DON'T TREAD ON ME - THE AMERICA THAT MOST POLITICIANS DO NOT SEE OR UNDERSTAND.
My friend Harry is 94 years old
Fellow Americans,
Anyone with a brain in his/her head knows that ALL the media, the N.Y.Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. etc. -AND ALL
the major radio, television and cable channels ARE OWNED BY GIANT CORPORATIONS or billionaire individuals like Rupert Murdock (owner of the Wall St. Journal and lots of other "news dissemination media".).
Even the Fox News "conservative" channels are owned by big corporations or BIG $$$ billionaires.
Do you REALLY think these owners are going to allow a real discussion about our disastrous involvement in the Global Economy?
Like -- WHY ARE WE IN BED WITH COMMUNIST MURDERERS -- making them filthy rich as we grow
broke -- and super-broke???
Mustn't talk about THAT. Most of the corporations in the Fortune 500 are up to their greedy necks "trading" with communist China and their 60 cents an hour factory labor costs.
NO "talking head" newscaster from Katie Couric (CBS owned by Westinghouse) or her "equivalent" on NBC (owned by General Electric) or other "media" owned by Disney or Murdock -- even "conservative" Fox News channels, featuring
Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh -- others -- NEVER DARE TO SAY OUT LOUD or even in a whisper that the TRAITORS in and out of Congress who, these past 40 years have been busy, busy "outsourcing" our wonderful MANUFACTURING FACTORIES AND MILLIONS OF JOBS to bloody communist China and to other dictator-ridden lands with whose slave-wages Americans can never compete!
RESULT? another, endless DEPRESSION -- which could have been prevented if only TRAITOR PRESIDENTS like Nixon and Clinton and their equally traitorous Congresses had cared more about Americans than about "loss-loss" trade with communist China, Japan, Mexicans and other cheap-labor providers that made them and their corporate buddies rich beyond their wildest dreams.
WHO are the victims of these traitors, past and present?
The innocent children coming after us who, at best, will be kept at "make-work" Government projects paid for with phony money -- a one-way trip to economic extinction.
And -- as we speak. . . .
..............................................................................................................
TARGETING AMERICA
CHINA AND IRAN
...............................................................................................................
Stay away from Bangkok, Britons warned as Thai army opens fire on rioting crowds
 |
************************************************************************************************
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats
Posted: April 12, 2009
9:40 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 |
WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.
The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
However, the report goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!
The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.
************************************************************************************************
Iran rejects big powers proposal for resumed nuclear talks, Peres threatens military strike
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 13, 2009, 11:03 AM (GMT+02:00)
Iran's home-made nuclear fuel rods exhibited
DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report two key developments in the standoff over Iran's nuclear drive: Tehran effectively rejected the latest offer by the five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany of nuclear negotiations with direct US involvement. This shut the door on US president Barack Obama's first diplomatic gambit for direct dialogue with Tehran.
Sunday, Israeli President Shimon Peres told an Israeli radio interviewer that if President Barack Obama's diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from going nuclear failed, "We'll strike him," referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Our Iranian experts note that Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament (Majlis), was chosen for his government's rebuff as a mark of unity in the regime's top ranks on the nuclear question.
As a former nuclear negotiator himself, Larijani projected the image in the West of a pragmatic, moderate diplomat. As radical as any of his colleagues, he now said: "The Iranian government will only conduct international negotiations on the nuclear issue that are approved by the parliament and the legislature will closely monitor all such talks."
He then added: "The proposal by some members of the 5+1 group calling for more intrusive inspections of Iran's nuclear activities is not legal" – a direct snub of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's demand on April 9 for Iran to ensure that the UN nuclear watchdog be "a source of credible information."
In making negotiations contingent on Majlis approval, the Speaker invoked the 2007 measure which banned the cessation of uranium enrichment and prohibited concessions on Iran's nuclear program. Larijani thus informed the six world powers that Iran's stipulation for taking up their proposed talks is that uranium enrichment and all other aspects of Iran's nuclear program be excluded from the agenda.
Obama's planned dialogue with Tehran received another setback Saturday, April 4, from Moscow. Shortly after the six powers published their proposal, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told the Russia parliament: "Relations between Russia and its neighbor Iran are expanding at high speed." He added that his country was sparing no effort to remove "remaining ambiguities in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities….after their removal," said Lavrov, "Iran will enjoy equal rights with other members of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)."
According to DEBKAfile's Moscow sources, Lavrov underlined a dramatic turnabout in Moscow's approach to Iran's nuclear activities. He downgraded the enormity of Iran's violation of the NPT terms as "ambiguities," indicating they were too petty for the fussing Russia's fellow powers, the US, France, Britain and Germany were making over them and advising them to accept the Iranian program as a fait accompli.
And talking of "ambiguities," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Thursday, April 9, opened a plant for producing uranium fuel in industrial quantities and said Iran is testing two new high-capacity enrichment centrifuges.
According to Israeli and Western intelligence sources, this would also put the Arak heavy plant on the fast track for the manufacture of plutonium, alongside the weapons-grade enrichment of uranium.
************************************************************************************************
Soviet Union survivor: President spits in face of every U.S. citizen
Posted: April 12, 2009
7:05 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 Dr. Orly Taitz (WND photo / Chelsea Schilling) |
MISSION VIEJO, Calif. – She's the fierce blond attorney behind Obama eligibility lawsuits, a successful dentist with two offices, a second-degree black belt and a mother of three boys who speaks five languages.
Dr. Orly Taitz, a woman with a vibrant smile and an ebullient personality, has not always enjoyed an independent life filled with promise and ambition. She was born and raised in Kishinev (also spelled Chisinau), the capital of the Republic of Moldova, a country in Eastern Europe that was formerly part of the Soviet Union.
Drawing on her experiences under a communist regime, she told WND she is determined to do her part to stop America from following in the all-too-familiar footsteps of her former homeland.
Life under communism
She described her life in a communist nation: Markets were bare, people had no desire to work and the government forced young children into slave labor.
"We'd stop at the store, and the food stores were empty," she said. "I remember we had to stand in lines for hours in the cold. We were in a bus, going home and suddenly we'd see a line. We wouldn't even know what they were selling, but we knew something would be there – some food. We'd stand for two hours to buy maybe a pound of salami or a half a pound of butter."
As a young child, Taitz asked her father why the market shelves were empty.
"In America, they have everything," he would tell her. "The stores are full."
Her father explained that Americans were interested in working and received paychecks based on their productivity. However, in the Soviet Union, farmers were part of a socialist system of collective farming and were compensated equally – regardless of output.
He told her, "If a farmer is bright and hard working, at the end of the month, he will get 100 rubles. And if the farmer is a lazy bum and he does nothing, he gets the same 100 rubles."
Taitz told WND, "People had absolutely no incentive to do anything. They had no incentive to work. The best doctors were getting maybe 150 rubles. That's why the standards for medicine were so low."
Youth camps and slave labor
 Republic of Moldova |
She said that, much like President Obama's proposed brigade of youth organizers, the Soviet Union used children for slave labor.
"They would put us on trucks, and we would go to the countryside," she said. "We were told to go and pick tomatoes."
Parents were not allowed to homeschool their children. They were forced to enroll them in government schools. From the age of 6, all children were required to become young communists.
"You had to send your child to school, and your child had to be a member of the young communists," Taitz said. "There were no children who were not members. You had to do it. If you were one of the best, you become a member of the Communist Party. It was constant brainwashing."
She continued, "There was no choice, and people resented that. They were scared to speak up."
Most children were sent to communist youth camps, but Taitz' parents wouldn't allow her to go. Instead, they gave her stacks of math, physics and chemistry textbooks to study while her friends were away at camps.
"My parents didn't want me to be in those camps and be subjected to communist brainwashing," she said. "They wanted me to think for myself. I learned to read by myself, and my parents sent me to competitions in math, physics, chemistry and biology. I would sit and work with pages of problems, and I loved to compete."
An empty existence
 Taitz as a baby with her mother in Kishinev |
Practice of religion was restricted in the Soviet Union. Churches were closed and repurposed as museums of art.
"You had to be an atheist," Taitz said. "No one could go and pray. You weren't allowed to mention any religion. A lot of priests, ministers and rabbis were sent to Siberia, so people were scared. They didn't celebrate any religious holidays; they just didn't exist."
She said alcohol abuse was rampant and caused the destruction of many lives.
"One of the reasons they had such a serious problem with alcoholism was because there was nothing in people's lives. There was no God, no religion, no choice. You had to conform and comply."
During her years living in the Soviet Union, Taitz said friends would constantly talk about finding ways to break away from the system.
"They would tell me, 'This person was very inventive and built a hot-air balloon to get out from East Germany to West Germany, or somebody was able to swim across the border,'" she said. "There were always stories about how people escaped the regime."
With only one TV station in Kishinev, Taitz said reporters spewed communist propaganda.
************************************************************************************************
JTF.ORG - PUBLIC VIDEO
JTF.ORG - PUBLIC VIDEO
JTF.ORG - PUBLIC VIDEO
JTF.ORG - PUBLIC VIDEO
SHOTGUN AMMUNITION - THE REAL STORY
THOMAS PAYNE - WE THE PEOPLE
MICHAEL SAVAGE - PREDICTIONS - PUBLIC VIDEO
MICHAEL SAVAGE - NEW WORLD ORDER
MICHAEL SAVAGE - PUBLIC VIDEO
MICHAEL SAVAGE - PUBLIC VIDEO
STOCKTON - A retired truck driver and Vietnam War veteran said Monday that he is forming an armed militia - mostly men with rifles and armbands, four to a car - to patrol Stockton this summer, when at least 43 police officers are to be laid off.
Alan Pettet, 66, said he has recruited 18 men, most of whom are ex-military. He said the militia will train at a firing range and "activate" if the city lays off any officer, as it intends by July 1.
...................................................................................
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
There needs to be a quaint colloquialism Americans can use to describe when a politician looks you square in the eye and tells you an obvious lie. At least, one fit for polite company.
Like when our American president bows down low before a foreign potentate and then denies it. Once the picture hit the American media, the White House scrambled to explain that Obama had to bend over to his waist level in order to grasp King Abdullah by both hands when greeting him last week at the G-20 meeting.
So what you saw wasn't what you really saw. It was just a recorded figment of your imagination.
The camera angles showing our American president bending at the knee wasn't what it looked like, at all. And so we must assume that our American president bowed low enough to put his head below shoulder level of the foreign potentate, was because King Abdullah is short, and has unusually long arms so that he couldn't elevate his hands high enough for Obama to reach without bending over.
Who can forget when President George W. Bush took Abdullah by the hand like a couple of dating teenagers as he gave the Saudi king a tour of his ranch?
Though this is somewhat shocking to Americans, it is a culturally acceptable tradition in the Middle East.
But for an American government official to bow down in obeisance to a foreign royal is an entirely different matter. And it is astonishing for an American president to do so.
Which is why nobody was particularly shocked when President Obama didn't bow before Queen Elizabeth of England. We really didn't expect him to. Americans are not subject to British royalty and therefore bowing before British royalty would be an insult to American sovereignty.
Your average American tourist would be too proud of his country and too independent to bow himself low before the British crown.
American officials do not bow themselves low or curtsy before a foreign monarch because such a gesture symbolizes recognition of that foreign monarch's authority and power over the government they represent.
When the president met with Queen Elizabeth, Obama scandalized British royal protocol by taking both her hands and giving them a hearty shake. British protocol, (a subject in which we assume the Obamas were instructed) forbids one from taking the Queen's proffered hand, instead expecting one to simply brush the royal digits and withdraw.
OK, so Obama practically yanked both her arms off. So what? We're Americans. She's queen of England, not queen of America.
Despite the White House denials, President Obama offered King Abdullah a deep, subservient bow of the kind offered by a subject before his king. I don't think I am reading too much into this. Whatever President Obama thinks Abdullah deserves in the way of subservient fealty, we Americans believe it lowers our sovereign prestige.
Frankly, I am not too much concerned whether President Obama showed the queen of England a small dose of American disrespect out of what could be construed as a temporary lapse of protocol.
But I am greatly concerned, that the president showed King Abdullah far too much respect, given the Muslim Saudi's open hatred of all things Christian or Jewish, Saudi Arabia's legendary disrespect for human rights and religious liberty, or even its institutionalized misogyny. It is important to remember that the Quran commands Muslims to seek the subjection of all other nations to Islam. And an act such as this gives the Muslims the idea that our leader is stepping in that direction.
************************************************************************************************
Obama's post-election thank you to Latinos: Officials plans to give 12m illegal immigrants U.S. passport
SECRET MEETING REVEALED BY MEMBERS OF "HR" PUBLIC VIDEO
Service corps expansion gives opponents shivers
Posted: April 11, 2009
9:25 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 |
Supporters of an Americorps expansion plan pending in Congress laud its efforts to "leverage" federal dollars to boost state, local and other resources to "address national and local challenges," while critics say its fine print secretly would create an "Obama-styled army of community organizers modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations.'" So which is it?
In an era in which Congress can approve thousands of pages of legislation spending hundreds of billions of dollars without reading the proposal, there seems to be no definitive answer on what some of the vague language of H.R. 1388 means.
But there is enough in the "GIVE Act," now awaiting a conference committee in Congress after being approved by both the U.S. House and Senate, to cause critics to shiver.
For example, it certainly imposes a requirement for public service on some people, even though its original much-feared study on mandatory service for all was moved to another bill during congressional debate.
The latest version includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "has successfully completed training" and "complete not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."
It also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.
For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."
************************************************************************************************
US President Barack Obama comments on the economy after a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, April 10, 2009.
German magazine bags Obama ‘confession’ at G-20
Was there a touch of schadenfreude in the ensuing frenzy of commentary?
By James Hagengruber | 04.10.09
While pundits in the United States debate whether or not President Obama inclined his body toward Saudi King Abdullah at last week’s Group of 20 meeting in London, attention in Europe is more focused on the president’s verbal bowing during the summit.
During the final “decisive” session of the G-20 meeting, President Obama uttered three words that, at least according to this account by the respected German news magazine Der Spiegel, amounted to a US confession for causing the financial crisis and and “may go down in world history as one of the greatest statements ever made.”
What, pray tell, did the president say?
“I take responsibility.”
Spiegel, which is Germany’s 800-pound gorilla of serious political journalism, used the statement as the lead of its triple-bylined account of the summit, which is printed under the headline: “Obama’s G-20 Confession.” Much like the rising debate surrounding the president’s alleged bow, the tale of the so-called confession is ripe for a bit of interpretation, which might help explain why the statement didn’t lead the news in the US – rating only a mere mention deep in the bowels of the website Politico – much less garner nomination to be included among statements such as “All men are created equal,” or “I have a dream,” or “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”
Obama made the remark after he had been introduced by Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi. This is what the president said, according to Der Spiegel:
“It is important that we do not sell short the results of this summit. The press would like us to have conflicts. Instead we have attained great achievements. And it is important that we exude confidence.”[Obama] then lowered his voice: “It is true, as my Italian friend has said, that the crisis began in the US. I take responsibility, even if I wasn’t even president at the time.”
Der Spiegel then continued:
The others couldn’t believe their ears. Was that really a confession of guilt from the US? Was it a translation error, or at least an inaccuracy? Afterwards, this sentence fueled long discussions among the members of the German delegation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was so impressed by Obama’s statement that she rushed to tell her finance minister, Peer Steinbrück. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso reacted immediately: The proposal to hold the next summit not in Japan, but rather in the US, is something that he no longer rejects, he says, “now that the US has shouldered responsibility.”
Germany, it should be noted, has a certain fixation with the idea of blame and responsibility. The statement from Obama might also be helping the Germans make sense of the financial crisis. And, as cliches remind us, Germans crave ordnung (order).
A recent column in The New York Times attempted to unravel why Germany attended the G-20 summit intent on assuaging the global financial crisis by developing more regulations. The country, according to the column by Nicolas Kulish, has undertaken a “concerted effort to permanently banish the instability and violence that have marked its history. That sense of insecurity includes Germany’s forced division in the cold war, the Nazi era and the hyperinflation of the 1920s, but it also stretches at least as far back as the Thirty Years’ War in the 17th century, which decimated much of the German territories and population, and was a formative trauma.”
Germany attended the summit with its wallet closed tightly, resisting calls from Obama for more stimulus spending. The prominent coverage of US “responsibility” – with Obama’s remarks being treated less like a political statement than the confession of a bank robber – offers further evidence of a country not eager to pick up the tab for cleaning up this mess.
************************************************************************************************
Obamas fly in chef 860 miles... just to make pizza
When you're the president of the United States, only the best pizza will do - even if that means flying a chef 860 miles.
************************************************************************************************
TYPICAL AMERICAN VOTER
