Is THIS how it starts?

CA Judge Deems Ramming Jewish Woman with Shopping Cart ‘Free Speech’

The Blaze

 

Back in June of 2010 a leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at University of Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine. The counter-protest was dubbed “Israel Wants Peace Week.”

Now, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg has deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in protected political speech.

The Greeley Gazette reports:

On Thursday U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg stated. “Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Seeborg said that much of the conduct involved “pure political speech” that is constitutionally protected even if it “contained language that plaintiffs believe was inflammatory, offensive or untrue.”

Seeborg said some courts have allowed public colleges to outlaw harassing speech and conduct that interferes with students’ rights, but schools have no legal duty to do so. The Muslim organizations receive campus funding on the same basis as other groups, the judge said, and any attempt to withdraw it would raise “serious First Amendment issues.”

The Huffington Post adds:

The suit also alleged this attack was part of a pattern of behavior during Apartheid Week, during which Jewish students were spit on and Israel’s government was equated to that of Nazi Germany.

While the university has previously disciplined some of the event’s participants and even had Husam Zakharia, the student who hit Felber with the shopping cart, arrested in connection with the incident, Felber (who graduated last year) has accused university President Mark Yudof, who is Jewish, of allowing an anti-Semitic environment to flourish on campus.

SJP and Zakharia have been involved in other incidents on campus to incite violence against and intimidate Jewish and other students,” stated the lawsuit. “Defendants knew of this history of incitement and intimidation yet took no reasonable step to adequately control Zakharia or other student members of the SPJ.”

Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer said the judge’s decision affirms that Muslims assaulting Jewish students is now protected speech.

“This is an outrageous decision. The Muslim students were trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Jewish students. The judge says this is a ruling in favor of free speech, but actually the freedom of speech was being infringed and the judge is saying that is ok to protect the freedom of speech of the Muslim students. Don’t the Jewish students have freedom of speech as well?”

http://news.yahoo.com/ca-judge-deems-ramming-jewish-woman-shopping-cart-003506015.html

Good Morning, friends... Our Eva's back!

See you tomorrow!

Good Night, friends!

If it were only lumps of coal...

Ten Months and Counting

Michael Oberndorf, RPA Full Story

It’s ironic that Obama-Soetoro should have put so many lumps of coal in American’s Christmas stockings this year, since one of them was EPA regulations designed to kill the coal industry itself. 

However, that was but one of many really evil, dangerous, and destructive acts performed this year by the would-be Marxist dictator currently squatting in the White House. In collusion with his stooges in the Senate and the House, he took some giant steps that shredded the Constitution and moved us to the very brink of totalitarian rule.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43637

Here's your Daily Catz!

We'll have no self-defense--and we'll be at the mercy of muslim oil...

Panetta to Unveil Plan to Decimate the Military

By Rick Moran


It was US defense policy for decades that we should have a military capable of fighting one large ground war (formerly in Europe) and a smaller, regional war (Korea) at the same time. This made sense in a bi-polar world where the Soviets were threatening Europe and Asia was a tinderbox. In the early part of this century, Donald Rumsfeld sought to change that strategy - or at least alter its parameters - by emphasizing special forces and intelligence as a means to fight the jihadists. But he still wanted to maintain 11 carrier strike groups and a large, global, air force capable of projecting American power in a very short period of time.

Now comes Obama and Leon Panetta who appear to want to upend the military establishment and, thanks to the inability of congress to agree on budget cuts, slice a trillion dollars out of the defense budget over the next decade while degrading our ability to respond to crisis.

New York Times:

In a shift of doctrine driven by fiscal reality and a deal last summer that kept the United States from defaulting on its debts, Mr. Panetta is expected to outline plans for carefully shrinking the military - and in so doing make it clear that the Pentagon will not maintain the ability to fight two sustained ground wars at once.

Instead, he will say that the military will be large enough to fight and win one major conflict, while also being able to "spoil" a second adversary's ambitions in another part of the world while conducting a number of other smaller operations, like providing disaster relief or enforcing a no-flight zone.

Pentagon officials, in the meantime, are in final deliberations about potential cuts to virtually every important area of military spending: the nuclear arsenal, warships, combat aircraft, salaries, and retirement and health benefits. With the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, Mr. Panetta is weighing how significantly to shrink America's ground forces.

There is broad agreement on the left, right and center that $450 billion in cuts over a decade - the amount that the White House and Pentagon agreed to last summer - is acceptable. That is about 8 percent of the Pentagon's base budget. But there is intense debate about an additional $500 billion in cuts that may have to be made if Congress follows through with deeper reductions.

Much of these cuts would come at the expense of personnel in the form of reduced salaries, health insurance, and retirement benefits. The F-35 stealth fighter is almost certainly on the chopping block, as are plans to replace aging ships with newer models. Reductions in the number of ground forces might be doable if we continue to see China and Russia as, if not friends, then as not quite enemies. But it would take years to grow our ground forces to the point where we could fight a winning war against either of those two potential adversaries - years that we wouldn't have to counter a move by China into Taiwan, or a restless Russia trying to recapture its old empire.

The military budget should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other government spending. And we must carefully and thoughtfully develop a defense strategy that is realistic and prudent. But there is nothing realistic or prudent about cutting a trillion dollars over a decade from our defense budget. It won't make us safer and will make the world a more dangerous place.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/panetta_to_unveil_plan_to_decimate_the_military.html 

Remember how Zero won before...

Americans Elect: Obama's Third-Party Tar Pit

By Jared E. Peterson

Anyone with the remotest interest in replacing Barack Obama as America's president in 2012 should take his eyes off Iowa and the boring ups and downs of the race for the Republican nomination.

The real action that may well decide our next president is quietly going on elsewhere, in the state offices that qualify candidates and parties for the November 2012 presidential ballot. 

You may not have heard much about a shadowy group called "Americans Elect" (it does not disclose its contributors because of alleged concerns that they might suffer loss of business or social contacts, and because it fancifully but only occasionally declares itself to be a 501[c] [4] tax-exempt organization [though it has qualified as a political party for ballot position in multiple states including Ohio, California, Nevada, and Arizona, which should deprive it of tax-exempt status]).  But if you haven't heard of Americans Elect, you soon will.

Given the organization's original moneybags founder and current "chairman," Peter Ackerman (mega-rich Wall Street 2008 Obama supporter), its stated goals, and the nature of American politics, it bids fair to decide who will prevail for the presidency in 2012.

Americans Elect is presently a tax-exempt organization (or a political party, at least in the states where it has qualified for the ballot -- one can't be sure which) with the stated goal of promoting a centrist third-party presidential candidate, to be selected from a nomination process that at least in part winnows candidates through internet voting.  It plans to gain access to the ballot in all 50 states, and it has already qualified in multiple states (see above for partial list).

At present, the organization has raised $22M (the first $5M from Wall Street heavy Peter Ackerman, about whom more later), and it is aiming for $35M, the sum its string-pullers believe will be needed to get its candidate on all 50 state ballots.

For a fawning, shallow, and utterly predictable MSM description of the organization and its goals, which takes at face value everything Americans Elect says about itself, check out CNN's 12/29/2011 article. 

For an even scarier MSM direct promotion of a group virtually destined to save the nation, see this interview by MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, presenting Americans Elect's Chief Executive Officer Kahlil Byrd (former "communications director" to Massachusetts' left-wing Democrat Governor Deval Patrick).

Interestingly, no candidate has announced his/her intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination, and no political movement is clamoring for such a party.  Thus, this so-called third party is a response neither to a specific candidate's presidential aspirations (there is no such candidate) nor to a spontaneous programmatic movement seeking a candidate (again, no such movement exists).

Americans Elect is a political party (but only when seeking ballot qualification; it calls itself a tax exempt 501[c] [4] organization when keeping prying eyes away from its donor list), but a party with no public program, platform, or publicly stated philosophy, and no public donor list -- all of which might help interested parties evaluate it -- nor does it have a candidate or candidates, or even public criteria for selecting candidates.

Its public statements (See Byrd's pronouncements above) suggest that some sort of new-age internet vote-off will determine its presidential candidate, but the organization's bylaws strongly suggest that the Americans Elect board will make the final candidate choice, and that the internet voting prelude is a sham to draw in the unsophisticated.

In short, Americans Elect is like the Republicans and Democrats, but without their scrupulous honesty, openness, and transparency.  What's not to like?

This "party" is in fact the reverse of a candidate or a movement -- it is an empty political vehicle formed for a candidate yet to be identified who will agree with the party's program to be determined later.  Sound fishy yet?

If I were really paranoid, I would suspect that Americans Elect was a joint creation of the Democratic and Republican Party central commands to make their parties look good by contrast.

Alas, were it only so. 

After qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states, Americans Elect will seek a candidate who will be tasked with grabbing a large portion of the independent, unaffiliated American middle and soft center-right, thereby tossing an otherwise lost cause to Obama.  It is that simple.

PLEASE READ MORE:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/americans_elect_obamas_third-party_tar_pit.html

(Ribbet)

Let's all remember the underhandedness by which Obama won his Senate races. This is the same song, second verse. Please read the entire article at the above-mentioned link; I couldn't post the entire piece here...

Good Morning, Pond People!

Heck, it's probably noon by now and he's missing his tee time...

What Obama's working towards...

The Coming War in America

By Doug Hagmann

As the attention of most Americans was captivated by the shiny object in Times Square this weekend like infants fixated on car keys dangled in front of them, Barack Hussein Obama signed into law H.R. 1540, better known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Regardless of any concurrent executive signing statements that are mere window dressing and not legally binding, Obama and every member of congress who crafted and voted for this act has essentially declared war on American citizens on U.S. soil.

To quote Rush Limbaugh, “words mean things.” As a career investigator, I can assure you that words contained in local, state and federal laws most certainly mean things, and provide the legal authority for conduct sanctioned by national or state authorities without regard to any promised judicial or prosecutorial discretion that could be likened to the signing statement. The NDAA now codifies the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act, which “candidate” Obama publicly opposed. What changed?

Greasing the slope

Any person of reasonable sensibilities should be raising a multitude of questions upon considering the current and historical conduct of the executive and legislative branches of our government. It was the attack on 9/11 that ostensibly paved the way for the Bush administration to craft the USA PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law by congress on October 26, 2001. That legislation broadened law enforcement powers well beyond the rights granted to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. While many of the provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act were scheduled to end on December 31, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill containing numerous changes in July 2005, and the House of Representatives submitted a bill that kept most of the original bill intact. The largely unchanged bill passed congressional vote on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by George W. Bush.

Although the PATRIOT Act has gone through various subsequent incarnations, congress crafted and Obama signed a four-year extension last May, extending certain key provisions that particularly focused on businesses in the U.S.  It is important to note that the manner and methods in which the U.S. government interprets and carries out the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are classified and kept secret from the American public, an issue rarely addressed by politicians or pundits. Why the secrecy?

Continuity of agenda

One must also question the obvious continuity of agenda from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, and from the congress seated in 2001 through today. Despite pro-Constitutional campaign rhetoric from both Republicans and Democrats, and the rapid acquiescence of some TEA party candidates who now occupy seats of power, it is obvious that the rights of Americans granted by the very Constitution elected officials swore to uphold are under attack. Why the change? As one looks at the larger picture, pieces of the puzzle seems to become more recognizable.

The move toward globalism

Once thought to be the fanciful designs of the conspiracy minded, there appears to be an acceleration toward one world governance, or the infamous “New World Order.” It is an agenda that has been in place for decades, yet the politically myopic and the agent facilitators deliberately avoid any discussion of its existence. Exposure of this agenda has been hobbled by the merger of major news organizations into a half-dozen corporations who control what is reported. Even many who present themselves as purveyors of the truth decline to discuss the globalist agenda, or are held hostage by big money contracts with editorial stipulations and controls.

While the attacks of 9/11 paved the way for passage of the PATRIOT Act, what could explain the draconian legislation contained in the NDAA of 2012? Looking through the prism of current events, those with intellectual honesty can readily see events unfolding that would create conditions to necessitate its implementation.

Controlled economic collapse

Who could have predicted the economic crisis of 2008, just two months before the U.S. presidential election? Nearly everyone who was aware of the agenda of the global elite. The economic crisis of 2008, an incident which the banking elite used the specter of martial law to fund their global operations, landed a financial sucker punch on every American with the approval of congress. Using such phrases as “too big to fail,” banking giants, facilitated by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury and members of congress knowingly and deliberately defrauded the American public out of trillions of dollars, much of which remains unaccounted for despite dubious internal financial audit reports.

While the corporate media remain lapdogs for the banking and global elite and report recovery on the horizon, the real story has yet to be told by our media and elected officials. There is a controlled demolition of not only our national economy, but the entire world economy.  Look at the financial death throes of the European Union, which cannot survive, despite the best fiction from cable news economists hired to hide the truth from the masses. The consequential social upheaval will not be contained to Europe, nor will the economic apocalypse. Due to the Ponzi scheme created by the globalist bankers and government leaders from the Goldman-Sachs bloodline, Americans will find themselves in financial turmoil unseen in modern history.

Perhaps it is for those who cannot seem to take their eyes of the shiny objects, or those who camp out at big box stores for bargains on the latest and greatest electronic gadgets that the NDAA was crafted.

Note: For detailed discussion on the signing of the NDAA, tune in to the new Hagmann & Hagmann Report, broadcast live in audio and video format weeknights from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. ET on the Liberty Broadcasting Network. The new show debuts today. For more information, click here.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43630

Good Morning, Pond friends! I love you all!

See you tomorrow, friends!

Beautiful words, enduring ideas...

Timshel, America

By Cindy Simpson

Of the many novels based on the biblical account of Cain and Abel, one of the most unforgettable and beautifully written is John Steinbeck's classic, East of Eden.  A compelling saga spanning three generations of two families living in the Salinas region of California, Steinbeck's story revolves around the central theme of timshel, a Hebrew word meaning "thou mayest."  In the book, Lee, a Chinese servant, relates his conclusion of the critical importance of this word from his intensive study of three different translations of Genesis 4, verse 7:

The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin...The King James translation makes a promise in 'Thou shalt,' meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel-'Thou mayest'- that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if 'Thou mayest'-it is also true that 'Thou mayest not.'

...[T]here are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, 'Do thou,' and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in 'Thou shalt.' Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But 'Thou mayest'! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win. [i]

Lee was describing God's assertion to Cain of his freedom to choose his own path.  Thousands of years later, fifty-six men declared their "great choice" to pursue a radical new course and assert their Creator's gift of this freedom -- when they penned this famous document:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In the Imprimis article, "The Unity and Beauty of the Declaration and the Constitution," Hillsdale College president Dr. Larry Arnn described America's founders as humble, hunted men who pledged their lives in a way "people talk on a battlefield when they are ready to die for each other." And countless men did die in the long and brutal war -- fighting for the liberty of future generations, paying for the ideals embodied in our founding documents with their own blood.

Although these patriots likely never studied the Hebrew translation of Genesis 4:7 with the determination of Steinbeck's Lee, by their actions they nevertheless asserted agreement with his conclusion: their Creator had endowed men with the gift of free will and all that it entailed. They fully realized that humans are not infallible and are equally capable of choosing -- "thou mayest" or "thou mayest not" -- and thus require a system of laws and strong national security to protect the rights of all and to foster virtue; a framework enforced by a government limited with a solid arrangement of checks and balances. 

Dr. Patrick Deneen, in his presentation "Community AND Liberty OR Individualism AND Statism" for the I.S.I. conference on "The Language of Liberty," explained that in earlier times, liberty was considered "the cultivated ability to exercise self-governance, to limit ourselves in accordance with our nature and the natural world.  The various practices by which we exercise self-limitation and self-governance is comprehensively called virtue...the inability or unwillingness to exercise virtue was tantamount to the absence of liberty...Thus, for the ancients, law was not an unnatural imposition of humanity's natural freedom; rather, law (ideally, a self-imposed law) was the necessary and enabling condition for liberty." 

The founders clearly understood this "language of liberty," as opposed to what Dr. Deneen calls today's "false choice" between "siblings" expressed as individualism and statism. Deneen asserts that the "true choice [is] between distinct and competing ideas of the very nature of liberty itself," with true liberty being the "achievement of self-governance."

In practical terms, American Thinker's Daren Jonescu argues that the statist-driven "tide of anti-individualist morality, which has gradually swept the flotsam of entitlement, hyper-regulation, and disregard for the rights of others onto America's shores" can be reversed with a determined fight over a defining issue such as health care.  Jonescu asserts that "the issue must be presented as a fundamental moral divide in the broadest terms: individual liberty versus serfdom."

The issue that matters most...is not, "Which system is the best means of providing for the preservation of the citizenry?"  The central issue is, "Who gets to make the decisions about the means to a citizen's preservation: the citizen or the state?"  If the latter, then the final line has been crossed -- the citizen belongs to the state, as property to a property owner.  An owner has decision-making authority over the preservation of his property.  If the state has decision-making authority over the preservation of your body, then you do not own yourself...

And, if one does not own oneself, the Creator-endowed individual right of "thou mayest" or "thou mayest not," tempered by the "ancient virtue of self-government," is transformed into the state's command of "do thou" and "do thou not."

"Do thou" is a command of a bureaucratic, tyrannical government comprised of myriad rules and regulations, as opposed to a republic organized around principles and liberating goals grounded in Judeo-Christian morality. As Dr. Arnn explained "[W]e are supposed to have a very powerful government in order for it to do what it must, but also a government of a far different character than the kind we have today."  Americans must be educated to understand the fundamental and critical differences between self-government, bureaucracy and a constitutional republic, and the impact each has upon individual freedom and the expression of virtue.

America was founded as a nation that understood "thou mayest," a shining place that emphasized individual liberty and virtue, governed by ideas and values woven into the beautiful framework of the Declaration and the Constitution. Dr. Deneen reminds us of the lovely second verse of the hymn, "America the Beautiful":

O beautiful for pilgrim feet, whose stern impassioned stress,
A thoroughfare of freedom beat across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!

While our personal New Year's resolutions are still fresh on our minds, another kind of resolve for "We the People" must also be contemplated:  the vital need to halt the loss of individual freedom -- an eroding movement that has gained in momentum and threatens to ultimately transform our nation into a tyranny that commands of its people, "do thou."  We must strive to assert the responsibility found in "thou mayest."

The upcoming elections provide us with a defining moment -- an opportunity to choose our course, and to "fight it through and win."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/timshel_america.html#ixzz1iDoH5cLc

Good Morning, Pond friends--and Happy 2012!!!

Happy New Year Pond People and much love from Frog & 'Wog!

What a dull Caturday!

What new idiocy is this?

Ron Paul Blames the Jews for '93 WTC Bombing
By Rick Moran December 31, 2011


The crisis facing America is fertile ground to grow crack pots and fringe players like him. More

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/ron_paul_blames_the_jews_for_93_wtc_bombing.html

Good Morning, lovely Pond friends!

Have a lovely evening, Ponders!

My sister is so wonderful and sweet...

"I did tikkun olem...

I got a cinnamon roll at Starbucks by bus stop.

(paid for with gift card from Ted I got for Christmas)

There was a couple at my second bus stop.

Looked very cold. Then the man got up and draped

Blankets over the lady to keep her warm.

I gave them my cinnamon roll."

*     *     *

I don't know what's the matter with those squirrels--they're just not sleek...

Good Morning, Pond friends! We had a problem with our Monorail...

...I see a lot of improper tail management here.

Good Night, Pond People!

Halp!

I'm a little under the weather (or over it).

What's your weather like Gloria and Paget? I'm going to bed... back later.

Have a nice day, Pond People! Good...

See you tomorrow!

                                                                                                  Good  Night!

This is about all I can manage today...

Good Morning, Pond People!

Good Night (Mommee says I have to go to bed...)

'Bye...

Good Morning, Pond friends!

See you tomorrow!

Here's your Daily Catz!

A 'Think-Toon' by Chuck Asay:

The police state Obama's always wanted...

Preparing For Martial Law

By Doug Hagmann

Was the timing merely serendipitous or is something else at play? Yesterday was the “birthday” of the United States Bill of Rights, which our forefathers ratified exactly 220 years ago. The same people who believe the constitution is a living, breathing document just put it on a respirator, metaphorically speaking, by passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).  Obama has declared his intent to sign the legislation, despite initial indications from the White House of a veto (more on that dog-and-pony show later in this writing).

NDAA: The 2012 version

Every year, a new version of the defense authorization bill is crafted and ultimately enacted into law. It is an extensive piece of legislation that appropriates funds to defense projects. The current bill provides for a $662 billion defense budget and places the chief of the National Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff despite strong opposition of some military leaders. The massive budget allocation and the creation of a cabinet position for the chief of the U.S. National Guard is not at issue, however. The somewhat muted public frenzy over this bill stems from controversial and seemingly contradictory language that will have an impact on all United States citizens.

The language of the bill is readily available on numerous open source government sites, so it will not be included here. It was detailed in my previous article titled Connecting the dots of the National Defense Authorization Act, and its implications discussed in Judi McLeod’s article “Disappearing dissenters in Obama’s new Amerika.” Yet, there seems to be a full frontal assault by Democrats and Republicans alike to whitewash the bill’s actual ability and intent.

Clearing the controversy

While one section of the bill seems to exclude U.S. citizens from all aspects of this legislation, the key lies in the placement of discretion of exactly who fits the broad definition of a “terrorist” or broader still, someone who has engaged in a “belligerent act.” The bottom line is that the NDAA bill contains language that will codify, or make into law, the much debated act of defining U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. It will leave that discretionary power to the executive branch.

While many readers have contended that nothing in this bill applies to U.S. citizens, Senator Carl Levin, the bill’s sponsor, explicitly disagrees. Even more alarming, it was Senator Levin who announced in Senate chambers that it was Barack Obama himself who demanded the verbiage that includes U.S. citizens as fair game by our own military on U.S. soil. This followed Senator Lindsey Graham’s gleeful announcement that through the passage of this draconian legislation, the whole of America is now a battlefield and a venue in which the U.S. military may operate against its own.

Even in the face of such official pronouncements, there are many legislators who insist that this bit of lawyer-speak does not apply to citizens, and to think it does is just plain silly. Republican Congressman Tim Griffin, for example, has dedicated a Face Book site to decry the myths of the NDAA, showing readers in that venue where he is correct and others are not. Griffin is just one of many attempting to convince an unsuspecting public to relax, continue shopping and allow the government to handle such matters.

Read more...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43272

The light bulb didn't come on...

Obama Keeps a Promise

By Michael Oberndorf, RPA

Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro is a sociopathic liar. He says what he thinks his audience on a given day wants to hear, promising the sun and the moon. The next day, he will say the total opposite, if that’s what the new audience wants. He’s not a flip-flopper, he’s a compulsive liar.

However, there is one promise he made, back during the 2008 campaign, that it appears he’s not going back on and is actually going to keep. Unfortunately for the American people, it’s a promise that will cost us dearly, and possible destroy us as a viable economic nation.

In an interview on November 2, 2008, Obama-Soetoro outlined his plan to impose the so-called cap-and-trade system, a plan devised by radical inventors of man-made global warming, that he said would bankrupt the coal and coal-fired energy industry by imposing hugely expensive environmental restrictions on them. As it turned out, the American people, led by the Tea Parties, pressured Congress to kill this bald-faced attempt to wreck the economy.

Not to be deterred though, by the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve, the Marxists and neo-fascists in the Obama-Soetoro administration have made it clear that they intend to ignore the Constitution, end-run Congress, and impose their job-killing, economy-destroying agenda on America, whether Americans like it or not. And they have chosen the EPA – the unconstitutional Environmental Protection Agency – as the vehicle to do this.

The most recent among many draconian outrages imposed by the rogue EPA are a set of regulations called MACT – Maximum Achievable Control Technology. They are Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro’s green and red Christmas gift to the nation. It is estimated they will result in the closing of some 60 coal-fired power plants, huge rises in the cost of electricity, and the direct destruction of at least 3000 jobs. The ripple effect from this, though, is likely to be tens of thousands of lost jobs and the human misery caused by this, and billions in economic losses. Merry Christmas, America!

Read more...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43487

Hello, Ponders!

To all my Pond friends and visitors:

Merry Christmas!