Skip to content

Ted Cruz: Loretta Lynch Was Confirmed Because GOP Establishment Wanted Her to Be

April 25, 2015

Matthew Boyle

4/24/2015

Source …..

Ted-Cruz-reporters

The vote that mattered in confirming Loretta Lynch to become the next Attorney General was not her actual confirmation vote, but the cloture vote that set that up, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Friday. Cruz said:

Yesterday I gave an impassioned floor speech calling on Senators to stop this confirmation. The place to stop it was the cloture vote. Cloture requires 60 votes. Republicans have a majority. We have 54 Republican senators. Had Republicans simply stood together, Ms. Lynch would not be attorney general today. But unfortunately Republican leadership decided that it was not worth fighting to defend the rule of law. Loretta Lynch is attorney general today because Republican leadership decided they wanted her to be attorney general. And I said on the Senate floor yesterday there are a great many people across this country wondering why exactly did we have an election when we fought so hard in 2014, when a Republican Senate confirms the exact Attorney General Harry Reid’s Democratic senate would confirm?

While 10 Republican senators voted for Lynch’s final confirmation, it was the cloture vote—which had a 60-vote threshold—where Senate GOP leadership could have stopped Lynch if they wanted to. A whopping 66 senators voted for cloture, which means 20 Republicans technically voted for Lynch’s nomination—and by extension, for President Obama’s executive amnesty in doing so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell personally whipped votes for Lynch’s nomination, and for the cloture vote, according to a report from The Hill‘s Alex Bolton.

Those Republicans who voted for cloture alongside all 46 Democrats are: Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Thune (R-SD) and Thom Tillis (R-NC).

Cruz said those Republicans responsible for confirming Lynch and all the Democrats violated their oaths of office, since Lynch has guaranteed that she will uphold President Obama’s lawlessness, including especially his executive amnesty. Cruz said:

For several months, I have been leading the fight to stop the confirmation of Loretta Lynch—and the reason is simple: Ms. Lynch came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to articulate any constitutional limits whatsoever on the authority of the president. When asked how she would differ from Eric Holder, the most partisan attorney general this nation has ever seen, she refused to state even a single difference. I had wanted to support Ms. Lynch’s confirmation precisely because Eric Holder has so undermined the Department of Justice, and like many others I was eager to see a new attorney general sworn in. But the answers Ms. Lynch gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee over an extended period of questions refused to acknowledge any limits on the president’s power, and she made clear that she intended to be a rubber stamp for unlimited executive power in the hands of President Obama. In my view, no senator—Democrat or Republican—could vote to confirm Ms. Lynch consistent with his or her oath of office. Some say, confirming Loretta Lynch means Eric Holder is no longer Attorney General. But there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the law and abusing his office after he was confirmed. Ms. Lynch looked senators in the eye and told us she intends to disregard the law. For senators to vote to confirm an attorney general in that circumstance means they are complicit in the lawlessness.

Cruz was not present for the final vote—meaning he didn’t cast a vote on final confirmation—and he told Breitbart News that’s because cloture is where it could have been stopped. He went on to say:

I would note that some of the press had a field day that I was not physically present for the final confirmation vote. For two months I led the fight to stop her confirmation. I voted against confirmation in the Senate and repeatedly questioned Ms. Lynch. I urged my colleagues in writing, in public, in private and on the national stage not to confirm Ms. Lynch. I flew back to Washington to cast the vote that mattered, the cloture vote, yesterday morning. That was the 60-vote threshold that could have stopped Ms. Lynch and I was there to cast that vote and I spoke on the Senate floor urging my colleagues to vote no. Once Republicans had invoked cloture, her confirmation was a done deal. The final vote was a 50-vote threshold and there were ample votes to confirm her. I had a scheduling conflict that did not enable me to be there for what was in the end a meaningless vote because leadership had already decided to give President Obama and Harry Reid what they wanted. So while I was not physically present, under Senate rules being absent is the same thing as a no vote.

When Breitbart News noted that his not voting on final confirmation bolsters his argument that the real vote was cloture, he added that “that’s exactly right.”

“The fight to defeat this nomination was on cloture, and Republican leadership did not want to fight that fight,” Cruz said.

Why Is JP Morgan Accumulating The Biggest Stockpile Of Physical Silver In History?

April 25, 2015

Michael Snyder

4/24/2015

Source …..

Silver-BarsWhy in the world has JP Morgan accumulated more than 55 million ounces of physical silver?  Since early 2012, JP Morgan’s stockpile has grown from less than 5 million ounces of physical silver to more than 55 million ounces of physical silver.  Clearly, someone over at JP Morgan is convinced that physical silver is a great investment.  But in recent times, the price of silver has actually fallen quite a bit.  As I write this, it is sitting at the ridiculously low price of $15.66 an ounce.  So up to this point, JP Morgan’s investment in silver has definitely not paid off.  But it will pay off in a big way if we will soon be entering a time of great financial turmoil.

During a time of crisis, investors tend to flood into physical gold and silver.  And as I mentioned just recently, JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon recently stated that “there will be another crisis” in a letter to shareholders…

Some things never change — there will be another crisis, and its impact will be felt by the financial market.

The trigger to the next crisis will not be the same as the trigger to the last one – but there will be another crisis. Triggering events could be geopolitical (the 1973 Middle East crisis), a recession where the Fed rapidly increases interest rates (the 1980-1982 recession), a commodities price collapse (oil in the late 1980s), the commercial real estate crisis (in the early 1990s), the Asian crisis (in 1997), so-called “bubbles” (the 2000 Internet bubble and the 2008 mortgage/housing bubble), etc. While the past crises had different roots (you could spend a lot of time arguing the degree to which geopolitical, economic or purely financial factors caused each crisis), they generally had a strong effect across the financial markets

And Dimon is apparently putting his money where his mouth is.

If Dimon believes that another great crisis is coming, then it would make logical sense to stockpile huge amounts of precious metals.  And in particular, silver is a tremendous bargain for a variety of reasons.  Personally, I like gold, but I absolutely love silver – especially at the price it is at right now.

Over the past few years, JP Morgan has been voraciously buying up physical silver.  Nobody has ever seen anything quite like this ever before.  In fact, JP Morgan has added more than 8 million ounces of physical silver during the past couple of weeks alone

*****

According to a detailed report from The Wealth Watchman JP Morgan Chase has been amassing a huge stockpile of physical silver, presumably in anticipation of a major liquidity event.

They’re baaaaack. Yes, “old faithful” is back at it again!

Of course, they never really left silver, and have been rigging it non-stop in the futures market, but for awhile there, there were at least no admissions of newly-stacked silver being made in their Comex warehousing facilities.

Yet, after a 16 month period of “dormancy” within their Comex warehouse vaults, these guys have returned with a vengeance.

In fact, our old buddies at JP Morgan Chase, not only see value in silver here, but they’re currently standing for delivery in their own house account in such strong numbers, that it commands our attention.  Let me show you what I mean.

Here’s a breakdown of the Comex’s most recent silver deliveries to JP Morgan:

April 7th: 1,110,000 ounces

April 8th: 1,280,000 ounces

April 9th:  893,037 ounces

April 10th: 1,200,224 ounces

April 14th: 1,073,000 ounces

April 15th: 1,191,275 ounces

April 16th: 1,183,777.295 ounces

This is a huge bout of deliveries in such a short space of time. In fact, within the realm of Comex world, it’s such an exceptionally large amount, that it even creates quite a spike on the long-term chart of JP Morgan’s vault stockpile:

JP-Morgan-Silver

All in all, JP Morgan has added over 8.3 million ounces of additional silver in just the past 2 weeks alone.

 Full report at The Wealth Watchman (via Steve Quayle and Realist News)

*****

So why is JP Morgan doing this?

Do they know something that the rest of us do not?

Meanwhile, JP Morgan Chase has made another very curious move as well.  It is being reported that the bank is “restricting the use of cash” in some markets, and has even gone so far as to “prohibit the storage of cash in safe deposit boxes”…

What is a surprise is how little notice the rollout of Chase’s new policy has received.  As of March, Chase began restricting the use of cash in selected markets, including  Greater Cleveland.  The new policy restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and  auto loans.  Chase even goes as far as to prohibit the storage of cash in its safe deposit boxes .  In a letter to its customers dated April 1, 2015 pertaining to its “Updated Safe Deposit Box Lease Agreement,”  one of the highlighted items reads:  “You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value.”  Whether or not this pertains to gold and silver coins with no numismatic value is not explained.

What in the world is that all about?

Why is JP Morgan suddenly so negative about cash?

I think that there is a whole lot more going on behind the scenes than we are being told.

JP Morgan Chase is the largest of the six “too big to fail” banks in the United States.  The total amount of assets that JP Morgan Chase controls is roughly equal to the GDP of the entire British economy.  This is an institution that is immensely powerful and that has very deep ties to the U.S. government.

Could it be possible that JP Morgan Chase is anticipating another great economic crisis?

We are definitely due for one.  Just consider the following chart from Zero Hedge.  It postulates that our financial system is ready for another “7.5 year itch”…

7.5-Year-Itch

JP Morgan certainly seems to be preparing for a worst case scenario.

What about you?

Are you getting ready for what is coming?

Gangbanger Charged With Murder, Drug Crimes Gets Obama Amnesty

April 24, 2015

Judicial Watch

4/24/2015

Source …..

Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-HernandezIn the latest scandal to rock President Obama’s controversial executive amnesty initiative, a known gang member charged with murder and drug-related crimes was shielded from deportation under the administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The illegal immigrant’s name is Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez and he was in the process of being deported when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shielded him from removal under DACA, even though the agency knew he was a member of a violent street gang. USCIS was also aware that Rangel-Hernandez had been arrested in 2012 for possession of drugs but rubber-stamped his amnesty petition anyways last August.

Earlier this year, months after our commander-in-chief granted him amnesty, the 19-year-old gangbanger was charged with four counts of first-degree murder in connection with a three-day shooting spree in Charlotte, North Carolina. One of the victims was a model who appeared in a popular reality television show, according to a local news report that confirms authorities knew Rangel-Hernandez was listed in a federal database as a gang member when they approved his amnesty. Under DACA illegal immigrants are also rewarded with work permits.

This month the Homeland Security agency implementing Obama’s massive amnesty program admitted that the gangbanger’s “DACA request and related employment authorization should not have been approved.” Americans would never know about this egregious case if it weren’t made public by a federal lawmaker who demanded answers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The legislator, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and has long expressed concern about how individuals who are allowed to remain in the U.S. under Obama’s deferred action are vetted. Earlier this year the senator pressed USCIS for information related to the process and, specifically, about Rangel-Hernandez.

A few days ago the agency responded by admitting that it erroneously shielded Rangel-Hernandez from deportation considering his criminal history and gang ties. In a letter to Senator Grassley, USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez writes that “based upon the derogatory information in the background check, the outcome of the resolution process and final decision did not comply with USCIS policy.” The agency’s Background Check Unit (BCU) should deny consideration of DACA for a known street gang member, the letter confirms, further stating that “given the fact that the individual was identified as a known gang member, his request should have been denied by the adjudicator.”

But it wasn’t denied and that creates many questions about the process. It’s bad enough that the administration is rewarding millions who have entered the country illegally with all sorts of benefits, but now we must wonder how many dangerous criminals are benefitting from this broad amnesty. The newspaper report cited above says that federal authorities have since found 13 other cases in the same crime database of people who were approved for protection from deportation. This means that, more than likely, there are a lot more. Unfortunately, the public may never hear about them until they commit a serious crime.

SPLC Accuses Oath Keepers of Inciting “Armed Confrontation” Over Sugar Pine Mine

April 24, 2015

Paul Joseph Watson

4/24/2015

Source …..

sugarpine

The Southern Poverty Law Center has accused Oath Keepers of inciting an armed confrontation with BLM authorities over the Sugar Pine Mine dispute in Oregon, despite the fact that the organization has explicitly stated that it is not promoting armed confrontation with the feds.

In an article provocatively posted on the organization’s ‘Hatewatch’ section entitled Oath Keepers Descend Upon Oregon with Dreams of Armed Confrontation over Mining Dispute, the SPLC contradicts its own headline within the first three paragraphs.

Far from dreaming of “armed confrontation,” Oath Keepers released a statement last week emphasizing, “This is NOT a standoff with BLM. We are NOT promoting any confrontation with BLM. This is a security operation for the protection of Constitutional Rights.”

At the request of the Sugar Pine Mining Claim owners, Oath Keepers are providing security around the location, primarily to keep away extremists or provocateurs who might try to initiate violence.

Indeed, the SPLC piece even goes on to contradict itself once again by quoting Joseph Rice, the security coordinator for the Josephine County chapter of the Oath Keepers, who stated, “If you are on a fringe element, and you’re here to protest, or provoke a reaction with the federal government, I don’t want you here. Let me repeat that: If you’re here to protest and to provoke a reaction with the federal government, I do not need you.”

The Sugar Pine Mine situation has drawn comparisons to the Bundy Ranch standoff, although the dispute has not escalated to the point where BLM agents are attempting to occupy contested property.

The SPLC piece goes on to blame “Alex Jones’ Infowars” for helping to circulate news about the issue.

The organization also appears to believe it is above copyright laws. In a video posted in the article, the SPLC plagiarizes huge chunks of video content owned by Infowars and the Next News Network. The clips are presented without comment and clearly do not represent fair use.

While posing as a guardian against “hate” and violence, the Southern Poverty Law Center itself promotes hate and violence.

The first person to be convicted under Washington DC’s 2002 anti-terrorism law was an SPLC supporter – 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins – who shot up the Family Research Council headquarters in 2012 after the group was listed an “anti-gay” group on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website.

Carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, Corkins intended to storm the Washington headquarters of the Christian group, kill as many people as possible, and smear victims’ faces with the sandwiches in order to, “make a statement against the people who work in that building … and with their stance against gay rights and Chick-fil-A,” he admitted.

“In his plea agreement, Corkins acknowledged he identified the Council as “an anti-gay organization” by visiting Southern Poverty’s website,” reported the Associated Press.

Isn’t it ironic that the SPLC routinely smears patriot groups as violent on its website when one of its own supporters was inspired to commit an act of violent terror specifically because of content posted by the SPLC on its website?

A comment by an SPLC supporter that called for executing Alex Jones also remained on the organization’s site for over four months.

The SPLC has worked closely with Homeland Security to issue “threat projections” over the last decade which have demonized gun owners, constitutionalists and libertarians as terrorists, one of which, as an FOIA request revealed, was not based on any reliable supporting evidence whatsoever, but was merely the product of a DHS agent surfing around SPLC’s own website, as well as widely a debunked disinformation fringe blog, for a matter of hours.

A 2009 SPLC hit piece which erroneously connected Alex Jones to Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski was also littered with death threats made by SPLC sympathizers towards Jones.

“The SPLC, the well-heeled propaganda machine that smears conservatives for cash, is an integral part of the ongoing Leftist effort to demonize and destroy legitimate conservative voices,” writes Robert Spencer, adding, “The SPLC turns a blind eye to the real hate that comes from the Left and Islamic supremacists, and offers with its hate group listings not only an incitement to violence, but a handy tool that lazy Leftist mainstream media journalists use to try to intimidate people away from supporting our message of human rights.”

Supported by wealthy donors such as George Soros, the SPLC makes vast amounts of money by conflating genuine extremist groups with conservative organizations in order to smear any influential political outfit that does not espouse the SPLC’s brand of leftist dogma.

“It is so fabulously wealthy that it stashes money in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, two of those tax haven countries the Left keeps complaining about. In addition to those foreign accounts, in its most recent publicly available tax return the SPLC discloses an absolutely astounding $238.1 million in net assets,” writes Matthew Vadum.

Jeb And Hillary: The Worst Of Evils

April 24, 2015

Chuck Baldwin

4/23/2015

Source …..

Bush-Clinton

Does anyone in the country want to see another Bush vs. Clinton presidential race? If they do, they have a death wish for America.

It is not uncommon these days to hear people refer to Jeb and Hillary as the “royals.” And, while I’m glad that a lot of people seem to have a natural revulsion to having another Bush or Clinton in the White House, the fact is, the Bushes and Clintons are not two “royals.” They are one CRIME FAMILY.

One of the greatest hoaxes of modern times was the façade that the Bush and Clinton families were political adversaries, when the truth is, they have all been “best buds” for most (if not all) of their political careers. For anyone who wants to research the veracity of what I am saying (with an honest and open mind), it will take almost no time to be convinced. The recent reports about foreign influence and money that have poured into the Clinton coffers are nothing new and are just the tip of the iceberg.

While there is no way that we can know the totality of all that this international Crime Family is guilty of, there is enough evidence and eyewitness testimony out there to convince even the most stubborn skeptic that these people are among the most despicable trolls in the world. If we had a semblance of a free and independent national news media, the Bushes and Clintons would have already been exposed as the miscreants they are and would be serving life sentences in prison–which is where they all belong. (Of course, that could be said for a bunch of those criminals in Washington, D.C.)

We hear much talk about the “lesser of two evils.” Well, folks, I’m here to tell you that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are the worst of evils. Both of these people are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the international elite who are hell-bent on destroying capitalism, free enterprise, constitutional government, and yes, the sovereignty and independence of the United States. There is no substantial difference between them. They may have two different last names, and claim to represent two different political parties and ideologies, but, again, they are members of the same cabal of international gangsters. And between the two, Jeb is probably more dangerous.

Despite the best attempts by the propaganda press to keep Hillary’s crimes under wraps, the skeletons are starting to fall out of the closet. It will be virtually impossible to keep them from developing into full-fledged scandals in forthcoming months. Hillary is damaged goods. In fact, Hillary is NOT even electable. I repeat: Hillary is NOT electable. The only way that Hillary will even obtain the Democratic nomination is if the power elite want to offer her up as a political sacrifice so Jeb (or another controlled Republican) can be the next President. The fact that New York newspapers are already breaking the foreign-cash scandal against Hillary is illustrative of what I’m saying. But if it looks like they cannot cram Jeb Bush down the throat of the Republican Party, and there is too much popular resistance to Bush, they might decide to let so many skeletons out of the closet that Hillary would not be able to even win the nomination.

As for Jeb Bush, he is the quintessential neocon: he loves Big Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and, especially, Big Banks and the Federal Reserve. He loves perpetual war; he loves the military-industrial complex; he loves open borders; he loves the DHS, the Patriot Act, and a domestic Police State. And Jeb Bush knows where the bodies are buried. He knows virtually every skeleton in every closet in Washington, D.C.–and in foreign capitals.

Jeb and his fellow globalist robot, Benjamin Netanyahu, are international gangsters of the highest (or lowest, depending on how one looks at it) order. With the two of them in power at the same time, WATCH OUT! The Warfare State and Police State would grow exponentially. War in the Middle East would become as hot as hot can be. Jeb and Bibi would take the world to the precipice of, or into, World War III.

Skull & Bones, the Rothschilds, Bohemian Grove, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs: Jeb is in the shadow of all of it. Jeb Bush is the Darth Vader of 2016. And with virtually unlimited money and a questionable voting system–not to mention the support of virtually the entire international banking system, military-industrial system, and corrupt foreign leaders in his pocket–he is going to be a most formidable candidate. The media is already skewing poll numbers to make it appear that Jeb Bush is popular with grassroots Republicans. Media manipulation of opinion in favor of Bush has only begun. It will proliferate tremendously in the months to come.

If Jeb Bush is elected President of the United States, he will make Barack Obama’s terms in office look downright benign by comparison.

However, the global elite do not always get their way. Jeb’s nomination is far from locked up. He is almost universally despised among grassroots conservatives. They know he is a Big Government neocon. His support for Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals, his support for Common Core, his support for Loretta Lynch, his infatuation with Lyndon Johnson, etc., have raised major red flags with genuine conservatives. It is yet to be seen if GOP grassroots conservatives can rise up against Bush in sufficient numbers to derail his candidacy–but they might.

Of course, the second scenario is that the power elite might use Bush as a smokescreen to pave the way for someone equally controlled. The field of GOP contenders is littered with neocons: Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Bob Sasse, etc. (Forget about Mike Pence; he killed any presidential aspirations he may have had with his embarrassing flip flop over the religious freedom issue in his home State of Indiana.) If conservatives derail Jeb Bush in the primaries–and if the media keeps Hillary Clinton in the race–you can know that this second scenario is the one the elites are using.

Again, if the elites plan on a Democrat taking the White House next year, they will remove Hillary from the race. Otherwise, they plan to play the same old “throw-the-bums-out” game and replace a controlled establishment Democrat with a controlled establishment Republican in 2016. In like manner, they replaced a controlled establishment Republican with a controlled establishment Democrat in 2008. In that race, John McCain was the sacrificial lamb. If this is the same game plan for 2016, Hillary Clinton will be the sacrificial lamb. This two party charade has been going on forever. One would think that sooner or later the American people would catch on; but they seem to never do.

Thus far, the only two Republican candidates who are outside the blessing of the global elite are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. So, you can mark this down and take it to the bank: the Republican establishment and propaganda media will do everything in their power (which is substantial) to make sure that neither of these men obtain the nomination.

I have written preliminary reviews of both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

My review of Ted Cruz is here:

Ted Cruz: Pros And Cons

My review of Rand Paul is here:

Rand Paul: Pros And Cons

Without a doubt, New World Order globalists have been active in many presidential administrations, beginning with the man who started it all: Abraham Lincoln. Of course, some administrations have been worse than others: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, for example. But in the modern era, George H.W. Bush introduced America to the neocon agenda–complete with perpetual war and a burgeoning Police State. And every single presidential administration since Bush I (Clinton, Bush II, and Obama) has merely continued and escalated this agenda. For all intents and purposes, America has had only one continuous presidential administration since Bush I. And the globalists will do their very best to insure that this agenda continues unabated into the next presidential administration, be it Republican or Democrat.

But Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton represent the very pinnacle of the ideal globalist-controlled candidate. If you value your liberties at all, you better pray to God that neither of these people is elected President next year. As I said, anyone who would want to see a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton presidential race in 2016 has a death wish for America.

CBP Wants $134.5M for Anticipated ‘Future Influx’ of Illegal Alien Children

April 24, 2015

4/23/2015

Source …..

bordercrowd

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) included $134.5 million in “contingency” funding in its budget request for Fiscal Year 2016 to deal with a “future influx” of up to 104,000 unaccompanied alien children, or “UCs,” who may cross the border into the United States illegally next year.

CBP Commissioner Richard Gil Kerlikowske defended the request during a hearing before the House Appropriations’ Homeland Security Subcommittee on Thursday as providing “additional resources” for CBP in the event of another flood of illegal aliens, which he warned could be coming.

“The budget request provides baseline funding for the care and custody of 58,000 UCs and takes steps to better prepare the Department for a future influx of UCs through a contingency fund which will provide up to $134.5 million to provide the necessary support activities required to apprehend and maintain the health and safety for up to 104,000 UCs once specific threshold levels are met,” CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske said in his written statement to the subcommittee.

“Without this increase in funding, CBP will not have the flexibility to adequately respond to a significant surge of UCs in FY 2016,” Kerlikowske added in the statement.

During the hearing, Subcommittee Ranking Member Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) asked Kerlikowske if CBP was fully prepared for another influx of unaccompanied minors in the near future.

“CBP was challenged last summer in managing the influx of unaccompanied children across the southwest border,” she said. “Are you satisfied that CBP is fully prepared to deal with a repeat of last summer’s influx, were it to occur, including addressing or being able to address the full range of needs of these children?”

“And perhaps even more importantly, are you confident that the Office of Refugee Resettlement is prepared to accept custody of the children within the 72 hours of their apprehension by CBP?” Roybal-Allard continued.

“First, yes, I am fully confident that the border patrol has much greater resources and is much more fully prepared to address this issue, with contracts in place for health care, for food service, for transportation that can be used, and an additional processing center that was purchased and equipped,” Kerlikowske responded.

Kerlikowske added that current CBP “encounters” with unaccompanied alien children is down 48 percent from this time last year, but added that “it would be a mistake to pat ourselves on the back for those lower numbers, because we don’t know what the future will bring.”

The decrease in UACs crossing the border illegally was in part due to a recent joint campaign by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department to create a marketing campaign, entitled Dangers of the Journey to Cross the Border, which sought to inform potential border-crossers from Latin America of the perils of coming to the United States illegally, he added.

According to Kerlikowske, the public information campaign also told those outside of the country that if they crossed the border illegally, they “will be detained and will not be allowed to stay.”

The CBP’s discretionary budget request is currently $11.5 billion, an increase of $685.5 million above the agency’s FY2015 budget.

‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon appear on NYC subways and buses

April 23, 2015

4/22/2015

Source …..

AFDI Bus AdAFDI Bus Ad

New Yorkers are used to aggressive advertising. Banners for breast implants. Billboards for condoms. But a federal judge’s ruling has opened the door for far more controversial posters on buses and subways across the city.

“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” reads one such ad next to the image of a young man in a checkered headscarf. “That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”

The poster is at the center of heated legal debate over public safety and free speech. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled that New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) cannot stop the controversial ad from running on scores of subway cars and buses.

The MTA has argued that the ad could incite violence against Jews, but Koeltl rejected that idea.

MTA officials “underestimate the tolerant quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of these fleeting advertisements,” he ruled. “Moreover, there is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads — offensive as they may be — are still entitled to First Amendment protection.”

Making the case all the stranger is that the posters are not the work of an Islamist group, but rather a pro-Israel organization.

“This is a triumph for liberty and free speech,” tweeted Pamela Geller, the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), the group that purchased the ads and sued the MTA to run them. “#freedom #victory #shariafail.”

AFDI is not your traditional free speech organization, however. The “about” section on its Web site starts out pretty straightforward, then takes a very hard turn.

“Our objective is to go on the offensive when legal, academic, legislative, cultural, sociological, and political actions are taken to dismantle our basic freedoms and values,” it says. “AFDI acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials, the mainstream media, and others in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, the ever-encroaching and unconstitutional power of the federal government, and the rapidly moving attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center considers AFDI an “anti-Muslim” hate group. This year, AFDI is organizing an inaugural Muhammad portrait contest, despite objections from Muslims who consider images of the prophet blasphemous.

Whatever you make of the group, AFDI has been remarkably successful in bringing its message to America. AFDI has filed at least nine lawsuits across the country, often against cities or their contractors that refuse to display their messages.Those messages include a poster depicting Adolf Hitler meeting with “the leader of the Muslim world” and demanding that the United States cut off all aid to Islamic countries. “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” reads another AFDI poster. “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

These posters have put AFDI on a crash course with both the MTA and Muslim advocacy groups. In 2011, the MTA refused to run the “savage” ad because it was demeaning to Muslims and Palestinians. AFDI sued, and a federal judge later ruled that MTA’s non-demeaning standard violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The “savage” ads soon went up all over New York City.

AFDI’s ads have also drawn objections from Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that promotes the rights of Muslims and better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, launched its own public relations campaign to combat AFDI. In 2012 and 2013, CAIR ran posters in several U.S. cities promoting peaceful versions of Islam. “‘#MyJihad is to build friendships across the aisle.’ What’s yours?” But the ads never ran in New York due to a disagreement between CAIR and MTA.With its echoing “What’s yours?,” AFDI’s latest and most controversial “Killing Jews” advertisement parodies CAIR’s campaign. Last summer, AFDI purchased space on 100 buses and subway cars for four of its ads. The MTA approved three of the ads but blocked the “Killing Jews” poster.

The poster attributes the “Killing Jews” quote to “Hamas MTV,” apparently a reference to the Palestinian group’s odd blend of violence and music videos. The ad also has a disclaimer at the bottom noting that it is “a paid advertisement sponsored by” AFDI and “does not imply MTA’s endorsement.”

But MTA Security Director Raymond Diaz worried that the poster would nonetheless incite violence, primarily against Jews. “What matters is not AFDI’s intent, but how the ad would be interpreted,” he wrote. The line “What is yours?” could be considered a “call to violence,” particularly because the CAIR posters it was mocking never appeared in New York. When AFDI pointed out that the exact same poster had not caused any problems in Chicago or San Francisco, Diaz argued that New York was different because it is “the prime terror target” and that the “terrorist security threat” had grown worse since 2013.

On Tuesday, however, Judge Koeltl tossed out those arguments and sided with AFDI. The ads could not reasonably be considered an incitement to violence, even if someone didn’t understand them.

“The defendants admit that the actual intention of the advertisement is not to advocate the use of force, but to parody the CAIR ‘My Jihad’ campaign and to criticize Hamas and radical Islam. However, they argue that a reasonable New Yorker would not read the advertisement this way, but would instead read it as advocating the killing of Jewish people,” Koeltl wrote. “The defendants’ theory is thoroughly unpersuasive.”

After AFDI’s victory, Geller posed for photos outside the federal courthouse while holding the “Killing Jews” advertisement.

“With our NY win, our ads will make their debut on New York buses in the coming weeks,” AFDI’s Web site promises above a “donate” button. “We want to run 100. Help us make that happen.”

But even if the ads don’t incite violence in New York City, they could overseas. Earlier this month, Egypt’s top religious authority called AFDI’s posters “racist” and issued a fatwa, or official edict, against them. “This hazardous campaign will leave the gate of confrontation and clashes wide open instead of exerting efforts towards peaceful coexistence and harmony,” according to the edict.

Hamas, the group cited on the ads, has not said whether it approves of the message.

Not Your Grandfather’s FBI

April 23, 2015

Andrew P. Napolitano

4/23/2015

Source …..

fbi-organized crime- joker

Does the FBI manifest fidelity, bravery and integrity, or does it cut constitutional corners in order to incriminate? Can the FBI cut the cable television lines to your house and then show up pretending to be the cable guy and install listening devices? Can FBI agents and technicians testify falsely and cause the innocent to be convicted, incarcerated and, in some cases, executed?

In 2014, FBI agents in Las Vegas were on the trail of Wei Seng Phua, whom they believed was running an illegal gambling operation out of his hotel room at Caesars Palace. Instead of following him, asking questions about him and using other traditional investigative techniques, a few agents came up with the idea of planting a wiretap in Phua’s hotel room.

They bribed a hotel employee, who gave them access to a place in the hotel where they could disable the cable television wires to Phua’s room. When he called for repair, they showed up pretending to be cable guys, and he let them into his room. They repaired what they had disabled, but they also illegally wiretapped the phones in the room. Then they overheard his telephone conversations about his illegal gambling, and they arrested him. A grand jury indicted him based on what was overheard.

The grand jury was not told of the wire cutting and the con job, but a federal judge was. Last week, he criticized the FBI for conducting an illegal search of Phua’s room, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment, which the agents swore to uphold, and he barred the government from using the tapes of the telephone conversations as evidence against Phua. If the government can get away with this, he ruled, then constitutional guarantees are meaningless.

These lawless agents should have been indicted by a state grand jury for breaking and entering by false pretense, but Caesars declined to seek their prosecution. No surprise.

It was surprising, however, when the FBI was forced to admit last week that in the 1980s and 1990s, its agents and lab technicians who examined hair samples testified falsely in 257 of 268 cases that resulted in convictions. Of the convictions, 18 persons were sentenced to death, and of those, 12 have been executed.

Some of these cases were federal, but most were state prosecutions in which state and county prosecutors hired the FBI to perform lab tests and compare hair samples from a crime scene with a defendant’s known hair sample. The faulty lab work and erroneous testimony destroyed the freedom of hundreds and the lives of 12, squandered millions in tax dollars, and impaired the constitutional values we all embrace.

You probably did not hear about the FBI cable guys or the admitted 96-percent rate of false testimony in cases of conviction. That’s because the FBI skillfully diverted your attention.

In an effort to pick a front-page fight with the government of Poland, FBI Director James Comey revealed last week that the very concept of the Holocaust has moved him deeply — so deeply that he has ordered all new FBI agents to spend quiet time at the Holocaust Museum contemplating its horrors. He argued that the terror of Nazi agents became so commonplace that its wrongness was no longer apparent to them. That’s probably true. The Nazis did so much killing that their acts of killing innocents became commonplace to the killers. Then he blamed the Poles for their own victimization because of the few among them who collaborated with their invaders. This brought the hoped-for fierce blowback from the Polish government and top-of-the-fold criticism of Comey for two days.

Earlier this week, the FBI announced the arrest of eight persons for attempting to leave the United States in order to join ISIS. The actual charge is attempting to provide material assistance to a terrorist organization. These ISIS people are truly monsters. Yet, Americans have a natural right to travel where they want and associate with whomever they please. The test of a truly free country is the right to leave it.

Moreover, this was a controlled FBI sting. The defendants were instigated by and under the watchful eyes of FBI undercover agents. The FBI admits that the defendants never posed any harm. How can it be a crime — or harmful — for people to leave the U.S.? If people with evil inclinations want to leave, let them go; arrest them when they return if they cause harm.

For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the definition of crime has included the element of harm. No one was harmed by this sting except the taxpayers. Yet, this announcement dominated the news cycle as hoped for.

Why chastise the Poles, who suffered egregiously under the Nazis, in 2015 for the few who collaborated with them in 1942? Why entrap losers who harmed no one into thinking they could freely leave the country and join an army of monsters and then announce their arrest during a bad week? To change the subject; that’s why.

Will FBI agents who lie, cheat, break the law and testify falsely be brought to justice? Will their superiors who condone this be made to answer? Does the FBI work for us, or do we work for it?

Vaccines cause autism, says confidential document from corrupt drug company

April 23, 2015

4/23/2015

Source …..

Autism-Foam-Letters-Kids-Children

While the debate rages on about whether or not vaccines cause autism, a confidential document has surfaced that makes clear what science has led Natural News readers to believe: Yes, vaccines are linked to autism.

The document,[PDF] which runs over 1,000 pages, is from the fraudulent and corrupt GlaxoSmithKline. Several hundred pages in, it’s revealed that vaccines are tied to autism. It’s blatantly outlined in a chart, along with a long list of other conditions caused by vaccines, including “motor development delay,” “tremor” and “altered state of consciousness.” Autism is listed in this chart as a nervous system and mental impairment disorder associated with receiving GSK’s Infanrix hexa vaccine.(1)

Signed by Dr. Felix Arellano, the Vice President and Head of Biological Safety and Pharmacovigilance of GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, the document’s introduction states:

This summary bridging report integrates the information presented in the two Combined Diphtheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B enhanced Inactivated Poliomyelitis and Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine (Infanrix™ hexa) periodic safety update reports (PSURs) covering the two year period from 23 October 2009 to 22 October 2011.(1)

Vaccine is “favourable,” despite long list of health conditions

The document suggests that, although there are several adverse health effects associated with vaccine, the risk is not deemed to be problematic:

The Company will continue to monitor cases of anaemia haemolytic autoimmune, thrombocytopenia, thrombocytopenic purpura, autoimmune thrombocytopenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, haemolytic anemia, cyanosis, injection site nodule, abcess and injection site abscess, Kawasaki’s disease, important neurological events (including encephalitis and encephalopathy), Henoch-Schonlein purpura, petechiae, purpura, haematochezia, allergic reactions (including anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions) cases of lack of effectiveness as well as fatal cases.(1)

Yet, despite the long list of health problems mentioned, the document maintains, “The benefit/risk profile of Infanrix hexa continues to be favourable.”(1)

In 2014, Infanrix was ruled by an Italian court to be responsible for a young Milan boy developing autism shortly after receiving the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine. As such, the decision was to award the boy for his vaccine-induced autism.(2)

The child received a series of Infanrix hexa injections in 2006, a vaccine designed to protect children from polio, tetanus, hepatitis B, diphtheria, pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type B. Instead of being protected, his health declined: He developed autism. Medical experts in the Italian Court pointed to the confidential document, suggesting that the boy likely developed the condition due to the variety of antigens and thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative now banned in Italy due to its neurotoxicity) and a host of other toxic ingredients that were in the vaccine at the time.(2)

Of Infanrix hexa’s thimerosal, the Court noted that it was “in concentrations greatly exceeding the maximum recommended levels for infants weighing only a few kilograms.”(2)

Despite irrefutable proof that vaccines cause autism, court appeals are in the works

Interestingly, in 2012, the Italian courts made a judgement in a similar situation in which they ruled that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine caused a child’s autism. Just like the Infanrix hexa ruling, however, this finding has not set well with the Ministry of Health; they initially denied compensation to the family. Ultimately, the court granted compensation. Still, in the case of the young boy who was given the Infanrix hexa vaccine, the Ministry of Health has appealed, a process that’s expected to take several years to sort out.(2)

Such rulings should be applauded, although it’s disturbing 1) that appeals have ensued, and 2) that the United States has yet to come close to such court decisions.

This document — straight from the horse’s mouth, GlaxoSmithKline themselves — blatantly shows that vaccines are linked to autism and other conditions. What more is there to question, when the proof exists before our very eyes?

Sources:

Monsanto Has Knowingly Been Poisoning People for (at Least) 35 Years

April 23, 2015

Christina Sarich

4/22/2015

Source …..

round-up-monsanto

But we’re not allowed to know about it

Evidence has surfaced from the archives of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that now proves that Monsanto has been fully aware of the potential of glyphosate to cause cancer in mammals (human populations) since as early as 1981.

When the WHO recently announced that Monsanto’s glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic,” the first thing the company did was move to damage control – to “evade detection of apprehension” for their heinous deeds. Teams of writers with links to the biotech industry went to work refusing that their chemicals were causing cancer the world over, even though study after study has proven a link between the two.

How can Monsanto maintain that glyphosate and GMOs are harmless? What are these “800 studies” proving its safety, and where are they? And how can the EPA, which reviews extensive toxicological and environmental data before registering an active ingredient, corroborate such nonsense and classify glyphosate as “practically non-toxic” when there is so much evidence to the contrary? Especially when their own documents tell a very different story!

With a search through EPA around the time of glyphosate’s initial registration (in addition to earlier investigations by Sustainable Pulse which highlighted a sudden change in the EPA view on toxicity in 1991), what was discovered was very illuminating.

Among the EPA’s records were multiple animal experiments (using rats, mice, and dogs) designed to test the acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate in the period 1978-1986, conducted by laboratories such as Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto and submitted for EPA consideration.

At least two of the these reports involving the reproductive systems of rats exposed to glyphosate had telling results, but these were shielded from pubic view as ‘trade secrets’ of the biotech industry. What exactly were in those studies? Why can’t the public know? Monsanto’s need for secrecy shows that their aims were likely far more sinister than anyone would like to think.

Dr. Pang (retired US Army Medical Corps, former consultant to the World Health Organization for 20 years ) offers his important assessment of what might sit underneath all those Monsanto blacked-out lines [in recently exposed secret Monsanto documents regarding the Maui County vs. Monsanto case]:

As Jon Rappoport recently detailed:

“There are two worries I have about the redacted lines which only Monsanto and the judge sees. What if…[the redacted lines] reference a Monsanto…chemical similar to toxaphene (banned for toxicity and spreading hundreds of miles). Can she [Judge Mollway] tell us what [Monsanto] chemicals are similar enough to toxaphene to be worrisome? Can she recognize the chemical structure of toxaphene (from multiple choice diagrams)? What if it is toxaphene itself? Furthermore…the [Monsanto legal] argument depends intimately on untested combinations [of Monsanto chemical pesticides]……I need to know the number of chemicals used AND the amounts used to see their potential for [toxic] overlap. I feel I am competent to make these assessments.

I don’t have access to the [un]redacted versions of Monsanto documents]. Only two other parties do. 1) Monsanto is grossly biased and 2) the Judge who is not scientifically qualified. If she brings in a third party ‘independent’ (say UH) to assess for her, they have to be both non-biased and scientifically qualified. I am not even convinced she can recognize the scientific qualifications of her own advisers. For example, ask them their opinion on the recent ruling of WHO on glyphosate risk of cancer [glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup]. On the mutational potential of glyphosate for human pathogens related to antibiotic resistance. On the gene toxicity (same mechanism as cancer) relationship [of glyphosate] to birth defects (widely published, even before the cancer risk publications).

If [the Monsanto] info is redacted because of threat of vandalism [at their secret facility locations on Maui]—that is a police issue to be resolved if it occurs, not a court decision.”

In this argument, Dr. Pang obliterates any rationale for Monsanto and the federal court to heavily censor Monsanto documents – from the EPA, USDA, or elsewhere.

It is now common knowledge that during the Cold War, Monsanto’s 2,4-D was a form of biological warfare, and Operation Ranch Hand using Agent Orange killed millions and caused an untold number of birth defects. Is this what Monsanto is hiding about their toxic brew of chemicals used today?

Many attest that GM foods are nothing more than biological weapons. Some say they are premeditated murder. Some say they are meant to sterilize an entire generation of people:

“We have a greenhouse full of corn plants that produce anti-sperm antibodies.” ~ Mitch Hein, president of Epicyte, a California-based biotechnology company.

Moreover, the Codex international organization, founded by the United Nations, charged with regulating all foods, minerals, and herbs in the world, does not believe that GMO products are food, and as such, “can be used for various practices, including birth control and the creation of infertility in a nation or people.”

President of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, said his company’s transgenic corn plants, “create anti-sperm antibodies.”

He has also explained that the creation of transgenic organisms and their use in food could be used as a tool to solve the “overpopulation problem.”

Monsanto is not creating food.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 514 other followers

%d bloggers like this: