Skip to content

CDC admits it has been lying all along about Ebola transmission; “indirect” spread now acknowledged

October 31, 2014
Source …..


Defying its own quack advice that the agency has been propagandizing for months, the CDC has now released a document on Ebola that admits the virus can spread through aerosolized droplets. The document, quietly released on the CDC website, also admits Ebola can contaminate surfaces such as doorknobs, causing infections to be spread through indirect means. [1]

Here’s a backup source of the PDF just in case the CDC scrubs it:…

In other words, the CDC is now admitting it lied all along and that Natural News was correct from day one when we warned you about indirect transmission routes of the Ebola virus. (The CDC has always insisted it could only spread via “direct contact.”)

“Ebola is spread through droplets,” the CDC document now reads. Mirroring exactly what I’ve been telling millions of people in my free audio course at the CDC now says “A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose.”

Yeah, we know. In fact, everybody in the independent media has known this for months, while all those who watch mainstream media sources are just now realizing this because they’ve been repeatedly lied to by CDC and NIH spokespeople.

The CDC has offered no apology whatsoever for intentionally misleading the public up to this point. Apparently, lying to the public is such a common activity at the highest levels of the CDC that they don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.

CDC also admits Ebola can contaminate surfaces and spread through indirect contact

“Droplets can contaminate objects like doorknobs,” the CDC document goes on to admit. This also means that Ebola can contaminate all sorts of surfaces, including ATM keypads, subway car hand rails, airplane tray tables, taxicab door handles and much more.

This also means the CDC’s previous assertion that Ebola could only spread through “direct contact” is utterly false. It’s just one more reason to never trust anything the CDC tells you. (The CDC has already lost tremendous credibility in all this, and it’s going to lose even more before this is finished…)

Just this week, a stunning new scientific study found that Ebola can survive on contaminated surfaces for up to 50 days. This means an infected Ebola carrier like Dr. Spencer could have sneezed on a doorknob or other surface, causing viable Ebola droplets to be deposited there. Another person could have come along and touched the same doorknob, then infected themselves with Ebola by touching their own eyes, nose or mouth.

Dr. Spencer, we have now learned, lied to police and claimed he was “self quarantined” when in fact he was riding the subway and visiting restaurants and bowling alleys. As the NY Post reports: [3]

The city’s first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, law-enforcement sources said. Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment — and didn’t admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.

CDC still lying about how far a sneeze spreads

The art of lying is so instilled in the culture of the CDC that even when it reveals one stunning truth, it feels compelled to spread another lie at the same time.

In this document that admits Ebola can be spread via aerosolized droplets, the CDC falsely insists those droplets can only travel a maximum distance of 3 feet:

But a recent MIT study published in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics found that coughs could propel droplets up to 20 feet. [4]

“When you cough or sneeze, you see the droplets, or feel them if someone sneezes on you,” said John Bush, a professor of applied mathematics at MIT and co-author of the study. “But you don’t see the cloud, the invisible gas phase. The influence of this gas cloud is to extend the range of the individual droplets, particularly the small ones.”

So now, even though the CDC has finally admitted Ebola can spread through the air, it is falsely claiming the maximum distance it can spread is only 3 feet.

By the way, the alternative media — sources like and — have been reporting the truth about the aerosolized spread of Ebola for months.

In fact, originally got this completely wrong, reporting in August that “aerosol transmission is not possible” but then finally coming around once I corrected them about viral transmission via aerosolized particles in this article.

The mainstream media, as always, has dutifully repeated the lies of the CDC all along, parroting whatever medical quackery and anti-science nonsense Thomas Frieden and Anthony Fauci are pushing at the moment. What’s especially hilarious in all this is how Frieden and Fauci, who are positioned by the lamestream media as the most authoritative and credible representatives of modern epidemiological science, have been caught lying over and over again about Ebola’s transmission vectors. The loss of credibility the CDC has already experienced over Ebola is just staggering. Nobody believes anything the CDC says anymore, and rightly so.

If you want to learn the truth about Ebola, pandemic preparedness and medical isolation protocols, you have to get that information from independent sources such as

The following infographic I created here at Natural News reveals just some of the quackery and fuzzy math pushed by the CDC over the last few months:

Sources for this article include:

The BORDER STATES of AMERICA with Nick Searcy

October 31, 2014
Tea Party Patriots
Source …..

An unprecedented wave of illegal immigration is washing over America, threatening the fabric of our nation. But the Obama Administration refuses to enforce our immigration laws, resulting in tens of thousands of people illegally entering the US. Now, our new film reveals the full scope of this crisis.

The Border States of America takes viewers from the Rio Grande Valley to towns across the country, telling the story of human smugglers and drug cartels who profit from Obama’s policies; of American citizens whose lives are put at risk; and the social and economic toll on our communities. We cut through the fog to bring you the truth about what is really happening with the border crisis.

Television and film star Nick Searcy has come on board to narrate The Border States of America. He is an accomplished actor, director, and producer with a career spanning more than 30 years in cinema, television, and on the stage. With dozens of starring and supporting roles across a wide range of feature films and TV shows under his belt, we couldn’t be more excited to have him help tell this story.

Progress, Perversion, and Power

October 31, 2014
Christopher Manion
Source …..


It’s not a pretty picture. Crime, lies, and decadence prosper — pompously.

The Left sneers. Illegal voting is OK — as long as it’s for “us.” A corrupt “Justice” Department thumbs its nose at the law and at the law-abiding. A bureaucratic behemoth inflicts a thousand points of pain at every turn. No one is spared.

There is a reason for this, of course, beyond the mere desire to win elections.

Conservatives need to understand this about liberals (oops!) “progressives”: they consider themselves to be different from, and superior to, the rest of us.

On what do they base this patently arrogant assumption?

Look at the name: “progressive.” They do not believe that anything is true, that anything is permanent, that anything is worth preserving, if it impedes their version of “progress.”

They are heirs to a long and tarnished tradition. Karl Marx perfected it, but it existed long before, and it has survived many a setback since.

Because their consciousness has been magically raised, “progressives” are the “anointed” ones. And thus they have not only the right, but the duty to burst through the barriers that custom, history, tradition, and generations gone by have built to thwart their hubris. Barriers like law; barriers like ethics; barriers like cultural norms, common decency, the natural structure of the family — indeed, as we have seen in recent decades, barriers like the family itself.

When we observe the narcissism that propels them into the worship of the birth control pill, abortion, and mandatory population control, we scratch our head and wonder — is their sex drive the sole reason for all this?

It is not.

But sexual self-indulgence for the masses has long served as a dependable distraction — as easy as it is convenient — from the progressive’s consummation of his (and her!) truly supreme libido: the libido dominandi, the lust for power that Augustine describes as the driving force of Satan and his followers who seek to dominate the world in the name of the City of Man and the annihilation of the City of God.

Sucha Flake — or whatever her name was — merely served Nancy Pelosi as a foil to conjure up for the squalidly self-indulgent (who constitute her core base) the specter of the demons of morality and self-respect that were coming to take away their sex lives.

Millions fell for it, of course, because they had been impoverished by “teachers” who are nothing more than dull, plodding intellectual thugs, the Thought Police who run the government schools — and run them grimly into the ground.

In September 1976, Spain, newly liberated from the spirit and specter of Francisco Franco (who had died almost a year before) was finally in the hands of a new “democratic” government.

Now, that government comprised a gaggle of third-raters who had waited for years to assume the reins of power.

At the time, Spain was evenly divided — as it has been ever since its own Civil War 80 years ago — between lovers of tradition and lovers of chaos.

Aaah, the Spanish are such a noble race!

How, then, to overcome the institutions and laws that had liberated Spain from the disastrous Left in the 1930s, that kept it out of World War II, and that sowed the seeds for a limited monarchy, a prosperous middle class, and the republican government that Franco promised would succeed his own reign?

On a sunny September day in 1976, my roommate came home to our apartment in Valencia with a surprise:

“Marisol — Desnuda!”

“Marisol” is an abbreviation of “Maria de la Soledad” — Our Lady of Solitude.

And Our Lady was undoubtedly feeling pretty lonely on that day of infamy.

The excitement was vibrant! Marisol’s name was on every lip and tongue and more!

Marisol, the child actress and singer who was the closest figure Spain had to our own darling Judy Garland, had bared all for Intervu, one of Spain’s most popular weekly magazines.

On the magazine’s cover.

On every street corner and kiosk.

Every Spaniard, of every age, had to see it. They were forced to see Marisol desnuda.

In your face.

That was the plan, and it worked. Men who had been brought up to be noble and valiant protectors of their own wives and daughters, as well as the wives and daughters of everyone else, were now invited to suffocate their character with seduction and sex.

Aaah, the New Spain was progressing indeed.

The birth rate dropped like a stone. Promiscuity — once universally regarded as a private vice — was now honored as a public virtue, a human right, and a liberation — not only for men (who found promiscuous sex to be as entertaining as it is destructive), but for women, who willingly left behind their dignified status as wives, mothers, and family matriarchs to become shallow, sexualized objects competing for admirers and exploiters like the vagrants hawking lottery tickets in every central plaza in Spain.

The ruse had worked. With the conscience of the pueblo thus anesthetized, Spain’s power-lusters slyly divided themselves into “opposing” parties, while they plundered Spain’s treasure, character, and history and drove the country into the abyss.

Today, Spain is virtually childless, virtually bankrupt, and quite literally in ruins.

And Marisol? Her collapse was complete.

She joined the Communist Party, dumped two husbands, and, having done her damage, she disappeared into voluntary obscurity thirty years ago.

At least she was consistent.

And us?

Saturated by porn, illegitimacy, contraception, abortion, and divorce, and ruled by renegade tyrants who keep the masses ignorant, intimidated, poor, and powerless, our countrymen watch in shock as lawlessness infects every level of government and the culture in the name of “progress.”

Karl Marx once wrote that philosophers had sought to understand the world. “The point is,” he wrote, “to change it.”

His progressive acolytes seek to keep us from understanding the world so they can destroy it.

And they’re winning.

State Dept. Doc Affirms JW’s Report on Obama Plan to Bring Foreign Ebola Patients to U.S.

October 30, 2014
Irene Garcia
Source …..


A shocking government document outlining the Obama administration’s outrageous plan to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States for treatment has surfaced, confirming a story that Judicial Watch broke almost two weeks ago.

On October 17 JW reported that the administration was actively formulating a deal to admit foreign nationals infected with Ebola into the country for treatment. Specifically, the goal is to bring the patients into the country within the first days of diagnosis, according to JW’s sources. The plan includes special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.

JW received details of the initiative from high-level government sources that also disclosed the administration was keeping the Ebola plan secret from Congress. The sources expressed concern that the proposal is illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the approval of Congress. Following the initial report, JW contacted a number of government agencies that may be involved with the backdoor plan for comment but all except one shunned multiple requests to respond. Only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offered this curt statement through spokeswoman Amesheia Buckner: “We have nothing for you on that.”

JW’s initial story also got Congress to get involved. Days after JW’s piece got published, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security asking for details of the Ebola scheme and whether employees of their agencies had engaged in conversations regarding it. “Please provide me any and all written memos or other documentation written by employees of your Departments regarding the formulation of a plan to allow non-U.S. citizens infected with Ebola to enter the U.S. to receive medical treatment,” says the letter signed by the committee’s chair, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia.

This week several media outlets have confirmed JW’s story, attributing the information to an unclassified State Department report. It spells out a plan to rush foreigners into the U.S. for Ebola treatment, according to a British newspaper that links the actual four-page document. It would cost $300,000 to treat each patient and another $200,000 for transportation, the State Department memo shows. The newspaper cites the White House Press Secretary issuing a “qualified denial” this week, saying that it hasn’t happened so far and that he doesn’t know of any plans to do it. “Despite the existence of a written plan, the State Department denies that it has any intention of bringing Ebola-infected noncitizens to the U.S. for treatment,” the news article points out.

The State Department memo, authored by the deputy director of the office of international health and biodefense, Robert Sorenson, also says this: “The United States needs to show leadership and act as we are asking others to act by admitting certain non-citizens into the country for medical treatment for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) during the Ebola crisis.” In the aftermath of the document’s leak, senior administration officials have anonymously come forth to say there are “absolutely no plans” to transport foreign Ebola patients to be treated in the U.S.  What should Americans believe?

Judicial Watch will continue covering and investigating this scandal and has filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Department of Defense(DOD) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Specifically, JW is demanding that the DOD reveal its plans for evacuation of American personnel in Africa and OSHA’s plans for response to the Ebola outbreak as well as expressions of concern by agency personnel relating to the deadly virus. Additionally, JW is seeking information about the cryptic carrier Phoenix Air, which has been transporting Ebola-infected patients and has significant Pentagon contracts.

The Presumption of Liberty

October 30, 2014
Andrew P. Napolitano
Source …..

bill-of-rightsIn the years following the adoption of the Constitution, before he was Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson and then president himself, James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, was a member of the House of Representatives. During that period of his life, he gave illuminating speeches and wrote elegant essays and letters about human freedom.

In one of his essays, Madison noted that freedom came about in Europe when the people rose up and cast off or intimidated tyrants, who reluctantly granted the people the freedoms they sought. That was, in Madison’s words, “power granting liberty.” The American experience was the opposite, he argued. After we seceded from Great Britain, the free people of the 13 independent states voluntarily came together and through the states delegated discrete amounts of power to a central government. That was, in Madison’s words, “liberty granting power,” especially since the people reserved to themselves the liberties they did not delegate away.

Much of the political class of the founding generation, unlike our own, viewed the Constitution as restraining, not unleashing, the government. They recognized along with Madison and Jefferson that natural rights — areas of human behavior for which we do not need a government permission slip — are truly inalienable. An inalienable right, like speech, worship, travel, self-defense and privacy for example, is one that cannot be taken away by majority vote or by legislation or by executive command. It can only be taken away after the behavior of the person whose restraint the government seeks has been found by a jury to have violated another’s natural rights.

This process and these guarantees are known today as the presumption of liberty. Stated differently, because of our recognition of natural rights, and our history, values and written constitutional guarantees, we in America are self-directed and free to make our own choices. In fact, the constitutional guarantee of due process mandates that because our individual liberty is natural to us, it is always presumed; thus, it is always the government’s obligation to demonstrate our unworthiness of freedom to a judge and jury before it can curtail that freedom. It is not the other way around.

Until now.

This past week has seen disturbing events in which the government, as if in “Alice in Wonderland” mode, has punished first and insisted its victims prove they are unworthy of that punishment. The IRS, for example, revealed that it has been seizing the contents of bank accounts of folks whose taxes have been fully paid. It has done so pursuant to a federal statute that permits confiscation if the government detects a series of bank deposits that appear to be structured so that a significant number of them are below $10,000. That number triggers a bank obligation of reporting the deposit to the feds.

The original anti-structuring statute required the feds to prove that the structuring was done willfully so as to avoid reporting requirements, rather than innocently or for some other not unlawful purpose, as is often the case. After the Supreme Court reversed the first structuring conviction that made its way there because the feds had failed to prove it was “willful,” Congress responded by removing the word “willful” — and hence the burden of proving willfulness — from the statute and authorizing the confiscations. This violation of the presumption of liberty happened to more than 600 Americans last year, and fewer than 120 of them were actually charged with a crime.

Also last week, a nurse who returned to the U.S. from western Africa, where she had been caring for Ebola patients, was arrested at Newark Airport on orders from the governor of New Jersey and held in a tent in a parking lot in downtown Newark until she could prove she was not symptomatic with Ebola. This, too, violated the presumption of liberty. It is not she who must prove that she is not contagious in order for her to be set free; it is the government that must prove that she is symptomatic in order to restrain her. When she quite properly threatened to sue those who arrested her, they acknowledged that they had no evidence of her contagion and released her.

What’s going on here?

What’s going on is the systematic governmental destruction of the presumption of liberty in the name of public safety. Politicians who want to appear bold and strong often ride a popular wave and ignore the rights of their targets. And those responsible for public safety — all of whom have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution — have forgotten that chief among their duties is the safekeeping of our freedoms.

Would it be easier for the government to keep us safe from money laundering and Ebola if it could disregard the Constitution and trample personal freedoms? Yes, it would. But who would want to live in such a society? If the government can reverse the presumption of liberty over appearances, what is the value of constitutional guarantees? Whose freedom in America is safe today?

Insurance Companies Begin Writing ‘Ebola Exclusions’ into Policies

October 30, 2014
Christina Sarich
Source …..

ObamacareRemember the promise of universal health care with Obamacare, with no refusal for ‘pre-existing conditions’? It looks like your insurance company may not have to cover you if you get Ebola. U.S. and British insurance companies have begun writing Ebola exclusions into standard policies to cover hospitals, event organizers, and other businesses vulnerable to local disruptions.

While it is estimated that expenditures to treat the original Dallas Ebola patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, were approximately $100,000 an hour (though he passed anyway), it looks like insurance companies won’t be footing the bill.

President Obama originally refused to set up travel restrictions in and out of West Africa, too, even though the governments latest scare tactics and the CDC’s ineptitude have resulted in insurance companies creating new policies which exclude Ebola care. Renewals will also become costlier for companies opting to insure business travel to West Africa or to cover the risk of losses from quarantine shutdowns at home.

Gary Flynn, an event cancellation broker at Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Plc in London said:

“What underwriters are doing at the moment is they’re generally providing quotes either excluding or including Ebola – and it’s much more expensive if Ebola is included.”

While Ebola has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa and less than a dozen in the US, the arrival of a few isolated cases here in the states has insurance companies looking to shirk coverage responsibilities. As usual – its all about the bottom line.

Though liability insurance policies and workers’ compensation which covers medical care and lost time from work are unlikely to be affected if someone falls ill from Ebola since these policies are regulated at a state level, some property and casualty insurers, however, are considering Ebola before writing or renewing policies.

Read: Nurses and Hospitals Unable & Unprepared to Handle Ebola

ACE Ltd said on Wednesday that its global casualty unit, which offers coverage for U.S.-based companies whose employees travel or that have operations abroad, was using a policy endorsement to exclude Ebola on a “case-by-case basis” during the underwriting process on new policies and renewals.

Numerous insurance companies say that clients who travel to African countries comprise a “potentially higher risk exposure” and want to change their policies to reflect that.

The U.S. government just announced last Tuesday that travelers arriving from any of the three centers of the outbreak, Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea, must fly into one of five airports that have enhanced screening in place. Britain is also screening arriving air and rail travelers.

I guess the medical mafia has more sway than U.S. voters. Obamacare caused health insurance premiums to rise for many, and now the Ebola scare is likely to do the same thing. It’s a great time to run a pharmaceutical or insurance company in America – ain’t it?

US Civil Rights Commissioner: Is Obama Admin Preparing to Grant 34 Million Immigrants Green Cards?

October 29, 2014
Source …..

deferred-action-for-all-nowU.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow asked on Monday whether the Obama administration is preparing to allow 34 million new immigrants into the United States over the next five years.

In a letter to Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus, Kirsanow warned President Barack Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus that Obama’s planned executive amnesty would “devastate” America’s black workers the most. He said his concerns “center around the effect such grant of legal status will have on two subsets of American workers: low-skilled workers, particularly low-skilled black workers, and high-skilled STEM workers.”

He noted that a recent USCIS solicitation, which Breitbart News first reported, provides that “the estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34 million cards.”

“Given that the base ordering period is 02/01/15 to 01/30/16, with optional ordering periods that last only until 01/30/20, this solicitation contemplates that USCIS will grant an estimated 34 million Permanent Resident Cards (PRC) and Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) in only five years,” he added. “Such an increase in lawful workers would have a deleterious effect on low-skilled American workers, particularly black workers.”

Kirsanow noted that “some members of your administration have attempted to dismiss questions about why DHS would issue a draft solicitation for such a large number of identity documents.” But he added that “given that the solicitation itself states that it contemplates immigration reform, and you have publicly discussed issuing work authorizations via executive action (and have indeed done so in the past under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), it seems prudent to take DHS at its word.”

Obama said he intends to enact an executive amnesty “by the end of the year” after he delayed it to give Senate Democrats a better chance at retaining control of the Senate. He has also pressed Congress to pass comprehensive amnesty legislation that would give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and allow for massive increases in foreign guest workers and immigrants. Last year, pro-amnesty advocates had a fit when Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said that the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill would allow nearly 30 million more new immigrants into the United States. As Breitbart News has reported, a “Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report found that all of the net gain in employment during that period (the last 13 years) went to illegal and legal immigrants. And the Congressional Budget Office determined that comprehensive amnesty legislation would lower the wages of American workers.”

As he has written on numerous occasions to Obama and the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been supportive of Obama’s amnesty agenda, Kirsanow emphasized that “illegal immigration has a disparate impact on African-American men because these men are disproportionately represented in the low-skilled labor force.” He said Obama’s proposed “executive order will also have a negative effect on young African-Americans at the outset of their working lives” during a time in which “young, low-skilled workers are facing enormous difficulties in this economy.” He cited the grim labor force participation rate for September, which was only 44.3 percent for those over 25 with less than a high school diploma. Kirsanow said “surely some of the 55 percent who aren’t in the labor force would like to work,” and “this problem too will be exacerbated by legalizing illegal immigrants.”

“Granting legal status to millions of people who are in the United States illegally will continue to depress the wages and employment opportunities of African-American men and teenagers,” he wrote.

Kirsanow also addressed the “the supposed need for an increased number of high-tech visas” by saying “there is little evidence, other than the protestations of tech titans and politicians, that there is a shortage of STEM workers in the United States.” As Howard University Public Policy Professor Ron Hira has said, tech jobs have been a traditional way for Americans to move up the economic ladder. And massive grants of foreign guest-worker visas would only undermine those opportunities for Americans during a time in which numerous scholars and studies from across the ideological spectrum have determined that America has a surplus, not a shortage, of high-tech workers.

“The problem is not that there are insufficient STEM graduates; the problem is that tech companies do not want to pay the wages American workers would demand absent a continual influx of high-tech visa holders,” Kirsanow said, citing Silicon Valley’s “desire for young, cheap, and immobile labor.” Last week, a billion-dollar Silicon Valley company was caught paying foreign workers from India $1.21 an hour.

Kirsanow also noted that granting “legal status to illegal immigrants, or even mere rumors that legal status will be granted, increases illegal immigration,” and pointed out that “the evidence indicates that the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border is mostly attributable to your directive granting temporary legal status to people allegedly brought to the United States as children.”

“This is unsurprising,” Kirsanow said. “When you incentivize bad behavior, you get more of it.”

Want to pay your taxes by the gallon or by the mile?

October 29, 2014
Source …..

miles_tracking_deviceThat electric car could save you a lot of money at the pump. But when you buy less gas, you also pay less in gas taxes, which help pay for road repair.

“As we have more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, less and less funding to maintain roads, and it just spells disaster, ultimately, for our transportation system,” said Michelle Godfrey with the Oregon Department of Transportation, “So, we have to find an alternative.”

The alternative, Godfrey said, is a pilot program starting next year, where 5,000 volunteers can pay their road repair taxes per mile, rather than per gallon of gas.

“This is what the legislature kind of landed on, after 12 years of research,” she said. “You pay for what you use. So, the number of miles you drive is really the best gauge of the impact that you’re having on the roads and how much you are contributing to deterioration.”

The state conducted a similar, smaller test in 2012 and 2013, where volunteers had options of reporting their mileage on their own, or using plug-in devices that attach to their car’s data ports.  Godfrey said the volunteers for the new program would have the same kinds of options.

The amount you pay could change under the new system. The current gas tax is 30 cents per gallon. The mileage tax for the program would be about 1.5 cents per mile.

For example, if you drive 15,000 miles per year, like many people, and your car gets 10 miles per gallon, you would pay $450 in gas taxes each year but only $234 in taxes if you pay per mile.

If your car gets 20 mpg, you would pay $225 in gas taxes, versus $234 for the mileage tax.

If your car gets 30 mpg, you would pay $150 for the gas tax and $234 for the mileage tax.

If you have an electric car, you could pay nothing for the gas tax, but you would have to pay $234 for the mileage tax.

“Some people are going to pay more; some people are going to pay less. It’s really about fairness across the board,” said Godfrey.

Godfrey said the current system is not fair, in part because lower-income people who may only be able to buy used cars with lower gas mileage pay more to repair Oregon’s roads, but people who can afford more expensive cars with better gas mileage may pay very little, even though both do the same amount of damage to the roads.

“Is it fair for this low-income individual who may have an older vehicle to be subsidizing the high mpg vehicle?” asked Godfrey. “If we all paid for the miles we drove, it would be equal across the board.”

Godfrey said some people have asked questions about the plug-in devices that report your mileage to the state.

“The biggest concern is privacy and people saying, ‘Don’t put a black box in my car. I don’t want you tracking my whereabouts,'” she said.

Godfrey said the plug-in devices have GPS capabilities but do not transmit location data to ODOT.

“ODOT will never know where you are,” she added.

She said the GPS allows the device to determine if your car is on a public road in Oregon, which would be taxed.

“So, if you’re driving out-of-state or if you’re driving on a private road, the device knows to turn off and not count those miles, and so you are never charged for them. So, that’s the advantage of having GPS in the unit,” said Godfrey.

Godfrey just finished visiting cities around Oregon to explain the program and listen to feedback. She said the program has to overcome a number of obstacles to be acceptable to the public and possibly replace the current gas tax.

“Oregonians rule. It’s their choice, ultimately,” said Godfrey. “At some point, this has to go out to a vote, and if Oregonians don’t want it, then it won’t happen.”

Watch the video here …..

The Government Can Seize Your Property in Violation of the 5th Amendment – The FAIR Act Will Stop It

October 29, 2014
Source …..


If you have ever been to or traveled through Arnolds Park, Iowa, chances are you have seen or at least heard of Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food. Known for it’s large portions and low prices, this family-owned, cash-only restaurant has become a staple for those living in Dickinson County.

Carole Hinders has made an honest living owning and operating Mrs. Lady’s for the last 38 years. But in August of 2013, everything she saved—roughly $33,000—was seized by the Internal Revenue Service. Hinders has not been charged for tax evasion, or money laundering—in fact, one year later, she still has not been charged for any crime at all. The IRS claims her bank account was seized solely because she was depositing less than $10,000 at a time. Last time I checked, making small cash deposits into a personal checking account is not a crime.

According to the New York Times, the IRS seized Hinders’ honest living by enforcing an “increasingly controversial” law known as civil asset forfeiture. This law allows property to be seized if it is suspected of being connected to criminal activity. The problem is, law enforcement is not required to explain what the criminal activity is, much less prove that the person is guilty of such activity.

Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

The government should never be able to take property from innocent Americans. That is a blatant violation of our Fifth Amendment rights. Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice put it best: “A dismaying combination of perverse incentives, unfair laws, and lack of oversight makes civil forfeiture one of the most dangerous and blatantly unconstitutional policies America has ever seen.”

When I took office, I swore to uphold the Constitution and protect our Bill of Rights. This is why I have introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law.

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property—so that honest, hard-working Americans like Carole Hinders are not left broke or trapped with debt.

Under the FAIR Act, state law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund.

The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime.

I will continue to do all I can to protect the rights of Americans and ensure that their Fifth Amendment rights are no longer infringed upon.

Judicial Watch’s Fast and Furious Breakthrough

October 29, 2014
Source …..

holderJudicial Watch has finally forced the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide a detailed listing of all the records it has withheld from Congress and the American people about the deadly Operation Fast and Furious scandal and its cover-up. The documents, as we suspected, detail the personal involvement of outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder in managing the DOJ’s media strategy and its response to congressional investigations.

But what really stands out is the disturbing extent to which President Obama’s executive privilege claims regarding these records are a fraud and an abuse of his office. There is no precedent for Obama’s Nixonian assertion of executive privilege regarding these ordinary government agency records. The Obama administration is even withholding emails between Holder, his wife Sharon Malone, and his mother under absurd claims of executive privilege. Obama, personally and through his authority as President of the United States, asserts that Eric Holder’s wife and mother are entitled to know more about the Fast and Furious operation than the American people and the United States Congress.

Fast and Furious was a joint DOJ-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives gun-running operation that the administration perpetrated, expecting it would bolster gun control proposals in the U.S. The idea was to allow guns to find their way into the arms of Mexican drug cartel members who would use them in criminal operations. Some of the weapons used in Fast and Furious have been implicated in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of innocent Mexicans. We have also obtained information through a lawsuit filed against the City of Phoenix, Arizona, that shows Congress has confirmed that an AK 47 rifle used in a July 29, 2013, gang-style assault on an apartment building that resulted in the wounding of two people was part of the Fast and Furious program.

A critical turning point in the growing controversy over DOJ tactics came on June 28, 2012, when Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over records that explained why the Obama administration declined to reveal critical information to Congress that cut to the truth of Fast and Furious. The timeline of events says much about the administration’s ongoing efforts to withhold information. Just a week before the contempt finding, President Obama asserted executive privilege over Fast and Furious records the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed eight months earlier. This was a not-too-subtle effort to protect Holder from criminal prosecution and pre-empt the contempt vote. We filed our Freedom of Information Act request seeking these Fast and Furious records just two days after Obama made his assertion of executive privilege. After the DOJ predictably denied our FOIA request, we filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 12, 2012.

But then the Justice Department convinced U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates to stay our lawsuit, in part to allow ongoing settlement discussions between the Holder’s government lawyers and the House Committee to continue. Unsurprisingly, the “negotiations” between politicians running the House and the Justice Department went nowhere.

A major breakthrough came on July 18, 2014, when Judge Bates lifted what had been a 16-month delay of our open records lawsuit. Most significantly, he ordered the production of a Vaughn Index by October 1. On September 23, Bates denied the DOJ’s request that it be given over an extra month – until November 3 to produce a Vaughn Index. Holder announced his decision to resign just two days after this court ruling denying the DOJ’s request for an extension. We do not view this as a coincidence.

A Vaughn Index can be enormously helpful to the cause of openness and transparency in FOIA litigation, as it must typically (1) identify each record withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption. The 1,307-page draft Vaughn index, which explains 15,662 documents, arguably fails to provide all this required information, but is highly revealing.

Our initial review of this material reveals:

  • Numerous emails that detail Attorney General Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, timing public disclosures, and handling congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious matter.
  •  President Obama has asserted executive privilege over nearly 20 email communications between Holder and his spouse Sharon Malone. The administration also claims that the records are also subject to withholding under the “deliberative process” exemption. This exemption ordinarily exempts from public disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.
  • Numerous entries detail the DOJ’s communications (including those of Eric Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
  • The scandal required the attention of virtually every top official of the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Communications to and from the United States Ambassador to Mexico about the Fast and Furious matter are also described.

The continued fallout from Fast and Furious to the American people is difficult to overstate. The guns from the scandal are expected to be used in criminal activity on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border for years to come.

Judicial Watch again has proven itself more effective than Congress and the establishment media in providing basic oversight of this out-of-control administration. This Fast and Furious document provides dozens of leads for further congressional, media, and even criminal investigations. Hopefully, they will follow JW’s lead.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 503 other followers

%d bloggers like this: