Obama Waives Bush Law Banning Child Soldier

constitutionschool/Here’s a headline we’ll guarantee you simply won’t find in the mainstream media –

On October 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law “Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008,” a law that made it a federal crime to recruit or use soldiers under the age of 15. The law also gave the United States authority to “prosecute, deport or deny entry to individuals who have knowingly recruited children as soldiers.”

The bipartisan law, which was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress, drew the applause of several international human rights organizations:

“The US is saying to the world that using child soldiers is a serious crime and that it will take action,” said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocate for Human Rights Watch. “Military commanders who use children can no longer come to the United States without the risk of ending up in jail.”

Over the weekend, while most Americans were too busy spending time with their children and keeping up with the latest sporting events to worry about executive orders, President Obama removed the teeth from this law; effectively making it void in the nations most guilty.  The result - thousands of children throughout the Middle East and Africa may be drafted into foreign militaries, with the full blessings of the United States.

Sunday afternoon, President Obama signed a Presidential memorandum, stating the following:
“I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA [Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008] with respect to Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen…  and the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin defense articles; and I hereby waive such provisions accordingly.”

Section 404(a) deals with exporting arms to countries that allow child-soldiers.

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama did two very frightening things:

1. He authorized the United States to sell military weaponry to the nations of Libya, South Sudan, Yemen and Congo.

At a time with such unrest in the world, there is now a very significant chance that American weaponry will soon be delivered to a Yemen and Libyan port.

2. President Obama has undone much of the progress made in the fight against child-soldiers won over the past decade.  Jesse Eaves, a senior policy advisor for child protection at World Vision stated the following:
“At a time when Congress is locked in one of the most difficult budget battles I’ve ever seen, it is shameful that a portion of federal funding continues to help support governments who are abusing children. At its core, this is a missed opportunity to show leadership on this issue and protect thousands of vulnerable children around the world,” adding, “Frankly, we expected more from our nation’s leaders.”

Unfortunately, as originally stated, this is a headline that you simply will not see ran across the screen of MSNBC.

 

Obama's opening "fiscal cliff" bid seeks debt limit hike,

(Reuters) - The Obama administration's opening bid on Thursday in negotiations to avert a year-end fiscal crunch included a demand for new stimulus spending and authority to unilaterally raise the U.S. borrowing ceiling, a Republican congressional aide said.
The proposal, made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to congressional Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, was seen as offering little the Republicans could agree to and was greeted with laughter, the aide said.
"We can't move any closer to them because they're not even on our planet," the aide said. "It was not a serious proposal."
Obama and congressional Republicans are returning to the bargaining table to prevent across-the board tax increases and deep spending cuts, the so-called fiscal cliff, from taking effect next year.
The president wants Bush-era tax breaks to be extended for all but the wealthiest earners, but Republicans have balked at tax hikes of any kind.
In the maiden bargaining session, Geithner, the president's lead negotiator, proposed raising tax revenues by $1.6 trillion, congressional aides confirmed. That figure is in line with what Obama has said is necessary to achieve long-term deficit reduction of $4 trillion over 10 years.
The administration also sought at least $50 billion in new economic stimulus spending.
Obama's negotiators also sought the ability to raise the nation's borrowing limit unilaterally. Currently, Congress must approve an increase in the debt ceiling, and it was an impasse over that issue that brought the country perilously close to default in 2011.
The administration's proposal would put off across-the-board spending cuts for a year.
In exchange the administration agreed to make $400 billion in spending cuts to entitlement programs, an aide confirmed.
The White House had no comment on the details of the offer.
"The only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates," a White House official

 

Residents Alerted to Obamas' Hawaiian Holiday Plans

hawaiireporter/Residents living near the beachfront homes where President Barack Obama and First Family vacation with their friends every year since 2008 were alerted on Monday to some specifics of the Obamas' holiday vacation plans.
The report delivered to residents living along the ocean and canal that surrounds the multi-million dollar homes at Kailuana Place where the President stays, informed  them of restrictions that will be implemented for 20 days beginning December 17 and running through January 6.
In a matter of weeks, Kailua residents will see the familiar street barricades fronted by U.S. Secret Service agents and Navy Seals and the U.S. Coast Guard stationed in canal and ocean waters.
The President, who spent some of his childhood years in Hawaii, brings his wife, two daughters, Sasha and Malia, with dog Bo in tow, each holiday season. They settle into the small town community known for its spectacular sparkling beaches, warm turquoise ocean, rolling surf, country shops and restaurants and friendly people.
The homes where they stay are just a two-minute drive from Kaneohe Bay and the Marine Corps Base Hawaii, where the Obamas and friends can access private white sand beaches and military workout facilities.

Kailua Beach

While many residents welcome the First Family, others are disheartened by the restrictions put on air, water and road travel while the President and family are in town, especially because it is the holiday season and many families on vacation want to use their boats or surf and paddle in the welcoming ocean waves fronting the Kailua homes. In addition, the President's caravan of at least 22 vehicles including an ambulance can easily overwhelm the community that typically has single lane streets.
Adding to the controversy surrounding the President's visit is the cost of the trip.
With the staff, special forces, local police presence and equipment, the President's visit adds up annually to at least a $4 million vacation courtesy of the Hawaii and federal taxpayers.
While the President and his friends pay for their own rental homes, taxpayers pick up the cost of security and waterfront housing for the Secret Service, Navy Seals and Coast Guard as well as staff accommodations at a plush beachfront Waikiki hotel.
TRAVEL: $3,629,622
The biggest expense is President Barack Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii via Air Force One.
A Congressional Research Service report released in May 2012 said the plane typically used by the President, a Boeing 747, costs $179,750 per hour to operate. The U.S. Air Force has listed the cost of travel as high as $181,757 per flight hour.
Travel time for Air Force One direct from Washington D.C. to Hawaii is about 9 hours or as high as $1,635,813 each way for a total of $3,271,622 for the round trip to Hawaii and back.
The cost for USAF C-17 cargo aircraft that transports the Presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment to Hawaii has never been disclosed in the years the President has traveled to Hawaii. However, the flight time between Andrews Air Force Base and Hawaii is at about 21.5 hours roundtrip, with estimated operating cost of $12,000 per hour. (Source: GAO report, updated by C-17 crew member). The United States Marine Corps provides a presidential helicopter, along with pilots and support crews for the test flights, which travel on another C-17 flight. That is $258,000, not including costs for the 4 to 6 member crew's per diem and hotel.

Moana Surfrider Resort

The rentals are fronted by the ocean and backed by a canal. So, the taxpayers must cover the costs for housing U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy Seals in beach front and canal front homes around where the President stays.
Last year, that added up to about $200 per bedroom per day, or $21,600 per average home for a nearly three week period, with special forces renting at least 7 homes. Security arrives ahead of the President costing taxpayers about $176,400 for the length of the visit.
The President’s staff and White House Press Corps typically stay at one of Hawaii’s oldest and most elegant hotels, the Moana Surfrider. Besides its stunningly beautiful view of Waikiki, and its traditional Hawaiian architecture and decor, it is one of the most pricey hotels in the state and government rates are not available during the holiday season. Rooms  start at around $270 but can cost as much as $370 a night for an ocean view before Christmas, and climb much higher around the new year.
A conservative estimate with rooms at $270 (excluding a 9.25 percent Transient Accommodation Tax and a 4.712 percent General Excise Tax on each bill, meals, internet charges and other charges) means the taxpayers are covering more than $129,600 in hotel bills for some two dozen staff.
LOCAL TAXPAYER COSTS: $260,000
Local police are paid over time for the President’s visit, which has historically cost Oahu taxpayers $250,000.
The city ambulance the accompanies the President 24 hours a day through his entire visit is about $10,000 to city taxpayers.
UNKNOWN COSTS
There are several costs the White House annually refuses to release, citing security.

• • For example, the President’s security usually rents an entire floor of an office building in Kailua on the canal during the president’s stay.
  • There are security upgrades and additional phone lines to several private homes where Obama and friends are staying. That includes bullet proof glass installed, home security systems disabled, new security measures put into place and additional phone lines added.
  • There is the cost for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at a Waikiki Hotel.
  • And there are additional travel costs Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President.

The total cost (based on what is known) for a 20-day round trip vacation to Hawaii for the President and his family and staff and security is more than $4 million.
Hawaii Reporter annually has requested details on the cost of the President’s trip, but the White House will not release any figures, citing security concerns. A spokesperson has maintained the costs are "in line" with other presidential vacations.
Hawaii Reporter has sought to determine the cost of vacations for the current president and last two presidents but the Government Accountability Office referred Hawaii Reporter back to the White House spokesperson.

 

Obama warns McCain: Go after U.N. Ambassador Rice?

President Barack Obama speaks at his first news conference since his reelection. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

yahoo/President Barack Obama bluntly told John McCain and other Republicans to lay off their attacks against U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over the Benghazi assault, telling lawmakers that if they go after her "then you have a problem with me." And Obama, speaking at his first post-election press conference, vowed that Republican opposition would not dissuade him from nominating Rice to replace departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"I don't think there's any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed that's a problem," he told reporters in the East Room of the White House. "And we've go to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability, we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice --they won't get any debate from me on that."

"But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me," he warned.

McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and some other Republicans have signaled they will oppose Rice's confirmation if Obama nominates her. Their numbers thus far seem far short of the 40 needed to block it, and some Republican senators have signaled that she should get a fair hearing.

"Let me say specifically about Susan Rice: She has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill, and professionalism, and toughness, and grace," Obama said.

"And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her," he vowed. "That's not a determination that I've made yet."

Rice and Democratic Senator John Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are seen as the front-runners in the race to succeed Clinton.

Conservatives have assailed Rice, who is close to Obama, ever since she made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows and said that American intelligence believed that the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, grew out of demonstrations against an Internet video that ridicules Islam.

"As that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that, as you know, in the wake of the revolution in Libya are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there," she told ABC.

White House aides have said that Rice was speaking based on the best available intelligence at the time.

"She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence provided to her," Obama said Wednesday. "If Senator McCain and Senator Graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me."

"But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous," he said.

"We're after an election now," he scolded. "I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I'm happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information and we've got a full-blown investigation. And all that information will be disgorged to Congress."

McCain and Graham hit back quickly.

"I have always said that the buck stops with the President of the United States," the Arizona senator said in a written statement. McCain accused Obama of "contradictory statements" about the attack, labeling it an "act of terror" the day after it happened then resisting the use of the word "terrorism" for roughly a week afterwards.

"We owe the American people and the families of the murdered Americans a full and complete explanation, which for two months the President has failed to deliver," said McCain, who has called for Congress to create a "select committee" to investigate.

"Mr. President, don't think for one minute I don't hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.  I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack," Graham said in a statement released by his office.

"We owe it to the American people and the victims of this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle," Graham said.

Obama opened what was his first press conference in months with a vow to work with both parties in Congress to tackle the so-called fiscal cliff and revive the economy. He also said he had "no evidence" that the scandal that led David Petraeus to resign in disgrace from his job as CIA director had led to breaches in classified national security material.

"Right now our economy is still recovering from a very deep and damaging crisis, so our top priority has to be jobs and growth," Obama said in opening remarks in the East Room of the White House.

"Both parties can work together" to address the fiscal challenges "in a balanced and responsible way," he said, before pushing Republicans to sign on to his call for raising taxes on the richest Americans.

Asked whether the scandal the drove Petraeus from office had led to national security breaches, Obama replied: "I have no evidence at this point, from what I've seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security." And the president praised the retired general, saying "we are safer because of the work Dave Petraeus has done."

Asked for his appraisal of the FBI's work in bringing to light the marital infidelity that Petraeus cited in his resignation message, and why he and the American public learned of the probe only earlier this month, Obama said "I am withholding judgment" on that process but expressed "a lot of confidence generally in the FBI."
Turning to his tax battle with Republicans, Obama stuck by his vow to oppose any legislation that extends the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The president, asked why he had agreed to extend them in the 2010 lame duck session of Congress, said that "was a one-time proposition" and that "we cannot afford" to do so again.

Obama said he would be willing to look at raising tax revenues by closing loopholes. But he warned that doing so would probably not outweigh an estimated trillion dollars lost by extending tax cuts on income above $250,000. "The math tends not to work," he said.

"I just want to emphasize: I am open to new ideas," Obama underlined. "If the Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn't getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, I'm not going to just slam the door in their face. I want to hear ideas from everybody."

And he reiterated that he does not want just a stopgap agreement with Congress.

"I want a big deal, I want a comprehensive deal," he said. "Fair-minded people can come to an agreement."

Obama, who won the Latino vote by a lopsided margin, also vowed to pursue comprehensive immigration reform in his second term. He said it should include border enforcement, penalties for companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers, while providing "a pathway for legal status" for those who pay their taxes and learn English. He also said it should lock in his presidential determination that undocumented immigrants brought here as children should not be deported but have a potential path to citizenship.

"We need to seize the moment," he said, predicting that "we will have a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration."

Obama addressed a handful of other issues:
- On the standoff over Iran's suspect nuclear program
Obama pledged to "try to make a push in the coming months to see if we can open up a dialogue between Iran and not just us but the international community, to see if we can get this thing resolved." "I can't promise that Iran will walk through the door that they need to walk though, but that would be very much the preferable option" to military action, he said.

- On the possibility of working with Republican rival Mitt Romney

Obama said that "we haven't scheduled something yet." "I think everybody needs to catch their breath. I'm sure that Governor Romney is spending some time with his family. And my hope is, before the end of the year, though, that we have a chance to sit down and talk," the president said.

- On whether he has a mandate

"I don't presume that because I won an election, that everybody suddenly agrees with me on any — everything. I'm more than familiar with all the literature about presidential overreach in second terms," Obama said. "We are very cautious about that."

"On the other hand, I didn't get re-elected just to bask in re- election. I got elected to do work on behalf of American families and small businesses all across the country who are still recovering from a really bad recession but are hopeful about the future. And I am, too."

- On climate change

Obama said he would embark "over the next several weeks, next several months" in a "wide-ranging discussion" with scientists, engineers, elected officials and others about "short-term" steps in reducing carbon emissions blamed for fueling global warming. But he seemed pessimistic about any broad response.

"I don't know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do," he said. "There's no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices."

"And you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that."

- On relations with the media. Bloomberg reporter Hans Nichols shouted out a question about taxes after Obama had indicated that he had already taken his final query.

"That was a great question, but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out," he said. "So thank you very much, guys."

 

Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges

tac/At the close of 2011, Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2012. In it are what some constitutional experts consider to be some of the greatest constitutional violations in American history. At issue are sections 1021 and 1022 which, in essence, create a new power for the federal government to “indefinitely detain” – without due process – any person. Indefinitely. That’s little different than kidnapping.
In response, there’s been a bit of a firestorm from people across the political spectrum. Local communities in Colorado sent out the first warning shots, passing resolutions and ordinances rejecting such power earlier this year. Then, at the close of the 2012 state legislative session, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to paw a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.
Currently, more than 15 local communities have done the same. Michigan is also considering a bill that is similar to Virginia’s. And today, Texas State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.
It states, in part:

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution and, as such, are invalid and illegal in this state.

It also, like Virginia’s law, requires full noncompliance with the federal act:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81). Any act to enforce or attempt to enforce those laws is in violation of this subchapter.

But, the Texas legislation takes it a step further, codifying into State law criminal penalties for violation of the act by even federal agents:

A person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce a statute, a rule or regulation, an order, or any law of the United States in violation of this subchapter.
An offense under Subsection
(a) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.

This coming legislative session, Texas won’t be alone in its efforts. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 other states considering the same. And potentially dozens of counties and cities can be expected to move along these lines as well.
ACTION ITEMS
If you live in Texas, contact your state representative and senator, and encourage them to support HB149. You can find legislative contact information HERE.
Texans on Facebook (HERE) can also get involved in a grassroots organizing group. this is essential for legislative success.
Urge your county commission or town council to consider a local Liberty Preservation Resolution HERE.
If you live in outside of Texas, contact your state representative of senator and urge them to introduce state level liberty preservation legislation. You can find model legislation HERE.
Track nationwide efforts against NDAA detention HERE.

AMERICANS WILL RECEIVE A MICROCHIP IMPLANT IN 2013 PER OBAMACARE

NewsWithViews/A major news story broke on AOL and countless other mainstream news media outlets, this past week, that the Obama Health Care Bill will require all U.S. citizens and babies to receive a microchip or Medchip by March 23, 2013. Whether or not the microchip requirement in the bill is implemented by 2013, remains to be seen.

In 2010, my book “Are You Ready for the Microchip?” was released, and I asked the question, “Is the microchip implant hidden in the Healthcare Bill? Are newborn children starting in 2013 going to receive a microchip shortly after birth?” Then in the book, I wrote, “ In the massive US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical Device Registry which states:

“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable.”

The language is deliberately vague, but it provides the structure for making America the first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling medical care.

A number of states like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this kind of legislation.

As with numerous other things that I have written and spoken about based on solid documentation, I am regularly challenged by some, and especially those in the Christian community, who are clueless about what is going on. Their criticism has never prevented me from presenting the facts, because I never take a poll about what I write or speak on. A Christian is called to speak the truth in love, whether or not it is accepted. I am not trying to disparage any ministry, but I don’t determine what I say based on whether or not it is “seeker friendly,” or popular. The only issue is, is it true and is it wise to communicate it at that particular time?

There are many things that I could say, but don’t, because there many people in our nation who, when confronted with a truth that is outside the box of their socially engineered consciousness, go into cognitive dissonance. As the microchip implant moves closer day by day, along with the “manufactured crisis” of illegal immigration, the problems of states like Arizona are creating an environment where Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are moving legislation forward that would require all U.S. workers, citizens and resident alike, to obtain and carry a National Biometric ID Card in order to work within the United States. It does not matter where you stand on the issue of amnesty or immigration, everyone is going to have to have a National Biometric ID Card that will eventually contain an RFID transmitter which will allow Big Brother electronic data bases to track all of your personal information. It is a simply a national ID card under another name. The national ID card will transition into a microchip implant, because that is technically more efficient. All of this which is about to happen very soon, is just the tip of the iceberg.

President Ronald Reagan refused to pass what he called this “Mark of the Beast” legislation. In my book, “Are You Ready for the Microchip?,” I examine the careful wording in the Health Care Bill which calls for a Med-Chip and a microchip implant. It was never hidden, it is simply Republican and Democrat, along with our corporate-controlled and Orwellian media, who deliberately chose to ignore it. The Bilderberg Group gave orders to microchip the entire U.S. population and then the world. Before the Health Care Bill was passed, the target date was set for the year 2013, when every baby born in the U.S. will receive a microchip at birth. Many are attacking President Obama for this, but although it is the Obama Health Care Bill, the microchip plan was created decades ago and put onto the fast track by the Republican Administration of President George Bush and his allegedly “born-again” Attorney General, John Ashcroft, after 911. It seems Ashcroft was more concerned about covering up the breasts of a Lady Liberty statue in the hallway of the Department of Justice, than he was about protecting our Constitutional liberties, which include the freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, Evangelical Christians make excellent political pawns because they focus on secondary issues, rather than the important issues. This is because Evangelical Christianity in America today does not have a truly Biblical worldview. I truly do not want to sound unkind, but the historical reality is that Evangelical Christians have played the part of what Lenin called “useful idiots.” Obviously, this is not what God planned for His people. But, by rejecting a Biblical worldview, the Scripture, “My people perish for lack of knowledge,” is fulfilled. The majority of Evangelical Christians in America have a very superficial faith as a result of what they are being taught in many of their churches and seminaries.

The new microchip technology with an RFID chip is so advanced it sounds like science fiction. The Apostle Paul explains how this fits into Revelation 13, where the False Prophet will head a one world religion and force people to accept the mark of the beast. A microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, in and of itself, is not necessarily the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast under the direction of the False Prophet, requires the conscious rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and a commitment to worship the Antichrist as God.

The challenge for Christians and others will be the very act of taking a microchip implant, biochip implant or med chip, simply because of its parallel to the Biblical mark of the beast. Will people of faith be exempted for religious reasons or will they be forced to take it or imprisoned. In addition, any microchip technology could be activated with enhanced controls after it is implanted. So what starts out as a simple microchip implant could become a technology where at some future time, you must worship the Antichrist as God, and reject Jesus Christ as Lord in order to participate in the economic system. The built-in and evolving capacity of microchip technology makes this a dangerous possibility.

In the final analysis, the simple act of accepting the implantation of a microchip for medical reasons appears harmless on the surface. However, there is no guarantee that once it is implanted, that it will not be activated for mark of the beast technology. This is the danger and challenge that lies before us.

After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks

Reuters) - Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.
U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.
The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States - along with Russia and other major arms producers - said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.
But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.
U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.
An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
The main reason the arms trade talks are taking place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms trader accounting for more than 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.
'MONTHS AWAY' FROM DEAL?
Countries that abstained included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran. China, a major arms producer that has traditionally abstained, voted in favor.
Among the top six arms-exporting nations, Russia cast the only abstention. Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution.
The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.
The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."
Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.
"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."
Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."
The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.
Britain's U.N. mission said on its Twitter feed it hoped that the March negotiations would yield the final text of a treaty. Such a pact would then need to be ratified by the individual signatories before it could enter into force.
The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. interest group, strongly opposes the arms treaty and had endorsed Romney.
The United States has denied it sought to delay negotiations for political reasons, saying it had genuine problems with the draft as written.
(Editing by Xavier Briand)

E U wins Nobel Peace Prize

Despite a year marred by violent protests against austerity and the looming prospect of an acrimonious break up, the European Union was controversially awarded the Nobel peace prize for fostering stability and unity.

Riot police detain a protester in front of the parliament during a 24-hours general strike in Athens on February 7, 2012 Photo: Aris Messinis/AFP

telegraph/The shock decision by the Norwegian prize jury was greeted with disbelief and derision, but also with some relief by supporters of the European project.

Reminding the world of the EU's role in preventing conflict on the continent over the last 60 years, the committee's citation praised the union's "advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights".

"The work of the EU represents the 'fraternity of nations'," it said, referring to its expansion to 27 members.

However, the citation acknowledged how problems with the euro have ravaged southern European economies and plunged Europe into its worst recession for 80 years.

_{A woman is arrested by riot police during a demonstration by Spanish coal miners on July 11, 2012 in Madrid, Spain}

• 
  The decision was widely interpreted as a conscious bid to prop up the single currency – and the bloc itself – in their darkest hour, after the Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland warned of a possible return to "extremism and nationalism".

"We should do everything we can to safeguard it [the EU], not let it disintegrate. If the euro starts falling apart, then I believe that the internal market will also start falling apart. And then obviously we get new nationalism in Europe," he said after announcing the prize in Oslo.
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, quickly linked the "wonderful selection" to her country's efforts to save the 17-nation eurozone.
"I often say that the euro is more than a currency, and we should not forget that these weeks and months we have spent working to strengthen the euro. At the end of the day it is about the original idea of a union of peace and of values," she told reporters.
The award was welcomed by many European leaders offering respite.
Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said it was a "tremendous honour".
"It is a prize not just for the project and the institutions embodying a common interest, but for the 500 million citizens living in our Union," they said in a statement.
_{Italian anti-riot policemen clash with protesters as they demonstrate against the government's economic policy measures in Rome, Italy on September 14, 2011}
Mr van Rompuy and Mr Barroso could collect the prize, which is normally given to individuals with long records of struggle against oppression. The Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela have been among the recipients.
The award of the prestigious prize sparked a mixed response in Greece, where living standards have crashed as the economy has contracted 20 per cent in the last three years, despite bailouts totalling 240 billion euros (£200 billion).
With social tensions still high, more than 7,000 police had to be deployed to protect Mrs Merkel on a visit to Athens this week, when she was derided by some as a reincarnation of the Third Reich.
Rena Dourou, an MP for the Left-wing Syriza opposition, said of the award: "At first, many people thought this was some kind of joke. It is a very big surprise."
Christos Dimas, an MP for the country's ruling centre-Right coalition, pleaded for better treatment from Greece's European paymasters.
"The EU may have established peace in Europe in the last 50 years, but today its main challenge is to maintain solidarity among its members," he said.
While Athens has often burned, in Catalonia, Italy and Belgium, resentment at diktats laid down by Brussels to enforce fiscal discipline have also driven a backlash in the shape of mounting nationalist feeling.
Even so, the award was perhaps not the committee's most contentious. Barack Obama received the prize just days into his presidency of the United States, while commanding the world's largest military in two wars. He later sanctioned a dramatic increase in secret drone attacks on militants in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Euro-sceptics nonetheless reacted with scorn. Martin Callanan, leader of the Euro-sceptic Conservatives and Reformists party in the European parliament, said: "Twenty years ago this prize would have been sycophantic but maybe more justified. Today it is downright out of touch."
The Foreign Office released a brief, lukewarm statement urging the European Union to "preserve and strengthen" its achievements in future.
Nicolai Wammen, Denmark's Europe minister, struck a balanced tone: "We can of course laugh at this, and there are many problems in the EU. It is certainly not a perfect union but it is a strong message that a lot has gone right also since the creation of the EU," he said.
Nigel Farage, the head of the UK Independence Party, added: "This goes to show that the Norwegians really do have a sense of humour.

 

Stop, Michelle Obama! The Children Are Hungry

cbslocal/The good news is that high school students don’t bow down to a liberal government and get pushed around without expressing their concerns – at least when it comes to getting their fill at lunch time. Their voice is loud and strong when they are rebelling for the right to eat. The bad news is that the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama may be a tough team for the young people to cross. But from reports, there is a sizable group of high school athletes expressing their concern regarding the food they are being denied every school day.
The high school students are complaining that their school lunches are just too small this school year, and they’re hungry. While reports have focused on students at a school in Wisconsin, it is now found that complaints are being voiced throughout the country at the start of this new school year. The new school lunch regulations being enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture via First Lady Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative are just not satisfying many of the nation’s youth.
Ironically, it has been reported that school lunches now cost 20-to-25 cents more per plate or tray, but students are tremendously dissatisfied with what is being put on their plates or trays.
According to various online comment threads, young people are fighting back by basically “going lunchroom rogue”. One Internet site reports that some students are sneaking in items that will liven up the lunches – items that are neither USDA-approved nor Michelle Obama-approved – such as chocolate syrup which students are selling on the black market by the squeeze.
Such entrepreneurs must be Romney-leaning, wouldn’t you think?
Reportedly, some schools are actually putting hummus and black bean salads on elementary school children’s trays and the lunch supervisors are not very surprised at all when they see the children leaving the food items untouched. By definition, hummus is a Middle Eastern and Arabic food dip or spread made from cooked, mashed chickpeas, blended with tahini, olive oil, lemon juice, salt and garlic. Obviously, it is something that most American children are not accustomed to and are going to try for the first time at school when their parents aren’t there to make them at least try it.
While the United States Department of Agriculture blames the young people for not eating things they are not used to eating at home, the bottom line is that the children are hungry all day. Data has proven in the past that hunger is a severe deterrent to the learning process and environment. In recent decades, the government has taken to feeding needy children to combat the negativity of trying to learn while being hungry. Now, with new Obama administration regulations on school lunches, we have a government that is causing hunger.
Of the many regulated-policies created in the past four years during the Obama presidency, this one should be the top of the “repeal-it” list. Scratch that – it ought to be number 2, after Obamacare.
Most adults would be complaining that they’re starving, too, if they had to eat hummus and black bean salad for lunch. And remember where the president has been stopping on the campaign trail. The owner of a pizza joint bear-hugged the president and picked him up off the floor two weeks ago, not the owner of a hummus and black bean salad establishment. Additionally, Sean Hannity on Fox announced that President Obama’s daughters were served pizza for lunch today at their school. How does that happen? Lucky them.
How about letting the president – or his daughters’ school – help decide what goes on the school children’s plates instead of the president’s wife. That way, at least the children will eat it.

Iranian Operatives In Charge Of Obama’s Iran Policy Since 2009

A ruling handed down on September 13^th by the D.C. District Federal Court has finally made clear what many have known for years–that the Obama Administration’s Iran policy was initiated and advanced by a group with illicit, hidden ties to the Iranian Regime and financed by the U.S./Israel- hating George Soros.
In 2009, Barack Obama turned over virtually all responsibility and authority for foreign policy negotiations with Iran to Trita Parsi and his National Iranian American Council (NIAC).  Founded by Parsi in 2003, the Washington-based NIAC is a powerful lobbying group that is “…widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian Regime in America.”
Like too many organizations that claim to represent the best interests of the nation of Iran and Iranian-Americans, the NIAC is tightly connected with and known to be funded at least in part by the George Soros empire.  Small wonder NIAC advice on dealing with Iran was replete with claims that Israeli propaganda was responsible for the negative image imposed on otherwise peace-loving, misunderstood Iranian mullahs. Not exactly a friend of Israel is George Soros.

And how did the reputedly “non-partisan” NIAC suggest the Obama Administration proceed with negotiations? Simple. The Council “…opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels “patience” regarding Iran’s stance towards its nuclear program.”
What better way for NIAC representatives to serve their hidden masters in Tehran than by promoting a policy of “peaceful coexistence” between the US and Iran. And to the NIAC, peaceful coexistence meant “…acceptance of [the] Iranian government, accepting Iranian hegemony in the Gulf and its place in other parts of the Middle East, removal of sanctions and pressure against Iran, abandon of assistance to the Iranian people’s resistance against the regime and etc.”
For the U.S., the consequences of this game of intrigue played by the Administration’s hand-picked, Iranian representatives are summed up in this statement by Barack Obama:  “I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.” And indeed, this is the path Barack Obama has followed. Not exactly reassuring words from a president charged with keeping the American public safe from a nuclear-bound administration of religious fanatics dedicated to our demise.
And it is thanks to an ill-advised lawsuit that proof of the NIAC’s wrongdoing has finally been placed before the American public. In 2008, Trita Parsi and his organization filed a defamation suit against perpetual critic Seid Dai. Dai had publicly accused Parsi of secretly working with the ruling Iranian Regime against the interests of the United States and the Iranian people. But when Parsi filed suit hoping to silence-through-intimidation such potentially lethal criticism, it opened the floodgates of legal discovery allowing Dai to demand internal NIAC documents and emails that eventually “… confirmed [Parsi’s] ties to the [Iranian] mullahs…”
Not only did recovered emails reveal that Parsi had held “…numerous secret meetings with top level IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] officials,” “Court documents show the NIAC was guilty of: lying to members of Congress, fraudulent membership numbers, tax law violations and evasions, Lobbying Disclosure Act violation, the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations, foreign bank accounts, defrauding of federal funds, bribing of eye witnesses, etc…”
And so egregious were NIAC attempts to duck its legal responsibilities of discovery that Judge John Bates dismissed the Parsi defamation suit, ordered sanctions against Parsi for his failure to comply with discovery, and ordered Parsi to pay significant percentages of Dai’s costs and fees.
This is an immensely important story, not surprisingly “missed” in its entirety by the mainstream media.
But why has the Romney campaign not demanded Obama’s rationale for handing the foreign policy decisions of the United States and the security of the American people over to representatives of the Iranian government itself? Could voters be pleased upon finding the president had placed America’s safety from possible nuclear attack in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

 

Empty chair 'lynchings': Anti-Obama protests gone too far

Courtesy of Burnt Orange Report

A folding chair and an American flag hang from a tree in front of a home in northwest Austin, Texas.

By James Eng, NBC News

At least two recent incidents in which empty chairs were hung from trees by rope have critics decrying what they say are racially offensive displays meant to symbolize the “lynching” of President Barack Obama.
In Austin, Texas, a homeowner hung an empty folding chair from a tree branch in front of his house and later attached an American flag to it. He reportedly told a Democratic political blogger who said she had concerns, “You can take it and go straight to hell and take Obama with you.”
In Centreville, Va., an empty chair with a sign reading “Nobama” was strung from a tree in or near a park. “In short, this appears to be a crude metaphor for the lynching of President Obama,” wrote the blogger who posted the photo.
The image of an empty chair has been associated with Obama ever since Clint Eastwood’s headline-grabbing, non-conformist speech at the Republican National Convention three weeks ago in Tampa, Fla. The 82-year-old actor-director talked to an empty chair as if the Democratic president were sitting in it, criticizing and mocking the “invisible Obama” for 12 minutes.
“When somebody doesn't do the job, you've got to let them go," Eastwood said before making a throat-slashing gesture.

Hollywood star Clint Eastwood speaks at the RNC in Tampa, Fla.

In Austin, Katherine Haenschen, editor of Burnt Orange Report, a Texas liberal-leaning political blog, said someone forwarded her a photo this week of an empty folding chair hanging from a tree in front of a home in the city’s northwest. A few days later the homeowner apparently added a small American flag to the display, according to a picture taken by a neighbor and forwarded to Haenschen on Thursday. [Picture above].
Haenschen said she called the man who she said lives in the home with his wife on Wednesday night to express her concerns about the display.  Here’s what she said he told her:

“He replied, and I quote, "I don't really give a damn whether it disturbs you or not. You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you. I don't give a [expletive]. If you don't like it, don't come down my street."

NBC News tried reaching out to the man for comment, but a telephone message left Thursday morning was not returned.
Haenschen said the display has apparently caused “great consternation” in the neighborhood.
“There are other neighbors up there who are Republicans who find this as offensive as anybody else does,” Haenschen told NBC News.
“Someone always wants to say, 'you’re making a big deal out of it, it’s just a chair.' But I don’t see how you can dismiss the racial message of lynching a symbol of the first African-American president. It’s really tough for me to see how folks might, after the Eastwood speech, not view this as a racially charged message and a symbol of a threat to the president’s life.”
Rosemary Edwards, chairwoman of the Travis County Republican Party in Austin, said she was not aware of the display. She said if anything racial is suggested by the display, it would be "deplorable."
In Virginia, a photo posted on Tuesday on Blue Virginia, a Democratic-leaning political blog, shows an empty chair with a handmade "Nobama" sign strung from a tree by a rope.

Courtesy of Blue Virginia

A chair with an anti-Obama slogan hangs from a tree in Centreville, Va.

The blogger, who goes by the username “lowkell,” said photos of the display were taken with a cellphone by someone who was leaving the KORUS festival, an annual gathering organized by a local Korean-American association, at Bull Run Regional Park in Centreville over the weekend.
“Obviously, it's beyond grotesque (it also boggles my mind that this was allowed to be put up, let alone to stay up, at a festival presumably visited by thousands of people - wtf?),” lowkell wrote.
Lowkell told NBC News the photo was forwarded to him by a source who "wants to remain anonymous."
The display was on private property neighboring the park, a park official told the Centreville Patch. The park is about eight miles from Centreville High School, where Obama appeared at a campaign rally in July. It was not known who put up the display.
The Secret Service said it was looking into the empty chair incidents. "The Secret Service is aware of this and will conduct appropriate followup," spokesman Brian Leary told NBC News.
Lynching, the killing of people, usually by hanging or shooting, by mobs who take the law into their own hands, occurred most frequently in the U.S. from the late 1800s through the 1950s. Most of the lynchings took place in the South, and most of the victims were black.
Related:

• Eastwood surprises GOP convention
• Eastwood’s empty chair at RNC sparks Internet buzz

 

‘2016: Obama’s America’ shocks film industry

2016TheMovie

Scene from Dinesh D'Souza's '2016: Obama's America 2016.'

nydailynews/While pundits and critics are divided over whether "2016: Obama's America" is a sobering documentary examining "the most mysterious U.S. president in modern history" or an 87-minute attack ad, there's no debating that the film is a box office phenomenon.
Taking a page from his own book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned. With virtually no promotional budget, the film has expanded in a little over a month from one theater in Houston to 1747 screens this weekend.
"People see the success and they think we have the marketing budget of 'Dark Knight Rises,' we probably don't even have the catering budget of the 'Dark Knight,'" co-director John Sullivan, who helped craft the promotional plan, told the News.
OUR TEAM'S LIVE COVERAGE FROM THE DNC
So they had to rely on the choir preaching to an even bigger choir. Sullivan says ahead of the film's mid-July opening at the Edward Houston Marq'E Stadium 23 & IMAX, local right-wing radio host Michael Berry championed the film with an all-out publicity blitz on his show.
Roughly 200 movie-goers were turned away from the sold out shows that weekend, a theater manager told the Hollywood Reporter.
From there, the film opened in three additional Houston-area theaters, then a handful of other cities in the reddest of states. It helped that by the time it jumped onto 1,071 screens last weekend, it didn't have to go toe-to-toe with Batman or Iron Man.
RELATED: OBAMA COUNTING ON 'HERALD AND KUMAR' IN NEW AD
"This is a case of good timing," says Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Hollywood.com. "If it would have come out even two weeks earlier, it would have been swamped by the big blockbusters."
Through the week of the Republican National Convention, D'Souza and producer Gerald Molen, who won an Academy Award for "Schindler's List," have been doing dozens of interviews. Along the way they picked up some key endorsements from the likes of Glen Beck and Rupert Murdoch.
Despite the clearly partisan image surrounding the film, Mark Joseph, whose firm MJM Entertainment is handling marketing of the film, insists the ticket-buyers aren't all coming from one side of the great political divide.
"The producers did some testing early on that yielded some surprising and counterintuitive results: it played very well among non-whites and independents," said Joseph by email. "There was speculation that that could be because Dinesh is himself a native of India and the high marks from independents were because he rejects birtherism and gives no quarter to the suggestion that the President isn't a Christian."
"The Passion of The Christ audience was roughly half very devout and half not so devout," says Joseph. "The latter wanted to see what the fuss was about."
But it's clear this film taps into Republican dissatisfaction with President Obama - not unlike the rage Democrats felt in 2004 that Michael Moore tapped with "Fahrenheit 9/11."
We knew this would be a word-of-mouth movie, because we knew we didn't have the marketing budget that say a Paramount or a Sony would have," said Sullivan.
"Yes, we don't have any stars, but we have a recognizable figure at the heart of this movie - President Obama - so from that standpoint you have almost 100% name recognition."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/2016-obama-america-shocks-film-industry-a-box-office-success-virtually-promotional-budget-article-1.1150536#ixzz25X5aq28p

 

380 American Rebels Reported Killed In Michigan Battle

eutimes/A shocking Federal Security Service (FSB) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that last week an “intense” battle erupted in the US State of Michigan between military forces loyal to the Obama regime and American rebels that killed at least 380 men, women and children who had gathered to oppose their nations slide towards a totalitarian dictatorship.
According to this report, nearly 500 people opposed to the Obama regime had assembled for a “clandestine” meeting in the Michigan country of Alpena in an effort to form a 50-State alliance of local law enforcement and political officers seeking to “turn the tide” of their nations path towards dictatorship even, should it be necessary, by armed force.
The FSB states in this report that hostilities erupted when the American rebel forces gathered at this meeting indentified “several” undercover FBI informants who were seeking to “escalate tensions” and arrested them whereupon, “within minutes,” a contingent of “heavily armed” Obama regime federal police forces attempted to, in turn, arrest these rebel leaders.
After a “prolonged skirmish” between these rebel forces and Obama regime federal police, this report continues, the US Military launched a series of airstrikes, the largest being a 2,000 lb laser guided bomb that hit in the middle of those gathered at this meeting killing over three quarters of them instantly.

E-Cigarette Exposed

To how powerful this blast was we can read as reported by a local Michigan reporter named Bob Powell who wrote: “At 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 6/6/2012, a mysterious explosion shook homes over hundreds of square miles in Northeastern Michigan. The ground shaking explosion was heard from Presque Isle to Lincoln, and out west as far as Hillman.”
Important to note is that this reporter was swiftly detained and arrested by Obama forces when he attempted to gather more information.
Over the next nearly 48-hours since the initial bomb drop upon the rebels, this report continues, Obama regime military forces “numbering in the high-hundreds” descended upon Michigan [photo 2nd right] utilizing nearly 85 combat transport helicopters and A-10 Thunderbolt air-to-ground missile equipped fighter aircraft.
Confirming the chaos of this battle we can, also, read as confirmed by the Natural Society News Service which, in part, says:

“Eyewitnesses on the ground near the media-blacked-out elevated radiation zone near the border of Indiana and Michigan, where radiation levels hundreds of times higher than normal were quickly removed from public viewing by the EPA, are now sending in a large number of photos and videos documenting massive explosions accompanied by unmarked helicopters, A-10 Thunderbolts, and military personnel.
Those on the ground report that the explosions are ‘loud and deep’, sounding like fireworks with a kick. The explosions are oftentimes followed up with a squadron of helicopters or other aircraft, oftentimes black and unmarked. One Michigan resident reports the following, and is then backed by dozens of organic comments which confirm the findings:
“EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE! Also, Large helicopter heading away from Local Air Force base flying toward scene of explosions! These explosions are seriously consistent, loud booms for the last hour or more.”

Russian nuclear experts contributing to this FSB report state that the elevated radiation levels associated with this attack by the Obama regime upon these rebel forces state that they were caused by the bombs used because they contain depleted uranium, and that there is the “strong likelihood” various other rebel areas of the States of Michigan and Indian may have been targeted too.
This FSB report further states that the “massive retaliation” against these rebels by the Obama regime was due to their having military grade weapons in which to defend themselves and their families.
In less than 48-hours, however, after this attack an “angry and livid” Obama regime put a clampdown on its programme that has supplied US local police forces with military weapons, and as we can, in part, read as reported by the Fox News Service:

“The Defense Department has stopped issuing weapons to thousands of law enforcement agencies until it is satisfied that state officials can account for all the surplus guns, aircraft, Humvees and armored personnel carriers it has given police under a $2.6 billion program, The Associated Press has learned.
The department’s Defense Logistics Agency ordered state-appointed coordinators in 49 states to certify the whereabouts of that equipment that has already been distributed through the long-running arrangement overseen by the agency’s Law Enforcement Support Office.”

This FSB report notes that the death toll they projected in this report is, indeed, an estimate, but further state that based on the number of body-bags requested by Obama regime forces in the aftermath of this battle it could even go higher.
Unknown to the vast majority of Americans, and as we had detailed in our previous report “Russia Shocked After Thousands Of Americans Beg Obama Not To Kill Them”, the Obama regime is operating completely within the law of the United States that now gives their President unprecedented powers to kill and imprison any citizen he so chooses without either evidence or trial, and even newer laws that allows the US government for the first time in its history to deliberately lie and deceive all of them for any reason whatsoever.

 

Billboard Controversy Comes To North Texas

(CBSDFW.COM) - A billboard that sparked a protest in Indiana because of its reference to the Navy Seals, and removing the President from office, has appeared along I-35 in North Texas.
The ad in Gainesville depicts two men in camouflage holding weapons. The text next to the picture, in a military style font, says “The Seals removed one threat to America,” a reference to the killing of Osama bin Laden. It continues, “Remove the other in November.”
The bottom of the sign says it’s a political ad, paid for by TJ Schad, and has a Gainesville address.
At his home Monday, Tom Schad said he’s not acting for any political party, committee or candidate. He simply saw a similar picture in an email, with an accompanying note that said it should be on every billboard across the country.
“It just started out as something fun to do,” he said. “Let’s see if I could do it. I didn’t have a clue how to do it.”
Schad said he knew the owner of TerryCo., the company who leased him the billboard space through the November election. He had an artist at an advertising agency design the ad and it was up within a week.
“I think we were just trying to make a statement,” he said. “We felt we needed to change direction in the country, and that’s what we did.”
A similar ad in Elkhart, Indiana prompted a small protest last week. The ad specifically referenced voters removing the president.
Some demonstrators said though that comparing military action to take out a terrorist, with removing a president from office, was too far. Schad said he didn’t see how people could take the ad that way.
“Other than the fact it’s got some seals in there with a gun,” he said. “But I think it’s pretty obvious what they did and what the statement is.”
TerryCo said it only received a few curious phone calls about the board, and Schad said he hasn’t received a single complaint.
Rather people keep forwarding him a picture that he took of the board, that has made its way onto internet blogs. The retired Air Force mechanic said his only previous entry into the political world was a spot on the town airport and appraisal boards. He said he wasn’t looking for publicity, but realized over the last couple weeks he was starting to get it.
“If you’re going to I guess you may as well jump in with both feet,” he said.
View the billboard

Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy

washingtontimes/Saying they’re fed up with being told they can’t do their jobs, 10 immigration agents on Thursday sued the Obama administration to try to halt the president’s new non-deportation policy and an earlier memo instructing them not to go after rank-and-file illegal immigrants.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, adds a legal controversy to the political fight that has been brewing over President Obama’s immigration policies, which have steadily narrowed the range of immigrants the government is targeting for deportation.
The 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and deportation officers said Mr. Obama’s policies force them to choose between enforcing the law and being reprimanded by superiors, or listening to superiors and violating their own oaths of office and a 1996 law that requires them to put those who entered the country illegally into deportation proceedings.
Upping the ante, the agents are being represented by a high-profile lawyer, Kris W. Kobach, secretary of state in Kansas and the chief promoter of state immigration crackdowns such as Arizona’s tough law.
“ICE is at a point now where agents are being told to break federal law, they’re pretty much told that any illegal alien under age of 31 is going to be let go. You can imagine, these law enforcement officers are being put in a horrible position,” Mr. Kobach said.
Last week, at Mr. Obama’s direction, the Homeland Security Department began taking applications from those 30 years of age or younger who came to the U.S. as children and who have kept a fairly clean criminal record. They are being granted “deferred action,” which is an official notice they are not to be deported, and will be allowed to obtain work permits to stay and get jobs legally in the U.S.
ICE officials didn’t have an immediate comment on the lawsuit, but the Obama administration has repeatedly defended the legality of its actions.
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July, Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, warned of the possibility of a lawsuit and asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if she would rescind the order before it came to that.
“Representative, I will not rescind it,” she replied. “It’s right on the law. It’s the right policy. It fits within our prosecutorial priorities. And although it came out of the Department of Homeland Security, let me say that president is foursquare behind it, embraces this policy as the right thing to do.”
She said the administration doesn’t have the ability to issue a stay of action for a broad category of people, but said the new policy is different because it invests decisions on a case-by-case basis with agents and officers, who are instructed not to pursue cases for those who meet the guidelines she laid out.
Ms. Napolitano said she’s acting in accordance with Supreme Court rulings that have established a wide latitude for discretion by the executive branch, and said federal law directs the administration to establish immigration enforcement priorities.
But in their 22-page complaint, the agents say they’ve been told in broad terms to ignore a whole class of illegal immigrants. They said they have been instructed not to bother asking for proof, but to take an illegal immigrant’s word that he would qualify for the president’s more liberal policy.
One of the instances the lawsuit cites is a now well-known case in El Paso where ICE Agent Samuel Martin picked up an illegal alien from the El Paso County jail. Agent Martin says the man tried to escape and, in the process, assaulted him and another agent — but when they got the man to ICE’s processing center agency supervisors said he had to be released under the new policies.
In that case, the issue wasn’t Mr. Obama’s recent policy on immigrants eligible under the so-called “Dream Act,” which stalled on Capitol Hill, but an earlier memo by ICE Director John Morton that said agents should focus on criminals and repeat-immigration offenders.
Chris Crane, an ICE deportation officer, president of the National ICE Council and one of those suing to stop the policy, said morale is low among rank-and-file employees at the agency.

Read more: Immigration agents sue to stop Obama's non-deportation policy - Washington Times

Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law

Always more laws to govern our lives. And that would be ok, but why does everything cost US money!?

Share if you care!

nytimes/In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.

Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.
“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.”
Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.
“It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”
In the Inland Empire, encompassing the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, the shortage of doctors is already severe. The population of Riverside County swelled 42 percent in the 2000s, gaining more than 644,000 people. It has continued to grow despite the collapse of one of the country’s biggest property bubbles and a jobless rate of 11.8 percent in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metro area.
But the growth in the number of physicians has lagged, in no small part because the area has trouble attracting doctors, who might make more money and prefer living in nearby Orange County or Los Angeles.
A government council has recommended that a given region have 60 to 80 primary care doctors per 100,000 residents, and 85 to 105 specialists. The Inland Empire has about 40 primary care doctors and 70 specialists per 100,000 residents — the worst shortage in California, in both cases.
Moreover, across the country, fewer than half of primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid patients as of 2008, making it hard for the poor to find care even when they are eligible for Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid accounts for more than one-third of the overall growth in coverage in President Obama’s health care law.
Providers say they are bracing for the surge of the newly insured into an already strained system.
Temetry Lindsey, the chief executive of Inland Behavioral & Health Services, which provides medical care to about 12,000 area residents, many of them low income, said she was speeding patient-processing systems, packing doctors’ schedules tighter and seeking to hire more physicians.
“We know we are going to be overrun at some point,” Ms. Lindsey said, estimating that the clinics would see new demand from 10,000 to 25,000 residents by 2014. She added that hiring new doctors had proved a struggle, in part because of the “stigma” of working in this part of California.
Across the country, a factor increasing demand, along with expansion of coverage in the law and simple population growth, is the aging of the baby boom generation. Medicare officials predict that enrollment will surge to 73.2 million in 2025, up 44 percent from 50.7 million this year.
“Older Americans require significantly more health care,” said Dr. Darrell G. Kirch, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges. “Older individuals are more likely to have multiple chronic conditions, requiring more intensive, coordinated care.”
The pool of doctors has not kept pace, and will not, health experts said. Medical school enrollment is increasing, but not as fast as the population. The number of training positions for medical school graduates is lagging. Younger doctors are on average working fewer hours than their predecessors. And about a third of the country’s doctors are 55 or older, and nearing retirement.
Physician compensation is also an issue. The proportion of medical students choosing to enter primary care has declined in the past 15 years, as average earnings for primary care doctors and specialists, like orthopedic surgeons and radiologists, have diverged. A study by the Medical Group Management Association found that in 2010, primary care doctors made about $200,000 a year. Specialists often made twice as much.
The Obama administration has sought to ease the shortage. The health care law increases Medicaid’s primary care payment rates in 2013 and 2014. It also includes money to train new primary care doctors, reward them for working in underserved communities and strengthen community health centers.
But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.
Many health experts in California said that while they welcomed the expansion of coverage, they expected that the state simply would not be ready for the new demand. “It’s going to be necessary to use the resources that we have smarter” in light of the doctor shortages, said Dr. Mark D. Smith, who heads the California HealthCare Foundation, a nonprofit group.
Dr. Smith said building more walk-in clinics, allowing nurses to provide more care and encouraging doctors to work in teams would all be part of the answer. Mr. Corcoran of the California Medical Association also said the state would need to stop cutting Medicaid payment rates; instead, it needed to increase them to make seeing those patients economically feasible for doctors.
More doctors might be part of the answer as well. The U.C. Riverside medical school is hoping to enroll its first students in August 2013, and is planning a number of policies to encourage its graduates to stay in the area and practice primary care.
But Dr. Olds said changing how doctors provided care would be more important than minting new doctors. “I’m only adding 22 new students to this equation,” he said. “That’s not enough to put a dent in a 5,000-doctor shortage.”