Friday, February 28, 2014


Foreign Policy Mag:
Speaking Tuesday at a rally in a Reno, Nevada, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin had a little fun with her counterpart on the Democratic ticket, thanking Joe Biden for warning Barack Obama’s supporters to “gird your loins" for an international crisis if the Illinois senator wins.
Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.
Watch the video here:
As we’ve said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western governmentwithout firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel. Watch the upcoming parliamentary elections in December to see if Moscow gets the pliable new government it wants.
I don’t think that much of Palin, but you have to admit this is getting more hysterical by the second.

Today’s Ministry of Truth Definition: UNCONTESTED ARRIVAL

Admin officials tell CNN’s Barbara Starr this is an “uncontested arrival” not necessarily “an invasion” and that this distinction is “key.”
Joshua Redman & The Bad Plus
36th Vitoria-Gasteiz Jazz Festival (2012)

01 - 2 P.M. 0:00 / 02 - Thriftstore Jewelry 15:17 / 03 - People Like You 23:27 / 04 - Big Eater 35:20 / 05 - Silence Is The Question 45:02

From The Mouth Of The Enemy

Via Jihad Watch (citing the Telegraph):
The Islamist killers of Drummer Lee Rigby erupted into violence in an Old Bailey courtroom as they were sentenced for murder.

Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, had to be manhandled out of court by security guards after being told by Mr Justice Sweeney that their crime was a “betrayal of Islam”.

Adebolajo screamed at the judge as he was manhandled down the dock stairs in the historic Court No 2 but, in scenes lasting several minutes, his co-defendant was held to the floor and cuffed before being carried downstairs head first….

Angered by the judges’ comments about Islam, Adebowale stood up and shouted: “That’s a lie. It’s not a betrayal of Islam. You don’t know what Islam is.”

The struggle erupted as the murderer yelled: “I swear by Allah that America and Britain will never have any safety. Allahu Akbar [God is Great].”…
It seems to me that people, voluntary dhimmis, are perseverating in believing what they want to believe instead of facing the facts about what the Koran and the Haditha teach. Therefore, those of us who are trying to debunk the whitewash have an uphill battle, an uphill battle that has consistently become worse since 9/11 and the jihad attack on the Boston Marathon. Not even a beheading in the streets of 21st Century London matters to those who wish to believe that Islam means peace!

We are Cassandras.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin

AMERICANS, please read the next four posts and then ask yourselves how long we will continue to allow our rights to be ignored, our privacy trampled and violated, by political and law enforcement overreach and abuse? And what the hell are we going to do about it and when?

A Hit Against The Second

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Second Amendment

The Blaze:

Is Gun Confiscation on the Way in Connecticut? Owners of Newly ‘Illegal’ Firearms May Soon Start Receiving Notices (UPDATED)

UPDATE: A spokesperson with the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection told TheBlaze that a letter has been drafted to send to gun owners who are found to be in possession of unregistered semi-automatic rifles deemed illegal by the state’s new gun control law. However, “not a one” letter has been sent out so far.
The spokesperson, who didn’t want to identify herself, refused to comment on the content of the draft letter. When we asked what other action the state plans to take against owners of unregistered so-called “assault rifles, the spokesperson said we should contact the governor’s office because that’s where they get their orders from.
It’s not clear if the letter published by the Capitalism Institute is authentic, though we can confirm a draft letter does exist.

After tens of thousands of defiant gun owners in Connecticut chose not to register their semi-automatic rifles to comply with a hastily-passed gun control law, the state is now taking some action. Officials are reportedly notifying gun owners who submitted late applications that they have one last chance to get rid of their “illegal” weapons.
State officials did accept some gun registration applications that were submitted after the Jan. 4 deadline, however, not all late applications were accepted, the Journal Inquirer reports.
“But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines,” the report adds.
So gun owners who actually tried to register their guns and magazines, intentionally late or not, are now on the state’s radar for owning guns that became illegal overnight. Owning an unregistered semi-automatic rifle or high-capacity magazine that was legal prior to Jan. 3 is now a class D felony under the new law.
The Capitalism Institute claims to have obtained a copy of the notarized letters Connecticut officials are sending out to late registration applicants:
Source: The Capitalism Institute
Source: The Capitalism Institute
While we can’t confirm the authenticity of the letter above, the Journal Inquirer, which is a local paper covering North-Central Connecticut, reports the state does hold notarized letters for violators.
As TheBlaze reported earlier this month, as little 15 percent of the now-illegal semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state of Connecticut.
“No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the Courant reported.
Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo recalled talking to a constituent who informed him that some gun owners are intentionally taking part in “civil disobedience” because they feel the law is unconstitutional.
It’s unclear if the state plans to start prosecuting gun owners who don’t dispose of their semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity magazines — or if they have a plan to check to see if the late applicants comply with the warning. It’s also uncertain if the state plans to go about identifying gun owners who didn’t try to register their guns at all.
Though it was too late to contact the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection on Wednesday, TheBlaze will reach out to the agency on Thursday.
Again, this viral photo of Connecticut gun owners waiting in line to register their guns in December, which one person said reminded them of the “Weimar Germany,” still seems relevant:

A Blow To The Fourth

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fourth Amendment

The Blaze:

The Supreme Court Has Given Police Another Way to Search Your Home Without a Warrant

Make sure you’re on good terms with your roommate or spouse — the Supreme Court now says just one occupant of a home can give consent to searches without a warrant, even if an individual has previously objected.
The Supreme Court ruled this week that as long as one occupant of a home consents to a search, law enforcement may enter without a warrant (Shutterstock).
The nation’s highest court ruled 6-3 in favor of law enforcement Tuesday in Fernandez v. California, which stemmed from a 2009 arrest and search in connection with a robbery in Los Angeles. Simply put, a girlfriend gave law enforcement access to her apartment after her boyfriend initially refused the search. But after the man was arrested and police returned to the apartment, the woman consented.
The decision gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.
The 2009 case began when LAPD officers responded to reports of a street robbery; they pursued a suspect from the scene to an apartment building, then heard shouting inside a unit and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas — the girlfriend — opened the door, but Walter Fernandez, told officers they could not enter without a warrant. The Los Angeles Times reported:
“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights,” Fernandez shouted from inside the apartment, according to court records.
Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away. An hour later, police returned and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas’ consent. They found a shotgun and gang-related material.
Tuesday’s decision upheld the LAPD’s actions. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion: “A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant.” Moreover, he added, “Denying someone in Rojas’ position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence.”
In the past, the court has frowned upon most searches of residences except in the case of an emergency or if the police had a warrant from a judge.
In 2006, the Supreme Court came down against the police in the case of Georgia v. Randolph. After a domestic violence investigation, the male suspect refused to let the police search his home while his wife welcomed the search. The police went in.

Alito, writing for the majority, said
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said; “A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a
warrant.” (AP)

In the case eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the man’s refusal should have stopped the cops in their tracks. “A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search [of his home] is dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,” the court said.
Writing in dissent of Tuesday’s decision was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who accused the majority of weakening the Fourth Amendment and granting the police too much latitude, according to
“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” This ruling, she charged, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

Defying The First

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment

The Blaze:

Bystander: ‘I Thought I Had Freedom of Speech Here.’ Officer: ‘You Don’t! You Just Lost It.’

As Baltimore County cops in Towson, Md., arrested at least two people, a man began filming the scene from the sidewalk. Within moments, he was approached by officers who threatened to arrest him if he didn’t “get the hell out of here.”
angry cop
Video screengrab
“You diverted my attention from that,” an officer says in the video when the man filming argues he hasn’t done anything wrong. “Leave!”
Demanding that a bystander leave the scene of an arrest is not out of line. It’s what another officer said after the man had retreated that is getting so much attention.
“Look at me. Do you see the police presence here? We are not f***ing around, do you understand? Do not disrespect us and do not not listen to us,” the cop is heard saying. “Now walk away and shut your f***ing mouth or you’re going to jail.”
Though he says “OK,” the man filming, identified as 21-year-old Sergio Gutierrez, then asks: “Have I committed a crime, sir?”
This apparently infuriated the officer. He turned around, grabbed Gutierrez and again threatened to arrest him.
“Do not open your mouth,” the cop orders.
“I thought I had freedom of speech here,” he replies.
“You don’t! You just lost it,” the cop barks. “Walk away and keep your mouth shut.”
The video, which was going viral on Wednesday, was uploaded on Vimeo on Monday. User “Gootz” claims he is the person who filmed the video but claims he was “not the person taunting the officers in the beginning of the video.”
Watch below (Warning! Very strong language):

Baltimore County cops doing their thing at the Towson bars. from Gootz on Vimeo.
“County police, auxiliary officers and state police were all responding to a large crowd and disturbance on York Road. County police officials became aware of the video of the altercation Tuesday morning and have launched an investigation,” CBS Baltimore reports.
“We are concerned about what we saw in the video and the department will be taking a thorough look at that video,” spokeswoman Elise Armacost said.
In an interview with WBAL-TV, Gutierrez said the incident was a “disaster” and speculated that officers may have had too much adrenaline pumping through them.
“They just kind of lost it,” he added, saying he doesn’t regret recording the incident.

One starts to wonder how OFTEN this kind of thing is going on

More police excess. Every day? How many times a day? Exceptional? Not notable? Growing?

We have no idea. Should we all be alarmed? Or is overzealous and brutal, brusque, unconstitutional behavior so exceptional no attention should be paid.
I think maybe we should notice every incident.

Cops tackle, beat, pepper-spray, pin, suffocate, kill innocent man

Disturbing video of a police incident in an Oklahoma parking lot shows a man who had committed no crime dying after being roughed up and violently restrained by four cops–all while his grief-stricken wife watched in horror.
The man, 44-year-old Luis Rodriguez, died in a Moore, Oklahoma movie theater parking lot. Police were responding to a reported domestic disturbance. Rodriguez’s wife admitted to slapping the couple’s 19-year-old daughter in the face over a disagreement about the girl’s behavior. Rodriguez, however, was not involved and had not done anything wrong, according to local news reports.
But when police arrived, they wanted to question Rodriguez. According to the Moore police department, Rodriguez was not cooperative, and cops were forced to handcuff and restrain him.
Cell phone video shows the immediate aftermath of the restraining process. Several cops can be seen pinning Rodriguez face-down on the ground. One officer kneels on his back while others hold his arms. He does not move or speak at this point, and it’s unclear whether he is still alive. The officers seem unaware that anything is wrong, however, and continue to keep him pinned.
The footage was shot by Mrs. Rodriguez. Another officer kept her several feet away from her prone husband. Both this officer and Mrs. Rodriguez remain civil toward each other–at least until the ambulance arrives. At that point, Mrs. Rodriguez realizes that her husband is completely limp, and panics that he is dead.
“You killed my husband!” she shouts, and then begins to cry.
Rodriguez’s death is being investigated. The results of the autopsy have not yet been disclosed. Security camera footage has yet to be released as well, and could shed more light on how Rodriguez died, according to News 9.
But Michael Brooks-Jimenez, an attorney for the family, said the available footage left little doubt that police were responsible.
“Taking him face down onto the pavement, pepper-spraying his mouth, nose and eyes and putting the weight of five grown men on top of him, and then handcuffing him as he was unconscious or already dead,” he recounted in a statement.
Police Chief Jerry Stillings said that he has not yet seen any footage demonstrating that the cops misbehaved.
Three of the officers involved have been placed on administrative leave.

Layer Cake of Conscientious Objection

By now we all know the story. A gay couple asked a religious baker to make them a wedding cake, and he responded he would do anything else but that his religious beliefs prevented him from baking a cake.
The result was a law recently vetoed in Arizona which if passed would have allowed private business to refuse service, employment or what not.
Having grown up during the 50’s I have a certain negative feeling about that. I see in my mind the lunch counters, the buses, the marches over the bridges, and the fire hoses, and most of all, the lynches and the bombed out churches which lasted till just past the mid 60’s, finally encompassing me.
But this nation is NOT that nation.
To my knowledge, in the modern world, only the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa attempted a religious belief argument in favor of this discrimination, by some truly tortuously wrought ‘logic’.
But these struggles were not about the BENEFIT of purchasing a wedding cake. These struggles were to deny equal opportunity to all, or to ensure it.
Beginning with AT LEAST World War 1, the USA recognized the idea of a conscientious objector to war. In this link remains the official US govt position on becoming a CO. To become a CO was not easy. HERE is Wikipedia’s blurb on this.
As a citizen I fail UTTERLY to see the civic purpose of any person group or couple using the vast coercive power of govt to compel a contract on another private citizen who truly has RELIGIOUS, AND THEREFORE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION, in this manner.
In fact this action has taken someone (me) who believes that any two adults should be able to construct any kind of relationship they want, and call it anything they want, and to hell with the rest of the planet, and instead brought me down squarely against the idea of COMPELLING someone to do your particular bidding if you feel set upon.
Some people cannot wait to feel grievance, and then act on it to force others to relieve their personal issue. Such people can easily GO TOO FAR. As a former proud outside agitator, I have to tell you, THIS is too far.
Gov Brewer did the right thing in vetoing a law which might have allowed refusal of employment to certain people based on PREJUDICE, but now we also have an untenable situation.
No law should bar employment by personal discrimination, nor should it allow a class of any sort to be set upon, but this action to make a contract compulsory is a great wrong, IN THIS CASE. I am certain there are those who have true religious objection to people of the same sex marrying. I know there are those who also feel abortion is murder. That is faith, not fact, but must be respected and more importantly TOLERATED. Certainly we can devise a legal, short  test for this and exempt such conscientious objectors from compulsory service.
If we allowed those who had such objection to be exempt from defending the nation and our families, certainly we can find a simple process to exempt people from being compelled to BAKE GAY WEDDING CAKES.
REALLY, people.

The Bureaucratic Hydra


From "When squirrels attack! There’s a medical code for that," a recent article in the Washington Post:
[I]n a beige and windowless hotel ballroom thousands of miles away, hundreds of American medical coders are diligently chipping away at the exact same task. They’ve set out to master the nuances of the sprawling ICD-10, formally known as the Tenth Edition of the International Classification of Diseases.


With 14,000 codes, ICD-9 seems puny by comparison. The new manual explodes that code set to 68,000 much more granular and detailed terms to define — very exactly and specifically — what ails us.


The prospect of quadrupling the number of medical codes used in those calculations has touched off a heated debate over whether more specificity is an onerous layer of bureaucratic red tape — or a valuable chance to better understand and treat complex medical conditions.

The codes in ICD-10 can seem absurd in their granularity, replete with designations for seemingly impossible situations.

There are different numbers for getting struck or bitten by a turkey (W61.42 or W61.43). There are codes for injuries caused by squirrels (W53.21) and getting hit by a motor vehicle while riding an animal (V80.919), spending too much time in a deep-freeze refrigerator (W93.2) and a large toe that has gone unexpectedly missing (Z89.419).


One study funded by the American Medical Association estimated that it could cost doctors’ offices $56,000 to $8 million to transition to ICD-10, depending on the size of the practice. The AMA, one of the larger groups opposed the switch, is still petitioning the federal government to reverse course....
Read it all HERE.

What a nightmare — and coming soon to a medical provider's office near you!

Additional reading (February 2012): "Parrot injuries and other tales from the annals of medical billing."

Saint Of Me

Could you put your faith in Jesus when you're burning in the flame?

Curtis Mayfield
Live At Montreux 1987

The Nerve: After 3 Years, 2 Months & 10 Days – Tea Party Patriots Granted Tax Exempt Status By Phone Call on Eve of Congressional Testimony

I Will Grind The Serfs To Dust Using The Power of the IRS

This was just hours before her testimony today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Subcommittee on the IRS targeting scandal.
As of this press release, the Tea Party Patriots have still not received anything in writing.
Here is today’s TPP press release.
ATLANTA, GA— Today, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs on the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups. Ms. Martin revealed to the committee that Tea Party Patriots’ long-sought tax-exempt status was granted one day before the hearing.
“Tea Party Patriots received a call just before the hearing. The IRS finally has decided — after 3 years, 2 months, and 10 days, after thousands of man-hours, after tens of thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees – to approve our 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. And this is not political?”
Ms. Martin also commented on pending IRS regulations that can impede organizations.
“One of the most egregious is the requirement that we track, calculate, and report the activities of thousands of volunteers. The army of citizens who volunteer for their country is the backbone of every group in America: tea party, moderate, or progressive. Volunteerism is one of our greatest character traits. These proposed regulations would treat volunteers as a problem, annihilating relationships that are at the heart of an informed electorate.
The proposed rules create cracks in the trust that is the foundation of our nation. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people must trust the people, and the people must trust the government. When the people are afraid of a government agency, when they see that agency as a bunch of bullies who abuse power, the trust is shattered. Free people should not fear a politicized bureaucracy that delves into their social media and communications to determine what they said, whom they heard speak, and what they think about their government.
Today, Tea Party Patriots will celebrate its fifth anniversary. Born out of a desire for more freedom and economic opportunity, this victory is a substantial one for the Tea Party movement. There are many others whose lives and businesses are being upset by the IRS. Congress must rein in this office and protect the basic rights of Americans,” said Ms. Martin.
Tea Party Patriots is a national grassroots coalition with more than 3,400 locally organized chapters and more than 15 million supporters nationwide. Tea Party Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. Visit Tea Party Patriots online at

“this is a president who has seen the limits of use of force. He would have to be dragged kicking & screaming.”

The Center for Strategic & International Studies is the source for bipartisan foreign policy, analysis, & solutions to the world’s top challenges since 1962.
From a special on Obama and Foreign Policy with Bob Schieffer of CBS news.
Tweeted live.
If our people know this don’t you think they know it in Moscow. In Teheran. In Damascus. In Beijing. In Pyongyang. In Riyadh. In Amman. In Tokyo, Jersusalem, Paris, Berlin, and Kiev, Canberra, Auckland, and Seoul
What actions are taken and not taken in the face the firm intelligence of the mind of Obama?

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Ben Shapiro Is a Hero!!!

Ben Shapiro crashes BDS meeting at UCLA university and straightens them out with facts

From Vlad Tepes Blog:

Lois Lerner Says She Will Testify Only If Granted Immunity Or Under Court Order

Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner will testify about the IRS handling of Tea Party cases only in exchange for an immunity agreement, her lawyer told a congressional committee Wednesday. 
Until then, Lerner will not answer questions unless ordered to do so by a federal judge, her attorney said. The response from attorney William Taylor came the day after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ordered Lerner to reappear at a hearing next week. 
When Lerner appeared before the committee last May, she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
What Happens when Lois Lerner Returns to Testify Next Week?
Last time America saw Lerner was last May, when she raised her hand and was sworn in to testify, then declared her innocence and took the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) pointed out at the time that Lerner is not allowed to declare innocence and then take the Fifth. The committee reserved the right to bring her back and compel her to testify. 
Next week she will be back to testify before the committee, or at least, she is expected to be back because the committee has recalled her. She could fail to appear. Gowdy appeared on Fox this morning and outlined a couple of scenarios that may play out. Gowdy ruled out granting Lerner immunity from prosecution before knowing the outlines of what she knows and is willing to say, comparing that to “buying a used car over the phone.” Until the committee has some idea what Lerner will say, they will not grant her immunity. In one of Gowdy’s scenarios, Lerner testifies. He indicated that that is unlikely. In another, she takes the Fifth again, and the committee holds her in contempt of Congress because of her previous claim of innocence. She can be jailed if she continues to refuse to testify. She could also be found in contempt and jailed if she fails to show up to next week’s hearing. 
Gowdy also outlined what could happen if she does take the Fifth again. Her attorney, he said, could call for a meeting with members of the committee to outline what Lerner will admit to, in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Gowdy indicated while the committee is not interested in granting her immunity at this point, once committee members have a better understanding of what Lerner is willing to say, immunity could be on the table. Lerner could then be expected to offer testimony that implicates others who were involved in the abuse scandal, either within the IRS or above it. 
There is no doubt that crimes were committed by IRS officials, as I’ll explain on the next page. 
Cincinnati unit manager for tax-exempt organizations Cindy Thomas, released the tax applications of nine conservative organizations to left-wing Pro Publica. The IRS systematically delayed conservative groups’ tax-exempt applications across the 2010 to 2012 pre-election timespan, while at the same time, Malik Obama’s Barack H. Obama Foundation’s application was fast-tracked and back-dated. Most left-wing groups saw their applications for tax-exempt status sail through the IRS process. Someone set up a regime to scrutinize conservative groups’ applications more closely than liberal groups. The FBI has slow-dragged its investigation, and still has not even interviewed many of those who believe the IRS abused them. Someone also needs to explain how some conservative leaders have been subjected to IRS audits and long-term assault by an alphabet soup of executive branch agencies during the period in which the IRS abused conservative tax-exempt groups. As the person who first leaked the IRS abuse, and as someone who has a history of using government power against conservatives, Lerner is in a position to know quite a bit how the abuse began and who was directing it, if she was not directing it herself. 
Congress lacks the power to prosecute Lerner, but it can grant her immunity from prosecution if she provides credible and compelling evidence that points to others with knowledge of the scandal. It’s unlikely that Lois Lerner is the kingpin of the IRS abuse scandal. She probably lacked the power on her own within the IRS to launch the scrutiny of the abused groups, and she certainly lacked the power to move other executive branch agencies against conservatives. But as the IRS official who first disclosed it, and excused it as actions by “rogue” officers in Cincinnati, Lerner obviously knew a great deal about it — enough to know that it should be downplayed to minimize its political fallout. She lacked any power over the FBI’s failure to fully investigate, and she could not have appointed Obama campaign donor Barbara Bosserman to investigate the case. The Tatler has been told by a very reliable source that evidence exists pointing to White House involvement in the scandal. Issa’s committee surely has the same information. Lerner’s appearance next week presents an excellent opportunity to pursue it.

More Obamanation

Federal Court Backs California School That Forced Students To Remove American Flag Clothing For Fear of Ethnic Violence

Don Lemon: ‘As a Journalist You Weigh How Much to Criticize Obama Because He’s Black’ (Video)

TIME’s Steven Brill: Obama Is The One Responsible For Botched ObamaCare Rollout (Video)

CBS Poll: Just 6% of Americans Think Obamacare Is “Working Well” And Should Be Kept In Place

White House-Touted List of Economists Supporting Minimum Wage Hike Includes Frauds, Socialists, 9/11 Truther

Iran Has Resumed Work at Suspicious Military Base

DUH, no way, right?
Iran has resumed activities at an installation believed by some specialists to have housed nuclear-arms studies, says a Washington analytical group.
A Jan. 30 satellite photograph shows new movements at Iran’s Parchin base following an apparent lull in large-scale operations at the site, according to a Tuesday assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security. The facility remains off-limits to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who suspect it may have once hosted a structure capable of accommodating atomic-relevant detonation experiments, as well as potential work on a “neutron initiator” to trigger nuclear blasts.
The think tank said that debris and possible construction supplies have appeared close to the suspected detonation chamber’s former housing, as well as near an edifice on the northern edge of the Parchin complex.
The finding came less than a week after IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano cited the appearance of apparent construction materials and debris at Parchin since November.
ISIS analysts said the alterations they found “are apparently the ones noted by the IAEA in the [Feb. 20] Iran safeguards report and listed among the issues that continue to create concerns about the hiding of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”
The U.N. nuclear watchdog cannot access Parchin under a weeks-old agreement addressing other elements in an investigation of the Middle Eastern nation’s nuclear activities. The international probe is intended to help clarify whether Tehran has ever considered weaponizing its atomic program.

The international probe is intended to help clarify whether Tehran has ever considered weaponizing its atomic program.

And on and on....Syrian Christians pledge submission to Islamists

Wash Times:
Christian leaders in the Islamist-controlled Syrian city of Raqqa signed a submission document on Sunday that bans them from practicing Christianity in public, an Israeli newspaper reported.
The document reportedly states that Christians in Raqqa — captured last March by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, previously a branch of al Qaeda — were recently given an ultimatum: Convert to Islam, sign a dhimma contract or “face the sword.”
Raqqa’s Christian community reportedly chose to sign the dhimma contract, which refers to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state having to pay taxes, known as jizya, in submission to Islam.
“The authenticity of the document, displaying the stamp of al Qaeda, could not be independently verified,” the Times of Israel reported. “The signatures of 20 Christian leaders at the bottom of the document said to have been party to the agreement were blotted out, ostensibly at their own request.”
In return for their pledge, the newspaper reported, local ISIS commander Ibrahim Al-Badri promised that Christians in the city would not to be subjected to physical harm or religious targeting.
“If they adhere to these conditions, they will be close to God and receive the protection of Mohammed his prophet … none of their religious rights will be detracted nor will a priest or monk be wronged,” the document concluded. “But if they disobey any of the conditions, they are no longer protected and ISIS can treat them in a hostile and warlike fashion.”

What is there to say?
No one will help.
Few CAN help, and none of those without chancing or starting all out regional or world wide war.

The only alternative I can see is to arm then with better, faster and more deadly weapons. More death.
But that's the choice.
Kneel or kill and be killed, if you or not muslim or muslim enough.
There's just nothing else in the middle east and too many other places for these reasons.

Almost enough to make one practice misanthropy as a religion.

Or fly an AC-130.

CT Sends Out Letters to Gun Owners: “Surrender, Destroy or Sell” Your ‘Assault Weapons’

Yeah, good luck with that, bitch.

Guns Saves Lives reported:
It looks like some gun owners in Connecticut who tried to register their “assault weapons” (that’s the state of CT’s actual term for these firearms), but missed the deadline are now getting letters instructing them to destroy or surrender their firearms.
According the letter, posted on several message boards and online media sources, residents who failed to register their firearms must now take the following action:
1. Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable.
2. Sell the assault weapon to a licensed gun dealer.
3. Remove the assault weapon from the state; or
4. You may make arrangements to relinquish the assault weapon to a police department or to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
Those all sound like super fun options. So far, it looks like only owners who tried to register their firearms, but missed the deadline are getting the letters.
Here’s a copy of the letter: