Up until the mid-1980s, Alabama was a one-party State, and that party was the Democratic Party. While there were a few Republican legislators, no Republicans held State office, nor did any have a chance of holding State office. That all changed in 1986.
That year, the race for Governor was down to two men to succeed the retiring George Wallace. The Democratic primary pitted Lieutenant Governor Bill Baxley — whose support came primarily from blacks, labor unions and State employees (i.e., the establishment) — against Attorney General Charles Graddick — a former Republican whose support came primarily from white conservatives. The winner of the primary would have a cakewalk to the Governor’s mansion against only token Republican opposition. (For comparison, 970,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary election for Governor. Only 30,000 voted in the Republican primary.)
During the run-up to the runoff election, Graddick courted Republican voters, encouraging them to “cross over” and vote for him. Voters did; and by a narrow margin, Graddick won.
That didn’t sit well with Baxley or the State Democratic machine. Baxley sued. The Democratic Party went through the voter rolls and determined that thousands of people who had voted in the Republican primary had crossed over and voted in the Democratic runoff. Those votes were thrown out and Baxley was handed the nomination.
State and Federal courts exploded with lawsuits over the matter. When the dust cleared, the courts sided with Baxley. But the brouhaha destroyed the Democratic Party. Baxley ran on the Democratic ticket. Graddick entered as a write-in. Neither would win.
Instead, Republican Guy Hunt — an egg farmer, Amway distributor, Baptist minister and former rural probate judge with just a high school education — won the election. And he did so with little help from what State Republican apparatus there was. Republicans thought Hunt such a long shot they devoted their energies and money to — unsuccessfully — helping Senator Jeremiah Denton’s re-election campaign.
An Oct. 25, 1986 article in The New York Times reflected the mood of Alabama voters:
“I voted Democratic in the June primary, but after all the mud-slinging by the Democrats I’m with Mr. Hunt now,” said Charlotte Walker of nearby Tuscaloosa, who, with her husband, Johnny, shook Mr. Hunt’s hand and promised to do what they could for him before the election Nov. 4.
“What the Democrats have done has been horrible — an embarrassment to Alabama,” Mrs. Walker said.
Since then, only one Democrat — Don Siegelman — has been elected Governor, and he was defeated in his bid for a second term in a Democratic primary election that occurred while he was on trial for bribery and mail fraud.
Now, not a single Democrat holds State office in Alabama. And in 2010, both Houses of the Alabama legislature fell into Republican hands for the first time.
Now to Mississippi. In order to secure his re-election and help him stave off Tea Party-backed challenger Chris McDaniel, Republican Senator Thad Cochran and the GOP establishment solicited Democrat crossover votes. The ploy worked… at least in the short term.
McDaniel may challenge the results. His supporters hint there are thousands of examples of “voting irregularities.” But whether he does or not, the fight has already divided Mississippi Republicans. McDaniel supporters are likely to be loath to vote for Cochran, especially given that a Cochran radio ad accused McDaniel supporters of racism and of trying to stop blacks from voting.
If McDaniel voters stay home (and who could blame them?), can Cochran hold off Democrat Travis Childers? And it appears some McDaniel voters won’t just stay home: They may cross over themselves and vote for Childers, according to The Times:
Some of the national Tea Party groups that poured money into Mr. McDaniel’s campaign were so angry that they were considering drastic options to keep their candidate afloat politically.
According to one person involved in the discussions among the leaders of these groups, the possibilities include trying to build support for a third-party run by Mr. McDaniel — a move that would almost certainly draw Republican votes away from Mr. Cochran and help his Democratic challenger, Travis Childers.
In addition, some Tea Party leaders were discussing throwing their weight behind Mr. Childers. Though he is a Democrat, some of his views — he is anti-abortion and opposes the Affordable Care Act — are attractive to conservatives. “The Tea Party is so burned they may do something radical,” a conservative leader involved in the planning said, asking not to be named in order to discuss internal deliberations.
Some Tea Party supporters were pushing for Mr. McDaniel to wage a write-in campaign in the general election.
So the question becomes: In order to keep an establishment Republican — a senile old coot who admits to having done questionable things to farm animals — in office and thwart a conservative challenge, has the establishment of the GOP pooped in their nest as the Alabama Democrats did 28 years ago?
Although it may be embarrassing to discuss the unpleasant condition of hemorrhoids with your healthcare provider, it could be important for your digestive and excretory health.
Hemorrhoids occur when the veins located in your rectum and anus become inflamed, swollen and twisted. They can be very painful and are most often caused by constipation or pressure during bowel movements. For women, they can develop during pregnancy and childbirth.
The symptoms include blood in your stool, itching and rectal pain. If you are over the age of 50 and see an increase in the amount of blood in your stool on a regular basis, it’s best to see a physician regarding your condition. The blood may be a sign of abnormal cell growth in your rectum or colon.
Check out these at-home solutions to relieve your hemorrhoids:
- Help solve your constipation woes with more fiber and whole foods, plus add probiotics for digestion and drink plenty of water. Some studies recommend you drink at least half your body weight in ounces (i.e., a 150-pound person should drink 75 ounces of water).
- Dab a cotton ball with witch hazel or apple cider vinegar and apply to the hemorrhoid. It should begin to shrink in about 15 minutes. Wipes and ointments are also available with witch hazel and other natural ingredients.
- Use a sitz bath to soothe inflammation. This process involves sitting in shallow bath of warm water for 10 to 15 minutes to help relieve the pain.
If you continue to experience hemorrhoids, your physician may recommend several surgical procedures to reduce the inflammation.
For a mere $2,500, the Walton County, Fla., Sheriff’s Department purchased a military surplus mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle — that cost more than $500,000 to build — to help with its law enforcement activities. This is the same vehicle that the U.S. military deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq to use against insurgents.
The Florida county is just one in a long line of communities using Federal programs designed to militarize local law enforcement by providing them with military equipment and military training. Studies estimate as many as 500 communities have acquired MRAPs. The result has helped to turn local police and sheriff’s departments — originally tasked to protect and serve their public — into violent, shoot-first quasi-military organizations terrorizing and abusing the public. This is not hyperbole, as we show regularly in our Power Of The State section.
Walton County is so idyllic and peaceful that residents feel no need to lock their doors, and its peaceful nature is so over-the-top unusual that one of its communities was chosen as the location for filming “The Truman Show.” Yet Sheriff Mike Adkinson said the MRAP was needed as an “insurance policy” to keep deputies safe in dangerous situations.
The problem with police departments acquiring new military “toys” comes in the fact that, when toys are acquired, they are wont to be used. And therein lies the rub. Police use flimsy evidence to suggest “threats” exist, and the military tactics escalate encounters and create more violence.
The American Civil Liberties Union recently completed a study of 800 deployments by heavily armed Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams from 20 law enforcement agencies over the period 2011-2012. It found that more than three-fourths of the deployments were executed — often using MRAPs — to search a person’s home, and more than 60 percent of the time the searches were for drugs. But in at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studied, no drugs were found. And because police reports were often incomplete, the ACLU notes that the actual figure could be as high as 65 percent.
SWAT teams were originally created to respond to hostage, barricade or active shooter scenarios. But only 7 percent of deployments in the ACLU study were employed for SWAT teams’ original intent.
Records provided the ACLU by 63 responding law enforcement agencies showed they received “a total of 15,054 items of battle uniforms or personal protective equipment” in 2011-2012.
In addition to battle uniforms and gear, officers are increasingly trained in military tactics and they increasingly come from the ranks of military units previously deployed in war zones. Their training “encourages them to adopt a ‘warrior’ mentality and think of people they are supposed to serve as enemies.” And the equipment they use includes battering rams, flashbang grenades and the aforementioned MRAPS or other armored personnel carriers.
It’s not unusual for the raids to be carried out late at night to increase the confusion among the occupants who are startled from sleep. But it also increases the likelihood innocents are in the house, which increases the danger to them.
To put into perspective just how twisted local law enforcement agencies have become, consider this quote from Sgt. Dan Downing of the Morgan County, Indiana Sheriff’s Department. Regarding his agency’s acquisition of an MRAP, he said: “The weaponry is totally different now that it was in the beginning of my career, plus, you have a lot of people who are coming out of the military that have the ability and knowledge to build IEDs and to defeat law enforcement techniques.”
This straw man argument is increasingly being promoted by the Federal government in propaganda pieces distributed by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as I’ve reported before. But to hear it come from a member of a local law enforcement agency, the ranks of which contain many “people who are coming out of the military,” is mind-boggling. Plus, I have yet to see an instance reported of a U.S. veteran employing IEDs against local police.
In fact, attacks on police are down. Firearm-related deaths of police officers reached a 126-year low in 2013, according to a report by the national Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. It’s the second year in a row for a decline, and the number of firearm-related police fatalities has dropped each decade since the 1970s.
The creation of the DHS after 9/11 has contributed to the militarization of local police departments by dispersing grant money and eliciting their assistance in so-called anti-terrorism enforcement. These grants have enabled local departments to stockpile specialized equipment in order to facilitate “readiness” for a terror event. It also increased the contact between a quasi-military agency — the DHS — and local departments.
Violent SWAT raids have resulted in death and injury of innocents — including women and children — often in homes targeted by mistake. Even pets aren’t safe around SWAT teams and patrol officers.
A 2012 report by the CATO Institute found that “40,000 [SWAT raids] per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.”
The DHS long ago jumped the shark in regard to considering all Americans as potential terrorists, and this mindset has increasingly filtered into local police departments through their ongoing contacts and training with DHS. But as we’ve told you before, most, if not all, U.S. terror plots are actually instigated and planned by the FBI.
The militarized mindset is not just reserved to SWAT officers, but has trickled down into all reaches of law enforcement, as evidenced by the increased prevalence of violent encounters between police and peaceful citizens.
Cops have come to think of themselves as gods above the law whose commands are to be obeyed immediately and without question. Any hesitation often leads to the “suspect” being left bleeding and broken or quivering from electricity introduced by a Taser. It doesn’t matter if the person was unable to understand the command because of a language barrier or if the person was unable to comply due to disability or defect. Officers expect immediate and complete compliance with no questions asked.
They are increasingly shooting dogs for barking, shocking with Tasers (see here and here) and pepper spraying children in schools, and shooting wheelchair-bound men in the streets. They apparently feel they operate above the law.
And their militarized appearance, backed by their militarized vehicles and overbearingly intimidating demeanor and the increasingly violent interactions they are having with the public, is creating a sense of fear. And that fear is justified, given that public safety is no longer the number one goal of local police.
How do I know that? By the actions and words of police departments acquiring the weaponry and using the tactics.
“I know that if somebody was in harm’s way, I wouldn’t let public opinion decide the safety of my deputy,” Adkinson said. “Safety is my number one priority.”
“At the end of the day, it gives the guys the ability to go home safely,” said Downing, “So, no matter what the price tag is on it, as long as they get to go home, that’s all that really matters.”
Note that it’s the safety of law enforcement that is the “number one priority” and “that’s all that really matters.”
I am not a psychiatrist, but it is evident that a certain psychosis is prevalent in the minds of progressives/statists — or those who are sycophants of the regime or the state or its “leaders,” however you choose to describe it.
We make no bones about the fact that Personal Liberty Digest™ is a site that promotes and espouses the true conservative ideals of small government as prescribed by the Constitution, liberty, personal responsibility, laissez-faire capitalism and non-aggression. These are subjects I have been writing about since 1969 in my printed newsletter, The Bob Livingston Letter™ (www.boblivingstonletter.com, subscription required), and here at Personal Liberty since 2008.
These things — small, Constitutional government; liberty; personal responsibility; laissez-faire capitalism; and non-aggression — are apparently anathema to progressives who worship the state and the regime. Yet we have a large number of them commenting on articles each day (though by the nature of many of their comments, it is unclear whether they bothered to read the articles beforehand). Their comments, when they are anything more than a string of invectives or expletives, are generally contumelious and seem to focus on how irrelevant, kooky, out of the main or downright ignorant they think are conservative ideas and Constitutionalism. From there they typically degenerate to simply trying to shout down or shut up either the author or another commenter.
When queried on why they frequent a site that holds views they find so distasteful and populated by commenters they believe are so “moronic” (their words, see below) the response is usually that 1) they are trying to “educate” conservatives or 2) they find the views and comments “entertaining.”
Doubtless, some of them may be serious about their desire to “educate” conservatives. But as conservatism is a philosophy based on logic and reason and progressivism/statism/collectivism is a philosophy based on emotion and control, the likelihood of a conservative to progressive conversion taking place is less than slim.
Besides, for purposes of educating the readers, progressive commenters offer mind-bending and enlightening commentary like:
What a moron
Talking about yourself "simpleton"?
No, you’re the idiot.
What does this have to do with liberty??
Just sounds like right winged garbage.
As I said , YOU are a complete moron. Get a life
These are just a small sampling of many similar comments from this commenter and are not repeats. And should anyone believe that one commenter has been taken out of context and I have made a mountain from a molehill, there’s this:
- Bob Blanstonoff
- Bob Blanstonoff
If we wanted any crap out of you we’d pull off your head and dip it out of your neck!
- Bob Blanstonoff
- Bob Blanstonoff
- Bob Blanstonoff
Please do everyone a favor and go get embalmed.
- Bob Blanstonoff
Please butt the hell out, Biotch!
- Ron r
Go play idiot.
- Ron r
Give specifics , not talking points. Hell I domes ignor my grown a– children. Does that make me a bad parent ?
- Ron r
- Ron r
Go rob a church
- Ron r
Did you have something of importance to add to the discussion ? If not stop jocking !
And then there’s this, from a “guy” who has claimed on multiple occasions to be more enlightened and more educated than anyone here:
- Paul Dorsey
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!!! Whatever HOSS!
- Paul Dorsey
Have you taken a close look at your ugly face-looks like you might have been doing some cocaine in between drag shows!
- Paul Dorsey
Sticks & Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me! Plus you look like the Court Jester!
- Paul Dorsey
And this is coming from a redneck who never served in the military and now wants to play judge, jury and executioner!!! And you lunatics are always defending the Constitution only when it serves your narrow agenda. You are a loser and a lunatic.
- Paul Dorsey
That might be so moron but the fact is that he is innocent until proven guilty- a military investigation will determine that! Unlike you I got a honorable discharge from the army in 1983. I was awarded 3 medals including 2 Army Commendations and an Army Achievement Medal as a intelligence analyst at Ft Bragg and 5th Corp G-2 in Franfurt, GE. I guess being a cook was to hard for you!!!
It seems to confirm most people’s suspicions that military intelligence is indeed an oxymoron.
But maybe he’s just… confused:
- Paul Dorsey
Don’t you think its time for you to put on another show? Your audience is waiting Mr. Drag Queen!!!
Funny that Paul Dorsey would consider “Mr. Drag Queen” an insult given that:
- Paul Dorsey
I came out of the closet back in 1990 and married my partner in Montreal, Quebec in 1994. I have lived in Berlin and had a partner years later while living there. It was wonderful being both a Socialist and a gay man in gay-friendly Berlin which happens to have an openly gay major and of course, is a stronghold of the Socialist Party in Deutschland. I look forward to the day when there will just as many freedoms here as there are in Europe for everybody!!! I will say it is amazing how many states have passed marriage equality laws and how accepting the American people are to gay rights including marriage equality-who would have thought? Compared to Europe, Canada, Australia & NZ, we still have a way to go…
Like other progressives, Paul Dorsey is not very tolerant of other opinions. For proof:
- Paul Dorsey
You are entitled to your opinions and yes you are a racist and a moron. Moving on…
- Paul Dorsey
Why don’t you shut your stupid mouth you lunatic Nazi? We don’t care to read what you have to say…
- Paul Dorsey
This is typical, extreme right-wing hate speech perpetrated here by a bunch of lazy racists that hate Obama because of his name and skin color. You people thank God represent such a tiny fringe in American society!!! You people are increasingly becoming ever more irrelevant because of your extremist and stupid views. I guess you still think Hitler was a great leader and are still disapointed that he didn’t get around to murdering the other 6 million Jews!!! You people disgust me!!!
But apparently he’s not disgusted enough to disappear himself from the site. However, he did remove a number of his own comments about southerners being “uneducated, white trailer trash.”
And then there’s this:
- Wayne Langley
I don’t think speechless is the word. Maybe full of sh*t.
- Wayne Langley
So I take you’re happy being a racist, and bigot.
- Wayne Langley
Good comeback, if you’re preschooler.
- Wayne Langley
You have to have a mental disability to even want to live in North Carolina.
- Wayne Langley
What an a** clown you must be. I see you have no apparent character from where I sit. It is people like you, and Alleged Comment that give white trash a bad name.
- Wayne Langley
You use dog turds for breath mints.
- Wayne Langley
Do you look lick their boots before, or after you shine them?
- Wayne Langley
You remind me of a doorbell.DING DONG! DING DONG! DING DONG!
- Wayne Langley
Tea Party intellectuals is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp, you moron.
- Wayne Langley
Is that the best ya’ got? You probably peed yourself again you were so giddy when typing it.
And the ever popular,
- Wayne Langley
Why don’t you just STFU?
To be fair, there are some state-worshiping President Barack Obama sycophants who occasionally try to carry on a rational conversation. But eventually they simply resort to:
When I asked to see the source of your data, I was a bit worried that you would send us a picture of your butt. I see you decided to instead send us the end result of a lifetime of sitting on your brains.
I’m sorry you suffered brain damage in Iraq. It explains a lot.
But best of all are commenters like Dave, a stalker, who, despite being blacklisted for serial violations of the comment policy, continues to return like the stalker he is. And by the way, he has commented using numerous names in order to try and trick the moderator:
Just talking your language meathead…
Duh de duh duh duh… That all I hear from you now meathead.
Dummies like you do not understand nuance…So tell me all about how we were attacked by Iraq on 9/11 Meathead.
You confirm that all conservatives are not stupid, but all stupid people are conservative. That is you meathead
The only thing you own is a severe case of dementia.
Stalking is a form of mental illness.
Now, understand that it is not only mental illness and a desire to “educate” conservatives that brings progressives/statists to sites like this. Some few are indeed here to engage in rational discourse. But for others, the motives are simply sinister.
The Obama campaign arm, Organizing for America, has employed at least 3,500 “cyber assets” or “cyber warriors” to infiltrate conservative, Christian and Tea Party-linked websites. And Edward Snowden revealed that Western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse by infiltrating these sites as well.
You can often spot them by noting their consistent use of talking points and similar language, their latching on to and use of the memes of the day, and their intentional obtuseness and attempts to divert the conversation and frustrate you if you try to engage them in conversation.
Understanding who these people are and their motives will serve you well in online forums. The best advice is to not engage them at all, except for sport. Logical arguments will not sway someone whose philosophy is emotion-based, nor will they influence those who are here for more nefarious reasons.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Americans and the 4th Amendment yesterday in a unanimous decision that prevents police from snooping into people’s cellphones without a warrant.
“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”
The justices equated the information contained in cellphones to millions of pages to documents and police searches of cellphones to ransacking a person’s home in an effort to uncover everything that might incriminate him.
Of course, Supreme Court decisions are often ignored by the police, who continue to harass, intimidate, assault and arrest people for taking video of police actions despite a Supreme Court ruling that the activity is lawful. So it’s best to keep your cellphone password-locked to prevent an unlawful search during a police encounter.
While this is certainly a victory for privacy rights, it does little more than give the National Security Agency a monopoly on snooping into the electronic data and communications of the people. Unless and until government snooping organizations — NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. — are hamstrung by court decisions, we should all assume our electronic communications are not private.
Note from the Editor: Under the Obama Administration, the NSA, the IRS, and the State and Justice departments are blatantly stepping on Americans’ privacy—and these are just the breaches we’re aware of. I’ve arranged for readers to get a free copy of The Ultimate Privacy Guide so you can be protected from any form of surveillance by anyone—government, corporate or criminal. Click here for your free copy.
In Colonial America it was common for British soldiers, tax collectors and other representatives of the Crown to obtain a writ of assistance giving them the authority to enter any home, business or ship at any time of the day or night in search of contraband goods or to interrogate the residents and owners over payment of taxes or for almost any other reason.
Writs of assistance were very vague search warrants, and it was a simple procedure to obtain them. They could be had for any reason or no reason from the Colonial governor or from judges — all of whom held their positions at the whim of the King of England.
In 1761 James Otis Jr., the Advocate General of Massachusetts — whose job it was to defend the issuance of the writs in court — resigned his position and took the side of 63 Boston merchants in a court battle against the writs. He represented the merchants for free; and though he lost the case in a court stacked against him, he earned the title of patriot.
It was his five-hour speech in court that served “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution,” according to John Adams, who was sitting in the courtroom at the time.
On Feb. 24, 1761, Otis told the Superior Court of Massachusetts that the writs were “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book… It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.”
He went on to say: “Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”
Adams said, “The child of independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.”
Since it was such an important issue to the Founding Fathers, it’s not surprising that an amendment was included in the Constitution that forbids the government from arbitrarily searching people, homes and businesses.
It was the Colonists’ experience with unreasonable searches and seizures and Otis’ speech that planted the seeds that grew into the 4th Amendment, which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heeded Otis’ words and ruled correctly when it decided that police must first obtain a warrant before searching people’s cellphones. Allowing police unlimited access to such an important device would have been akin to placing “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.”
The total disregard for the rule of law being revealed by testimony in the ongoing Congressional investigation into the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal proves the criminality and totalitarianism of the U.S. government and its disregard for the people.
It is clear that the IRS targeted conservative groups — particularly those with the words “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their names — for special scrutiny in order to silence and intimidate them and to influence the 2012 election. And it’s equally clear that there is now a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice that extends at least into the upper reaches of the agency, if not into the Barack Obama Administration itself.
The notion that emails sought by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee were simply “lost” and are not “recoverable” defies belief. Try using that excuse yourself when faced with an audit — a process in which the “taxpayer” is guilty until he proves himself innocent — by this rogue agency and see how that flies.
Federal law under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires companies to maintain all documents including electronic documents that form the basis of an audit or review for seven years. Failure to do so can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and/or a prison sentence of up to 20 years for anyone who destroys, alters, mutilates or conceals any electronic document in an official investigation.
Federal law requires the IRS to keep records of all agency emails and to print out hard copies and retain them in the event of a computer glitch. Federal law also requires the IRS to report the loss of records belonging to top IRS officials to the National Archives and Records Administration as soon as a problem is recognized. According to testimony in the Congressional hearing, the IRS did neither.
Testimony and media reports seem to confirm that the IRS “lost” the emails around the time questions began being raised about possible IRS targeting and that the IRS canceled a contract with a data storage company right before the emails were “lost.”
A special prosecutor with full investigative and subpoena powers should be appointed to get to the bottom of this scandal. I’m not confident that a Congressional committee will hold accountable all those responsible. Congressional committees have a history of releasing findings based on politics rather than the law or the facts. And Democrats and a sycophantic corporate media have done all they can to create the appearance that this investigation is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt by the Republicans and that Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is nothing more than a partisan hack.
While it’s business as usual for the criminal class of Washington politicians to obfuscate, denigrate and provide cover for the criminality they inspired in the government agencies they control, it’s astonishing to me that rank-and-file Democrats do not see the dangerous precedent in one party — even if it’s “their” party — using a government agency to target its opponents. Just the hint that Republicans might pull a similar stunt when they control government should be impetus enough for Democrats to want to be sure everyone involved is held accountable and punished to such a degree that it will be many years before similar criminality is again considered.
The Federal government is nothing less than a criminal enterprise being run as a totalitarian Third World banana republic. And an emasculated Congress more interested in the politics of the thing than it is in the Constitution is apparently too feckless to do much if anything to stop it.
A new study in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology has found that children of women treated for depression with any of a group of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) while pregnant were more likely to develop brain malformations than children of mothers with no history of depression.
SSRIs include almost all of today’s major antidepression medications, including Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Zoloft, Celexa and Lexapro. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 234 million prescriptions were written for Americans in 2010, including for between 7 percent and 13 percent of all pregnant women.
The study found that a brain malformation called Chiari type 1 was found in 18 percent of the children whose mothers took SSRIs during pregnancy compared to only 3 percent in children whose mothers had no history of depression.
In Chiari type 1, brain tissue in the cerebellum squeezes out into the spinal canal. It is indicated by symptoms of dizziness, headaches and balance and coordination problems that may require surgery. Other indications are irritability when being fed, excessive drooling, a weak cry, trouble gaining weight, weakness of the arms and developmental delays.
Children with Chiari type 1 often fall down a lot, have trouble grasping items, have poor hand-eye coordination and other issues.
Numerous studies have linked children born with autism spectrum disorders to women taking SSRIs during the first trimester. And SSRIs are a common denominator in seemingly every mass school shooting taking place.
In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration issued a black box warning on SSRIs because of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24 during initial treatment (generally the first one to two months).”
The theory of man-made global warming is based on spurious science, phony statistics and outright lies; so it’s no surprise that a known liar and propagandist for the regime and green energy boondoggles, none other than Secretary of State John Kerry, has pulled another bogus figure out of his pompous hat.
Speaking at a State Department ceremony last week, Kerry proved the old saw that figures don’t lie, but liars will figure. It has long been established conventional wisdom — despite evidence to the contrary — that “97 percent of scientists endorse man-made global warming.” Obviously, Kerry has nothing important to do as Secretary of State, given that there is no terrorist organization currently putting our $750 million embassy in danger by trying to depose our puppet government in Iraq with backing from our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia, while our supposed enemy, Iran, is offering to help us prop up our puppet; there is no U.S.-backed insurgency in Syria; there is no U.S.- and International Monetary Fund-instigated conflict in Ukraine; the U.S. isn’t firing drone missiles at people around the globe; and our southern border isn’t being invaded by illegals swarming in from and at the encouragement of Central American countries. The 97 percent figure is one Kerry has repeated ad nauseam. But now Kerry has upped the ante.
“When it comes to climate change, when it comes to food security, we are literally facing a moment of adversity — perhaps even dire necessity,” Kerry said at a State Department food security award ceremony. “It’s hard to convince people — hard to convince people of a challenge that isn’t immediately tangible to everybody particularly. But it is clear to at least 98, 99 percent of all the scientists in our country that to confront these challenges, we must invent and we must innovate, and most of all, we need to work together and we need to get to work.”
Why not go all the way to 100 percent? Without a doubt, that’s where it’s headed after the 98 percent to 99 percent estimate makes the rounds for a while.
Not to be outdone, President Barack Obama also got into the act. In a speech to graduates at the University of California at Irvine, he compared climate change skeptics to those who would say the moon is made of cheese.
“I do know that the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put that debate to rest,” he said.
These are typical propaganda ploys employed by statists to drown out and stifle dissent. I’ve told you before in more esoteric terms how the elites use code words, repetition, and misdirection and subterfuge in order to dumb us down and have us accept an agenda that is antithetical to our well-being. This lesson is more concrete. This is not a new ploy by the elites.
But even the 97 percent is arrived at only by using a feat of statistical legerdemain.
First, there is no global warming occurring and hasn’t been for nigh on 20 years. See the graphs below, taken from John Coleman’s blog.
And as scientists Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, who are among the thousands of scientists who don’t believe in the “settled science” of man-made “climate change,” wrote in The Wall Street Journal last month, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. (Read the linked article for their reasoning.)
Kerry and the rest of the climate change alarmists are attempting, by employing a multitude of logical fallacies, simply to stifle any discussion before it starts. And unfortunately, Kerry, Al Gore, Obama and their alarmist brethren are aided and abetted by a compliant media that ignores or ridicules climate change skeptics.
Progressives, who are the ones who shout loudest on behalf of tolerance, have little tolerance for dissenting views. The only “tolerance” they actually tolerate is “tolerance” that aligns with their version of conventional wisdom. (See Brendan Eich and Phil Robertson for examples.)
Just ask Caleb Rossiter, an adjunct professor at American University with a Ph.D. in policy analysis and a master’s in mathematics. Rossiter has taught courses in climate science and once held a position at the progressive think take Institute for Policy Studies. It is now a once-held position because Rossiter was fired after 23 years at ISP just two days after he wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in which he claimed, “The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.”
Responding to the firing in an interview published on Climate Depot, Rossiter said: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’
“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”
Of course, Kerry’s goal — and that of Obama and other lawmakers who are using global warming alarmism — is to impoverish Americans, destroy the U.S. economy and transfer wealth to the globalists and international green energy firms. Their goal is certainly not “consensus,” nor is it real “science.” And the goal of the “consensus” scientists is to ensure their gravy train of grants and government largess keeps rolling right along. They’ve sold their souls to make it so.
But the bigger issue is the way the elites use coded language, logical fallacies and deflection to drive a meme and stifle discussion.
Anyone who defies established orthodoxy is called a racist, a homophobe or a bigot. Anyone who seeks to crack conventional wisdom is called a tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist or an uneducated buffoon from the Stone Age. Anyone who stands up for their rights is called a terrorist. And when that doesn’t quiet the opposition, well, they say the debate is closed — even when the evidence throws the door wide open.
Is the liberty movement more dangerous than al-Qaida? CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen thinks so.
“According to data collected by the New America Foundation, right-wing extremists have killed 37 people in 16 violent incidents, in the United States since the 9/11 attacks. That number is more than the 21 people killed by militants motivated by al-Qaeda’s ideology in the United States in the post-9/11 era,” Bergen recently wrote for CNN.com.
Apparently, so do Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, neither of whom have found time lately to denounce either al-Qaida or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the group that instigated the attempted takeover of Iraq. But they have found time to call gun rights supporters “terrorists.”
The source of Bergen’s data, the New American Foundation, is a George Soros- and CIA-funded, globalist-backed misinformation disseminating think tank. Other sources of Bergen’s disinformation piece include the Southern Preposterous Lie Center. Of course, it may just be a coincidence that al-Qaida was created, funded and equipped by the CIA and that ISIS leaders were trained by agents of the U.S. government.
Since 2009, the regime has been working overtime in attempting to sway public opinion against those who oppose the growing tyranny of the U.S. government. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recuitment.” In 2013, the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., came out with a new report titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right.” The report lumps limited government activists into three categories it claims are responsible for 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011: racist/white supremacists, anti-Federalists and fundamentalists. The report did not define what makes an attack a “far-right” action, nor did it list specific events except to compare them to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (a likely false flag attack exploited by President Bill Clinton to bolster his sagging Presidency) and the Atlanta abortion clinic bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph.
The report links the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right” and describes conservatives as living in the past and liberals as being “future oriented.”
In 2012, the FBI in Colorado issued a report telling businesses to be suspicious of people who: are concerned about identity privacy; pay with cash; alter their appearance by changing their hairstyle or growing (or shaving) facial hair; have missing fingers and hands; make religious statements; and make bulk purchases of food, ammunition and high-capacity magazines.
The truth is, attacks on police officers — whether by so-called “right wing extremists” or simply criminals doing what criminals do –are down. According to the Officer Down Memorial Page website, only 30 died by gunfire in 2013. In 2012, 48 were shot. In 1990. that number was 60.
Yet it is the government that is militarizing local police forces by giving them military surplus equipment and training. And police are becoming more violent by the day, as we show with multiple accounts in our Power of the State section. And it is government that is fomenting wars and arming terrorists around the globe while it attempts to disarm Americans. And it was Barack Obama who considered deploying the military on supporters of Cliven Bundy.
So is the liberty movement more dangerous than al-Qaida? To the statists in government, probably so. But not because it’s violent.
During a CNN town hall meeting Tuesday, Hillary Clinton made quite clear her view of the Constitution in general, the 1st and 2nd Amendments in particular, and that she, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, views American gun owners as terrorists seeking to do harm on other Americans.
When asked about a ban on so-called assault weapons and extended magazines, she said:
We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people… We’re going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before.
First, Clinton’s “minority of people” is at least 47 percent of American adults, according to a Gallup survey. But that survey counted people who admitted to a stranger they had a gun on their property. The actual number of gun owners is likely higher: No rational person should admit to a stranger they own a gun, especially under the current anti-gun regime.
Second, Clinton’s implication that Americans are gunning down people with “automatic weapons” is mendacious. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, fully automatic weapons are restricted to Federal Firearms License holders or those who have paid a tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive and have undergone an extensive background check. And those weapons are registered.
Third, as is typical of a statist, Clinton believes that the only viewpoints that should be help are those acceptable to the state. Other viewpoints — those contrary to established orthodoxy — should be purged from public consciousness.
The Founding Fathers knew quite well what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, and it was written to protect Americans from people like Clinton. During debate on the Amendment, Elbridge Gerry said: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
And who was the militia? During the Virginia Ratifying Convention, George Mason understood it to “consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” In another statement, Mason said, “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
Both North Carolina and Virginia proposed that “the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained in arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state,; that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided…”
Pennsylvania proposed “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals…”
Maryland provided a definition of the militia as “all men, able to bear arms” and wanted the militia to be subject to martial law only “in time of war, invasion, or rebellion.”
All the Founders understood what the 2nd Amendment meant, and the only significant debate was over whether a “conscientious objector” clause should be inserted for those with “religious scruples” to avoid bearing arms.
Fewer than half of 1 percent of Americans has ever shot anyone. And contrary to what gun-grabbing alarmists are telling you, the number of people killed with firearms continues a decline that has been ongoing since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
Either Clinton knows this and is simply lying, or her fall damaged her brain so that rational thought is no longer among her abilities. Or, more likely, given the week she’s had in her 2016 campaign kickoff/book tour, it’s a combination of the two.
Source: The Founding Fathers Guide To The Constitution, by Brion McClanahan
In late 2011, President Barack Obama removed the last of the U.S. troops from Iraq. The total cost of the war was 4,485 U.S. soldiers killed and countless thousands injured (both physically and mentally).
Removing the troops from Iraq is arguably the lone positive accomplishment Obama has to show for his 5½ years in office.
Predictably, Iraq is now falling apart. It takes a strong and brutal leader to keep sectarian violence at bay. For all his faults, Saddam Hussein was that strong leader. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not.
The Iraq war is another failed U.S. intervention, if you believe George W. Bush’s tale that he strove to establish democracy there. Iraqi democracy was a farce from the beginning. It’s more so now.
The current conflict that has the Sunni terror group the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) marching across Iraq, leaving a trail of beheaded Shiite bodies in its wake, is the result of tribal and religious differences that have percolated for thousands of years. No matter which “side” the U.S. chooses to back in the matter, it will be the wrong side. Neither side is truly “our friend.”
According to Jordanian officials, dozens of ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors. They were trained in order to fight in Syria in Obama’s effort to overthrow Syria’s Bashar Assad. ISIS is reportedly now being funded and equipped by Saudi Arabia.
It is attempting to overthrow the al-Maliki regime, which is backed by Iran.
So let me get this straight. Saudi Arabia, supposedly our ally, is funding and equipping ISIS, which we trained, so it can take down our puppet Iraqi government, which we installed and have propped up for eight years with U.S. lives and dollars. And now Obama is sending troops to fight ISIS, siding with Iran — which, we are told, wants to build a nuclear weapon with which to attack us or our ally, Israel — to do so.
This is what passes as U.S. foreign policy today.
Obama first said there would be no U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq. That promise proved as hollow as the rest of his utterances since the undocumented usurper first came on the national stage. Now he’s informed Congress he’s sent almost 300 troops and may send more.
The U.S. spent $20 billion and seven years nation building and training Iraq’s military. So let the Iraqi people settle their differences. We’ve invested far too much for far too long.
Besides, Obama’s currently trying to start a war with Russia. Isn’t one war at a time enough?
We should stay out of Iraq.
American schools are little more than prisons or halfway houses.
The Nation’s young people are forced to attend whether they are interested in education or not, where they are indoctrinated to worship the State and conform to statism and propagandized with false history and egalitarianism. If they fail to attend, they are regarded as lawbreakers or truants.
But since they are minors, it is the parents who pay the price — even if the children are essentially young adults and unruly and unmanageable. Such is the case in Berks County, Penn., where Eileen DiNino paid for her children’s truancy with her life.
When DiNino’s kids racked up a number of truancy violations, the court decided she had to pay. The truancy fines weren’t excessive — just $20 per violation — but the court system is little more than an extortion racket. It tacked on “court-related” costs of as much as $150 for each violation. According to The Associated Press, DiNino faced fines from nine active truancy cases, which spawned 55 citations accrued by her children since 1999.
DiNino is described as being 55, a single mother of seven, unemployed, on welfare and completely overwhelmed by her children. Few other details of what got her into her circumstances have been reported. But suffice to say she was unable to pay the $2,000 in fines and court costs her kids racked up because they chose to skip school and she couldn’t — or wouldn’t — do anything about it.
Apparently, in Philadelphia, as in a few other places, the idea of debtors’ prisons has not gone out of fashion and, in fact, is making a comeback. For some insane reason, District Judge Dean Patton decided that DiNino should be incarcerated over her unpaid fines in order to eliminate the “debt.” How racking up more cost to the government, which had to pay for DiNino’s two-day incarceration, in order to reconcile an unpaid debt makes sense to anyone is beyond me, and proves that those in government are simply psychopaths.
Patton’s reasoning, according to the AP, was that “a short jail stint can sometimes ‘break the habit’ of parents who’d rather party into the night than take their children to school the next day.” Whether DiNino was guilty of “party[ing] into the night” was not proven.
Halfway into her two-day incarceration, DiNino died. While her death was sudden and the cause is as yet unknown, it was not considered suspicious.
Parental imprisonment for truancy violations is apparently very common in Berks County. Since 2000, more than 1,600 people have been jailed over truancy fines. Two-thirds of those jailed are women.
Federal law eliminated the imprisonment of debtors in 1833, but left the practice available to States. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several State cases that debtors’ prisons violate the 14th Amendment.
Being poor should not be considered criminal. Nor should skipping school. If a child has no interest in school and must be coerced into being there, he will not learn and will likely be disruptive, which hinders those who want to be there from learning.
Furthermore, Federal and State child labor laws should be repealed so that kids who would rather work than attend school can work enough hours to earn a living and help support their poor parent(s).