from Personhood USA by suggesting that the two groups work alongside one another as counterparts.” In fact, NPA is billing its first convention next month as “the founding coalition of two new national groups seeking to give voice to the pro-life battle of the 21st century.”

But the good feelings apparently didn’t last long, as Personhood USA is now accusing Becker and NPA of “trying to replace Personhood USA by using our structures and Intellectual property” — including copying its logo — and “violating Personhood USA’s trademark of Personhood.” (For what it’s worth, the only official “personhood” trademark we could find in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s database belongs to Becker’s group).

Personhood USA’s email also hints at possible legal action.

After much prayer and deliberation, the Personhood USA board is deeply sadden to inform you, that Personhood USA will not be participating in the new National Personhood Alliance.

From everything Dan Becker had told us about his vision of NPA while he was in our employment. We had great hopes that it would be a complement to the Personhood movement, a counterpart to Personhood USA. Instead it appears that National Personhood Alliance is trying to replace Personhood USA by using our structures and Intellectual property.

NPA has incorporated in Georgia as a 501c4 under the name “Personhood Inc.” and will be doing business as “Personhood”, Violating Personhood USA’s trademark of Personhood. In addition, the emails and documents we have seen indicate that they intended to use our logos, branding, and intellectual property.

One of the main concerns here is duplication of focus and confusion among all grassroots supporters.

When we contacted Dan and asked that NPA stop using our logos and name, he agreed to stop using our logos and to allow us to preview any new logos before they are implemented, but he has refused to un-incorporate Personhood Inc. and suggested we enter into arbitration.

We have worked for years developing our branding. We are known as Personhood, PersonhoodUSA, Personhood Education, Personhood PAC & have invested in promoting Personhood(insert your state). We do not want to fight over a name, but we do feel if a separate virtually identical organization is started it will hurt the movement.

We want to honor God and protect all innocent life. We want to see the movement grow and branch off in new directions. We want abortion to be abolished. We want to fight abortion, not each other.

All we ask of NPA is to create it’s own logos, names, and branding without using ours, and ask that they keep NPA as it was presented to us: a separate organization with unique purpose created to build the movement. Not a divisive, confusing organization meant to compete with Personhood USA.

Alan Keyes: Obama Is Funding ISIS To Wage 'War On The People Of The United States'

Alan Keyes has joined a growing chorus of far-right activists who claim that President Obama is secretly supporting ISIS, writing today in WorldNetDaily that Obama administration officials believe “the enemy is not ISIS, but the life and liberty of the people of the United States.”

Keyes writes that Obama’s remarks on ISIS are “calculated to obfuscate the charge of treason that ought to be duly brought and tried if and when a serious investigation shows it to be a fact that that Obama and his cohorts aided and abetted the terrorist forces that constitute ISIS.”

He claims that Obama administration officials funded ISIS “because they knew the declared aim of the terrorist forces in question and understood, therefore, that those forces are committed to making implacable war on the people of the United States and their self-government.”

Once we remember this root meaning we realize that, in order to understand what strategy is at work, we must first answer the critical question: Who is the enemy? In light of their declared hostility toward the United States, and the grisly murders they have perpetrated on account of it, we naturally assume that, when someone purporting to be the president of the United States speaks of a strategy for dealing with ISIS we are right to assume that they are the enemy. But the statements and actions of Obama and his cohorts suggest the likelihood that, in the strategy he is pursuing, the enemy is not ISIS, but the life and liberty of the people of the United States.

In his statement after Jim Foley was murdered Obama said disparagingly of the perpetrators that “They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors. …” He was speaking in the context of the gruesomely hostile murder of an innocent American citizen, dramatically enacted and publicized as an act of war against the United States. So what sense did it make to imply that the perpetrators’ claim to be at war with us is at all questionable?

It makes no sense, except perhaps as a lawyer’s quibble. Taken as such, it seems calculated to obfuscate the charge of treason that ought to be duly brought and tried if and when a serious investigation shows it to be a fact that that Obama and his cohorts aided and abetted the terrorist forces that constitute ISIS; that they did so in ways that risked and eventually claimed American lives, including innocent civilians, and military, diplomatic and security personnel, e.g., at Benghazi; and that they did so covertly precisely because they knew the declared aim of the terrorist forces in question and understood, therefore, that those forces are committed to making implacable war on the people of the United States and their self-government.

Voters Skeptical of Arguments Against Amendment to Get Money Out of Politics

Polling evidence has consistently shown that a strong majority of American voters are opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for freewheeling spending by corporations to influence elections. Increasingly wary of the shadow big businesses and billionaires can cast on the democratic process, voters also understand the need to curtail the influence of wealthy special interests the Democracy for All Amendment (S.J. Res. 19). Previous polling has shown that nearly three-quarters of voters support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and reduce the influence of big money in elections.

But a new, bipartisan poll of likely November 2014 voters released this week found that not only are Americans fed up with the saturation of money in politics, they are also skeptical of the arguments of those trying to stand in the way of progress by opposing a constitutional amendment. Only 25 percent of voters agree with opponents’ assertions that an amendment would be an assault on our free speech rights. Conversely, more than six out of ten voters agree that an amendment would help restore equal representation to our democratic process and ensure that our government is truly of, by, and for the people. Tellingly, while support of an amendment to overturn Citizens United is divided along largely partisan lines in Congress, public outrage over the amount of money shaping campaigns reaches both sides of the aisles.

“The poll affirms that our message resonates far more strongly than the message of those who oppose the amendment, and that voters do not accept misleading talking points,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of program and policy at People For the American Way, during announcements of the new polling data. “The American people  get that to have real political debate we need to return to core First Amendment values in support of a democracy where all points of view can be considered and all voices heard. The momentum against Citizens United is tremendous and will only keep growing The public is ready for that fight.”

In addition to widespread public support, the Democracy for All Amendment currently has 50 supporters in the Senate, where it is headed for a vote on Monday, September 8. 

PFAW

Civil Liberties Experts: Limiting Big Money In Elections Doesn’t Infringe on Free Speech Rights

This morning, six civil liberties experts released a letter emphasizing that reasonable regulations on money in elections do not violate the free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. The authors — academics, philanthropists, and lawyers, all of whom are former leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — make clear that the protection of civil liberties is entirely compatible with commonsense limits on money in elections.

The letter was released following a barrage of misleading arguments pushed by Sen. Ted Cruz and others about the Democracy for All Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United that will be voted on in the Senate on Monday. Though opponents have tried to position themselves as defenders of free speech, with Sen. Cruz going so far as to claim that the amendment would repeal the First Amendment and “muzzle” Americans, this letter emphasizes that it is, in fact, the Court’s twisted interpretation of the First Amendment that threatens to leave Americans without a voice:

Rather than interpreting the First Amendment as assuring everyone a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Court (and the National ACLU) has turned the First Amendment on its head by guaranteeing the wealthy an expensive set of stereo speakers, and leaving the average citizen with a bad case of laryngitis. Most Americans would find it preposterous to allot more time in a debate to the speaker with the most money. Yet, that is precisely how our campaign finance system functions today.

The authors, many of whom signed a similar letter in 1998, note that our country’s money in politics problem has only gotten worse since then. In the wake of decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon, they write, “American democracy is almost irretrievably broken.” While they do not weigh in on the Democracy for All Amendment specifically, the civil liberties experts close the letter with a call to restore the promise of the First Amendment by overturning these damaging decisions:

We believe that overturning many of the Court’s narrow 5-4 campaign finance precedents and implementing generous, content neutral political spending limits is the best way to fulfill the promise of James Madison’s First Amendment as democracy’s best friend.

You can read the full text of the letter here.
 

PFAW

Laurie Higgins: Libraries Need Books About The 'Joy' Kids Feel When Their Gay Parents Die

Illinois Family Institute “cultural analyst” Laurie Higgins has had quite enough of the American Library Association’s Banned Books Week and the “self-righteous, dissembling librarians” who promote it.

In a blog post for IFI today, Higgins attacks librarians for their “hysteria-fomenting” efforts to prevent the banning of books about families with LGBT parents (or, as Higgins calls them, “children or anthropomorphized animals being raised by parents in homoerotic relationships").

It is in fact the librarians, Higgins writes, who are censoring books by failing to go out of their way to seek “pro-heteronormativity books,” children’s literature that depicts the “harrowing fights” of “lesbian mothers,” or, even better, “picture books that show the joy a little birdie experiences when after the West Nile virus deaths of her two daddies, she’s finally adopted by a daddy and mommy.”

Self-righteous, dissembling librarians are seeking once again to foment “book-banning” hysteria through their annual dishonest Banned Books Week campaign (Sept. 21-27) sponsored by the self-righteous, dissembling, and politically partisan American Library Association (ALA).

The ALA pursues its hysteria-fomenting goal chiefly by ridiculing parents who, for example, don’t want their six-year-olds seeing books about children or anthropomorphized animals being raised by parents in homoerotic relationships. (Scorn and woe to those parents who hold the now-censored belief that homoeroticism—even homoeroticism presented in whitewashed, water-colored images—doesn’t belong in the picture books section of public libraries).

Next year, will the Schaumburg librarians display photos of empty shelves where books that challenge Leftist assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality should be (you know, pro-heterosexuality/pro-heteronormativity books)?

Will they ask for young adult (YA) novels about teens who feel sadness and resentment about being intentionally deprived of a mother or father and who seek to find their missing biological parents?

Will they ask for dark, angsty novels about teens who are damaged by the promiscuity of their “gay” “fathers” who hold sexual monogamy in disdain?

Will they ask for novels about young adults who are consumed by a sense of loss and bitterness that their politically correct and foolish parents allowed them during the entirety of their childhood to cross-dress, change their names, and take medication to prevent puberty, thus deforming their bodies?

Will they ask for novels about teens who suffer because of the harrowing fights and serial “marriages” of their lesbian mothers?

Will they ask for picture books that show the joy a little birdie experiences when after the West Nile virus deaths of her two daddies, she’s finally adopted by a daddy and mommy?

Surely, there are some teens and children who will identify with such stories.

Linda Harvey: Gays 'Preying On Children' At Youth Centers

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is horrified about the growth of LGBT youth centers, saying in her radio commentary yesterday that older gay people are setting up centers so they can begin “preying on children” and recruit them into homosexuality.

Instead, LGBT youth should just listen to the sage advice of Linda Harvey!

Steve Scalise Hails Louisiana Anti-Marriage Equality Ruling

Rep. Steve Scalise praised a federal judge for upholding his home state of Louisiana’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, telling the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins yesterday that the ruling “was an important win for marriage today.”

“I was the lead author of the bill that put a constitutional amendment on the ballot back in 2004,” the House GOP whip said on the FRC’s “Washington Watch.”

Perkins agreed: “A big win for Louisiana but also a big win for the nation in that it has, I think, slowed down this train of activist decisions.”

Mike Johnson of the Religious Right group Freedom Guard, who Scalise called “a great warrior on our behalf,” later told Perkins that anti-gay activists are “standing on the right side of millennia of history” and that no one in their right mind could disagree with the judge’s ruling: “His opinion was so well-written and well-reasoned that no person can objectively read this and disagree.”

Johnson defended the state’s marriage ban in court as the state attorney general’s special counsel.

Steve Scalise: Obama Is Too Busy Changing Redskins' Name To Fight ISIS

House GOP whip Steve Scalise said in an interview on “Washington Watch” yesterday that President Obama is too busy trying to change the name of the Washington Redskins to focus on bombing ISIS.

“One person asked me about this foolishness where the president is trying to change the name of the Washington Redskins. And it is a sad state of affairs for our commander-in-chief that we know what President Obama’s plan is for the name of the Washington Redskins — he wants to change it, we know his plan — but we don’t know what his plan is to deal with a major threat to American national security,” Scalise told the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins.

“I think it’s just indicative of the lack of focus and priorities that this president’s had, that he won’t lay out that plan but we know what some of his other plans are that have nothing to do with the problems facing this country.”

The Louisiana congressman called on Obama to state clearly that he wants to “take out” ISIS — which, in fact, the president has said repeatedly — and to learn from Ronald Reagan’s simple foreign policy agenda: “We win, they lose.”

He also agreed with Perkins that Obama isn’t concerned about ISIS because he is just a “community organizer.”

Walker's Failed Record Counters Current Ad’s Job Promise

Gov. Scott Walker released an ad Thursday morning promising that he “won’t stop until everyone who wants a job, can find a job.”

This sounds strangely familiar to the empty promise of his 2010 campaign. Back then, Walker repeatedly promised that he would create 250,000 private-sector jobs during his four-year term beginning in January 2011. He even emphasized that this number was “a minimum, not a maximum.”

It’s 2014, and that goal has not been met.

In fact, during his re-election tours, Walker avoided talking about his failure to create the 250,000 jobs altogether.

Protests outside a Scott Walker fundraiser on Friday prove that Wisconsinites are not falling for his empty promises. It’s time for Walker to be held accountable for his shady practices and to be voted out of office this November.

PFAW

Matt Barber: Flood St. Patrick's Day Parade With Anti-Gay Banners

Matt Barber is angry that gay groups will finally be allowed to march in the New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade, and believes the appropriate response is to have anti-gay demonstrators participate in the parade.

“Some faith-based organizations could carry banners and so forth exclaiming the truths of scripture relative to homosexual sin,” he said in an interview with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow.

“[They could] use the opportunity to denounce what the New York City St. Patrick’s Parade organization has done here and to take them to task for casting aside the truths of scripture and disobeying the teachings of Christ.”

"What was once billed as a Catholic event can no longer be called such," Barber tells OneNewsNow. "They are openly allowing a sin-based organization to march in their parade and to effectively put their stamp of approval on what the Bible unequivocally calls sinful behavior."

Faith-based organizations that want to remain loyal to the Bible have a decision to make as to whether to participate. Barber offers a suggestion.

"Some faith-based organizations could carry banners and so forth exclaiming the truths of scripture relative to homosexual sin," he suggests. "[They could] use the opportunity to denounce what the New York City St. Patrick's Parade organization has done here and to take them to task for casting aside the truths of scripture and disobeying the teachings of Christ."

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who will be next year's grand marshal, says the parade committee "continues to have my confidence and support" – and he thanked them for keeping the parade "close to its Catholic heritage."

But the editor of Catholic World News believes Dolan should step down as grand marshal. "Why don't we just admit [the parade] has no religious significance," asks Philip Lawler, stating he believes the parade is more of a civic event that has already lost much of its ties to religion. Allowing homosexuals to identify themselves as they march in the parade, he adds, "seems a contradiction in honoring a Catholic saint."

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, meanwhile, wonders if gay marchers will keep “their pants on”:

Responding to the decision by organizers of New York’s St. Patrick's Day Parade ending its ban and allowing for the first time an LGBT group to march behind its banner, Bill Donohue of Catholic League, a longtime opponent of allowing gays to march, asked, “Will the gays behave?”

“The reason I have to ask is that, unlike others,” he said in an interview with me on SiriusXM Progress, “they have a tendency to act up, [not keeping] their pants on.”

WND Pundit Cites Osama Bin Laden To Claim Obama's A 'Girly-Man President'

WorldNetDaily’s Jane Chastain thinks President Obama acts pretty much like a “valley girl chewing gum and doing her nails” who will forever be known as the country’s first “valley girly-man president.”

Chastain even cites a quote from Osama bin Laden as proof of Obama’s weakness: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Yes, the late al-Qaeda leader must think Obama’s a total wimp.

Hillary Clinton would like to become the first woman president. Should she succeed, it likely would be a bit anticlimactic. We’ve already had a girly-man president. More correctly, we’ve had a valley girly-man president – an uppity little pampered princess who can’t, or won’t, be bothered with things in which he has no interest, like terrorism or foreign policy.



In true valley girl (I’m privileged and don’t have to work) fashion, he spent his time partying with socialites and high rollers at a series of lavish fundraisers and attended an extravagant wedding.

Obama told his guests at the event in Westchester County, New York, “(Like) I promise you (like) things are (totally) much less dangerous now (I’m so sure) than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. (Rad!)” Nor was Obama the least bit worried about the growing crisis with Russia in Ukraine. As if to drive home that point Obama added, “(Like) this is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War (Duh)!” Speaking to another group of affluent guests in Newport, Rhode Island, Obama assured those assembled that our post 9/11 security system “makes us in the here and now (like) pretty safe. (Chill!)” He added that ISIS “doesn’t immediately (like totally) threaten the homeland. (Duh! Whatever!)”



Remember these words of Osama bin Laden, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Over the long holiday weekend, the closest Obama came to work was a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee where he concentrated on the “rights of (illegal) immigrants” and the minimum wage. With ISIS bent on our destruction and Russia gobbling up territory, that’s tantamount to a valley girl chewing gum and doing her nails.

Pat Robertson Claims Obama Doesn't Care About Ebola Because He 'Lives In A Bubble Of Happiness'

On today’s broadcast of “The 700 Club,” televangelist Pat Robertson claimed that President Obama is unconcerned about the outbreak of Ebola in western Africa, calling Obama a failed leader who “lives in a bubble of happiness.”

“The world is blowing apart because there is no leadership from the leading nation on Earth, we’re not leading and we have to lead. And in this Obama thing — excuse me, this Ebola thing — we can take care of that, it’s not that big a deal, it’s manageable, but if we don’t manage it quickly it’s going to spread and then it will be a worldwide disaster,” he said.

Cliff Kincaid Wonders If 'Obama Is A Puppet Of Putin'

Accuracy In Media’s Cliff Kincaid believes that President Obama is doing little to prevent Vladimir Putin from ordering Russian forces to seize more Ukrainian territory, arguing today that the president is “letting Russia carry out a slaughter” as “it’s almost as if Obama is a puppet of Putin.”

“Obama plays into Putin’s hands by refusing to even describe the invasion of Ukraine as an invasion,” Kincaid writes, despite the fact that Obama has indeed described the Russian takeover of parts of Ukraine as an “invasion.”

In effect, Obama has turned his back on the millions of young men and women in Ukraine who dared to dream of freedom and independence for their country. Obama and his Western allies, including Angela Merkel of Germany, are letting Russia carry out a slaughter.

It is not on our TV screens, in the same way that the Islamic State is beheading Americans, but the lives being lost are just as real. However, the American people are being misled by Russian propaganda masquerading as “news” into thinking that there is some factual dispute over what is really happening there, and that Russia has a legitimate gripe. The impact of this campaign of disinformation and propaganda cannot be ignored.

We have pointed out repeatedly that the Western media play into Moscow’s hands by treating Putin’s lies as just another point of view. We see examples of this every day. A phony “balance” is achieved between what should be obvious—that Russia has invaded Ukraine—with obviously false denials. Consider a story in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.



Russia originally invaded Ukraine in February, taking Crimea, and now it is seizing Eastern Ukraine. Still, Obama has failed to support the brave people of Ukraine against Russia with the weapons they need for their own self-defense.

The truth is that Putin is winning, lives are being lost, and Obama is doing nothing of substance to stop the Russians. Putin is winning in part as a result of brainwashing not only his own people, but the West. The constant nonsense about Nazis in Ukraine is even having an impact here.



At the same time, Obama plays into Putin’s hands by refusing to even describe the invasion of Ukraine as an invasion. Our media go along with the facade, playing into Obama’s (and Putin’s) hands.

It’s almost as if Obama is a puppet of Putin.

It’s time for the media—in what we used to call the “free world”—to decide which side they’re on. Truth requires facing the facts about evil not only in the Middle East but inside the Kremlin.

Ted Nugent Marks 9/11 Anniversary By Hoping To Kill 'Allahpukes,' Misquoting George Washington

Ted Nugent is marking the lead-up to the anniversary of the September 11 attacks by saying that Americans should be prepared to kill “allauhpukes” as they “methodically slaughter walking cowering whining cryin helpless sitting ducks capable of zero resistance.”

“Godspeed, killemall,” Nugent writes on his Facebook page today, where he envisions a future shootout with “4th world allauhpuke zombies.”

9-11-14 is the day of infamy again. Unarmed & helpless Americans and Europeans will be viciously ambushed when they least expect it, and the death toll will be more brutal and widespread than all the peace & love dreamers could ever imagine. Those who carry guns had better gun & ammo up no matter where you go, carrying at least 10 spare mags or 10 spare speedloaders because the allahpukes are confident they will once again methodically slaughter walking cowering whining cryin helpless sitting ducks capable of zero resistance. To gullible naive embarrassing ill prepared targets, there is still time to firepower up ASAP. Head for cover but retain an attentiveness in order to identify the evildoers and dbl tap center mass, then two to the head. Then take cover and prepare your next evasive escape, taking dwn known jihadists to the best of your ability, Aim small miss small center mass & headshots, This is going to be the real deal & absolutely survivable against these 4th world allahpuke zombies. STAND! Go heavy, Only assholes are outgunned, Dont be outgunned or out ammo'd. Goodluck. Be safe, Shoot straight & OFTEN, Godspeed, killemall

In another post about the threat of ISIS attacks in America, Nugent added a historical touch by citing a fake quote attributed to George Washington:

A LIFE & DEATH SELF EVIDENT TRUTH NOW MORE THAN EVER as the subhuman voodooallahpuke mongrels like isis dares threaten to invade America. Remain heavy my friends. Cocked locked & always ready to rock doc to annihilate any threat. And I do mean ANNILHILATE! "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington.

One Million Americans Submit Comments to the SEC on Corporate Political Spending

WASHINGTON — The one millionth comment urging the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require publicly traded corporations to disclose to shareholders their corporate political spending has now been submitted. It is a record-breaking display of how deeply Americans care about bringing greater light to corporate political spending.

Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, released the following statement:

“Disclosing corporations’ political spending is an important first step in taking back our democracy from wealthy special interests. Corporations should not be able to spend unlimited sums to influence elections in the first place, let alone without prior approval by their shareholders. But until that changes, shedding light on that spending is the very least they can do. Americans are demanding greater transparency in unprecedented numbers; we urge the SEC to listen.”

People For the American Way has worked with ally organizations to encourage Americans to submit public comments to the commission.

###

Erik Rush: Obama May 'Orchestrate Terrorist Strike' Against US, Give ISIS Base In New Mexico

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush knows the real reason President Obama designated the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks region in southern New Mexico as protected land: to create a base for ISIS extremists to enter the country and plot attacks against the U.S.

In a column titled “Obama: The Head of the ISIS Snake,” Rush adds that Obama may even “use his jihadi army” to strike against America to help him become a dictator: “Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why.”

It is high time that those in government who have any desire whatsoever to preserve this nation as an ongoing concern take stock of the abundance of evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is responsible for the resurgence of Islamic militancy in the Middle East, and ISIS in particular.

As uncomfortable for them as it may be, they must come to grips with the fact that Obama is a well-placed saboteur representing malignant interests, enemies both foreign and domestic, that have been strategizing the downfall of the United States for decades.

In May of this year, Obama named the Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico a federally designated monument. Setting aside this land with an executive order under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the nearly half million acres bordering the Mexican state of Chihuahua is now off-limits to all but foot traffic. Potential for the incursion of malefactors in that area is enormous; not just an efficient and effective route for small bands of drug smugglers or gangs, it now amounts to a protected access for potentially large sorties onto the U.S. soil.

In the context of what I have postulated here, why might Obama do this?

Let’s forget for a moment the possibility of a terror cell executing a Nairobi mall-style attack or detonating a dirty bomb somewhere in Middle America. Picture 100 malls or elementary schools across the U.S. laid siege simultaneously, two or more full-fledged thermonuclear devices detonated in American cities, or a few high-sensitivity military bases taken over by terrorists. Consider that these forces would have the training and weaponry to suit the job, as well as the intelligence necessary to give them a far better than even chance of success – all provided by our own government.

Bear in mind that the Desert Peaks phenomenon is but one instance in which Obama has left America vulnerable; there are others we’ve been made aware of, and probably still others we don’t yet know about.

If this sounds preposterous, just remember that those of us who warned against the rise of an Islamist caliphate were mocked only a year ago, and now one exists, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama.

Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why. This nation now faces extreme and unprecedented crises, and apart from an Act of God, they will only be resolved through extreme and unprecedented measures.

The removal of the Obama regime, extrication of Islamists from our government, the closure of our southern border, drastically heightened security procedures and the summary expulsion or prosecution of anyone who even remotely resembles an Islamist or who supports that worldview are now absolute imperatives.

BarbWire: Obama Worships Satan, Will Be Caliph Of 'Marxist-Islamic North American Caliphate'

BarbWire columnist Sher Zieve writes today that President Obama “has no intention of stopping ISIS” because the extremist group’s members “are his people,” and after all, he worships the Devil.

“Thus far, Obama has not truly fought against any Islamists/Muslims. He won’t. When Obama isn’t worshiping himself, he worships Allah…aka Lucifer/Moloch,” Zieve writes, adding that “Obama’s intention is to turn the USA into the Marxist-Islamic North American Caliphate…and he intends to be the Caliph.”

Two retired American generals–McInerny and Vallely–are calling for Obama to declare Defcon 1–reserved for imminent nuclear strikes on the U.S. mainland. Thus far, Obama has not truly fought against any Islamists/Muslims. He won’t. When Obama isn’t worshiping himself, he worships Allah…aka Lucifer/Moloch. He bowed down and kissed the hand of his benefactor the King of Saud shortly after he was elected POTUS. Muslims know what this means. It means submission. With this act, Obama placed the USA into Dhimmitude–where we have been for Obama’s entire reign.

USBP agents have begun to resign as the U.S. southern border is wide open and–along with all other comers–terrorists have been entering our country for the months and years Obama has been in power. The agents have repeatedly been told not to stop anyone from entering the country. The terrorists and Mexican cartels have set up shop in multiple U.S. states. ISIS/ISIL has been here for quite some time. Obama knows it. They are his people.

As I’ve written in multiple columns over the years, Obama’s intention is to turn the USA into the Marxist-Islamic North American Caliphate…and he intends to be the Caliph. That is why he never seems worried about anything. All is going as planned. The faux “refugees”–see below video–are a distraction, but meant to overrun the country and help to more quickly turn it Third World. It’s working. In the meantime, all manner of gang members and terrorists have entered the country by Obama‘s command. To top off Obama’s continual treasons, he also sides with Islam against Israel.

The world is in the most dire condition it has ever been and Obama is one of those leading the charge for its establishment as an Islamic slave state. In order to do so, the elimination of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is necessary. Obama has already firmly indicated that he is up to the task. Even the dullest amongst us should be able to see just who and what Obama is now. The Lord of the universe is no longer amused.

Louisville PFAW Activists Deliver Petitions Supporting Democracy For All Constitutional Amendment to Mitch McConnell


On Wednesday, PFAW activists in Kentucky joined other activists representing ally organizations in delivering petition signatures to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s state office calling for amending the Constitution to overturn cases like Citizens United and get big money out of politics. Nationally, more than three million Americans have signed such a petition.

The delivery comes days before the Senate is set to vote on the Democracy for All Amendment (S.J. Res 19), a joint resolution that would amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s rulings opening the floodgates to unlimited money in our elections, with sixteen states and over 550 cities formally demanding that Congress vote to pass a constitutional amendment to allow common sense campaign finance rules to be enacted.

The event in Louisville is part of a nationwide push to make the Democracy for All Amendment our Constitution’s 28th Amendment. Rallies and petition deliveries also occurred in the state offices of nine other senators throughout the country.

PFAW
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious