January 26th, 2015
The Daily Caller
President Obama announced Sunday that his administration plans to lock up the oil-rich 1.5 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain and offshore areas in Alaska from oil and gas exploration.
Obama is asking Congress to designate 12 million acres of ANWR as a “wilderness” to keep it off-limits to development, despite widespread Native Alaskan support for drilling in the area. ANWR’s coastal plain alone is estimated to hold 28 billion barrels of oil.
“Designating vast areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as Wilderness reflects the significance this landscape holds for America and its wildlife,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell.
The Obama administration argues that making ANWR off-limits to development will help protect the region’s wildlife and natural beauty. Obama is also considering ways to prevent new oil production at the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Environmentalists have long campaigned to hinder oil production in Alaska.
“Just like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of our nation’s crown jewels and we have an obligation to preserve this spectacular place for generations to come,” Jewell added.
But Alaska lawmakers were furious with the administration’s proposal — for decades Alaska Republicans and Democrats have been pushing for opening ANWR to drilling.
“What’s coming is a stunning attack on our sovereignty.....
January 25th, 2015
Bravo to Harris-Teeter, a great grocery store, and a great American company.....
By Fred Clasen-Kelly
An advocacy group staged a protest at Harris Teeter in the Myers Park neighborhood Saturday, demanding that the grocery chain stop customers from openly carrying guns in its stores.
Members of Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America chopped up their customer loyalty cards and told a store manager they would not shop at Harris Teeter unless the policy is changed.
“We’ll come back if the store is safe,” one protester said.
The seven miserable looking protesters, somehow, rated a big story from the Charlotte Observer--which will apparently also be covering tiny pick-up basketball games as huge events, in the future, if this story is any indication.....BLS
The group has been lobbying Cincinnati-based Kroger, which bought Harris Teeter last year, to ban openly carried guns in stores even in states such as North Carolina where “open carry” is legal. Members have recently seen success persuading well-known chains, including Target and Starbucks, to ask customers to leave firearms outside their doors.
But Harris Teeter said it won’t change its policies, which allow open carry in states where it’s legal. Harris Teeter operates about 200 stores in eight states, but most are in North Carolina.
Gun owners in the state can openly carry firearms in most public places. A permit is required to carry a concealed gun.
“We have and will continue to adhere to the firearms and concealed handgun laws as outlined by the states in which we do business,” Harris Teeter spokeswoman Danna Jones said in an email. “We believe this issue is best handled by lawmakers, not retailers.”
The company gave a similar response in November after Moms Demand Action delivered more than 72,000 petitions to Harris Teeter’s Matthews offices asking it to halt the open carry of firearms in stores.
Moms Demand Action, which pushes for tougher guns laws, was founded after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012. A gunman killed 20 children and six adults in the school.
Range of operations for Harris-Teeter
The organization boasts members in all 50 states, including 384 in the local chapter that organized Saturday’s protest.
About 10 women, men, and children held placards in the Harris Teeter parking lot, cut their customer loyalty cards in front of television cameras and carried a letter to the store manager.
They said they do not oppose the Second Amendment right to bear arms but added that some stricter controls are necessary to protect children.
“It’s not about the guns; it’s about the people,” said Christy Clark, a Huntersville mother and leader with Moms Demand Action. “Moms, kids, and stores cannot tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.”
Kroger is the nation’s second-largest grocery chain, operating under multiple banners, including Harris Teeter.
“Our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping,” reads Kroger’s official policy. “We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue, and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.”
More from the Charlotte Observer
January 25th, 2015
We, know, we know...
Every time the GOP hears anything regarding 'Free-Trade' they trip all over themselves to prove their 'true Conservatism"--when, in fact, their 'true aim' consistently appears to be anything but.....
The problem, appears to fall under the premise of a scene from virtually any Peanuts movie, with Lucy holding the football and Charlie Brown being tricked into kicking it, time after time after time, while Lucy quickly slips the ball away, each time.
Meanwhile, when will the GOP learn that anything which Obama is pushing hard is probably not in America's best interests?
Obama 'Trans-Pacific Partnership" is the extension of Clinton's NAFTA, where what began as slight draft soon turned into a magnificent vortex-- a giant sucking away of American jobs.
Think of it as "digging the footings" or maybe lining out the new foundation, because, we already have the plans being set into motion, but how do we get to the actual building phase, which necessarily ensues after the "great" tearing-down.
“After America, there is North America,” dutifully explains Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus, the former U.S. military commander, who was attending a conference titled “After America, What?”
The meeting was held at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty on June 18, 2014, as hosted by the Center for Policy Studies in Great Britain. Petraeus claims he "threw away the question mark and boldly proclaimed the coming North American decades." Petraeus, a member of both Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations, was essentially celebrating the end of the US Constitution which he once swore to defend.
5:48:31 "After America, what?" Chair: Professor Michael Clarke. Hon John Howard, Dr. Keyu Jin, General Petraeus.
From New American: “The ex-commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq essentially celebrated the end of U.S. independence – and by extension, the demise of the Constitution.”
The plans for this union, go all the way back to NAFTA, during the Clinton Years, and actually extends well into the Bush years, as explained by Lou Dobbs in 2005:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement being negotiated in SECRET and WITHOUT insight or oversight from Congress.
The self-proclaimed “most transparent” administration in history is keeping the general public in the dark about this and have refused to allow Congress any information pertaining to the negotiations. The Obama Administration has also forbidden U.S. Negotiators from sharing any of the text of the agreements being negotiated until after it is completed when it will be virtually impossible to make changes to it!
Also, it is NOT being negotiated as a Treaty which requires a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate in order to ratify; instead it is being negotiated as simple legislation which only needs a simple 51 vote majority to pass!
And guess what? Mitch McConnell is planning on giving Obama “Trade Promotion Authority” (Fast Track) powers to pass it! Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the SOLE POWER to regulate Commerce and Trade with Foreign Nations.
So why is it so bad? Why the urgency? It is just a little trade agreement, right?
Threats to our U.S. Sovereignty:
Obama trade is NAFTA on Jose Canseco type steroids. It is NOT just a trade agreement. If this is allowed to pass it would submit the United States to the jurisdiction of an international tribunal established under the supervision and control of, yup you guessed it, The Anti-American United Unions. These tribunals would SUPERCEDE the U.S. Constitution, SUPERCEDE the U.S. Supreme Court and SUPERCEDE and OVER RULE State and Federal Court rulings.
Threats to our Religious Freedoms:
So far there are 12 participants: The United States, Vietnam, The Islamic Sultanate of Brunei, Singapore, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. At least 3 of these Countries either practice Sharia Law or persecute Christians and Jews.
Brunei for instance recently adopted Sharia Law and even forced Christian businesses to remove all Christmas decorations this holiday season and made it a crime to practice Christianity openly. Also, Malaysia is also a country that forces Christians to convert to Islam and lately have had a lot of disappearing planes and mysterious crashes. Vietnam’s Communist government makes all religious groups register with the government and has persecuted Christians as well.
Threats to the U.S. Economy:
Obama trade would empower foreign companies to use these new foreign tribunals to enforce special privileges only available to them. What’s worse, it would also exempt foreign companies from EPA and other standards, even though, American companies would still be forced to comply putting those companies at a clear and distinct disadvantage. Moreover, to add insult to injury foreign companies would be empowered to bypass our courts and instead litigate U.S. companies before the UN governed tribunals.
Threats to our Internet Freedom:
The Obama Administration already weakened our Internet freedoms by relinquishing ICANN last year. ICANN stands for The Internet Control of Assigned Names and Numbers. The United States has had control over the Internet but now has given that control up to yet again another regulation authority governed by the UN. ICANN was the appetizer; signing Obama trade would consist of the full course meal....
January 25th, 2015
Fox represents the centrist viewpoint in media--neither Right nor Left, but dead center--which is exactly where they should be for a credible news organization--in other words--it's not that they're Right-wing--it's rather that all of the others are so EXTREME Left-wing.....
By Barry Secrest
It's no secret, at least not for most of us, that the reason for the Conservative Media's upsurge and success is directly associated with the demise of the mainstream media in the US.
The traditional media has become so severely co-opted by the state that it is now, largely, an instrument of government dedicated to misdirection and confusion, rather than its original role of holding power to account, as the 4th Estate.
One of the most compelling of examples is that of award-winning journalist Sheryl Attkisson, of CBS fame, who was eventually forced to resign, upon discovering that her computer was being tracked, allegedly, by the US government. Attkinson is presently in the process of suing the US Justice Department for the illegal eavesdropping.
The funny thing is, CBS News has remained silent about the entire incident.
However, this is but one of the many cases which have surfaced, in the past six years. Remember Obama's bugging of the Associated Press? Remember James Rosen, a high-ranking journalist who was also bugged and named as a co-conspirator, for his journalistic investigation into illegal activities by the Obama Regime?
Parenthetically, the mainstream media has tossed most of these stories in the garbage bin of anti-journalism, largely because the power-grabbing Obama regime is seen by most Progressive journalists and their organizations as being in ideological alignment with their Leftists causes.
By that same token, there is one very major news network which has carried the role of the 4th estate forward, and that network is Fox news, with others such as Newsmax, now making inroads.
The proof, in support of these facts come to us from none other than this latest story from the Inquisitor, which outlines the center of this frequently denied truth, by the latest in a large number of snubs directed towards Fox News by the White House, in order to allow us to know who's doing their job [ and who is not.]
Fox News‘ Shepard Smith received a little jab from the White House to go along with his pre-SOTU luncheon. Smith and other Fox News reporters were supposed to receive a place card saying “Fox News,” instead they got an insulting omission. It may have been an honest mistake, but Shep refused to let it go without a brief report on the subject.
Shepard Smith explained it well.
“I sat next to Brian Williams, and we all have these place cards and his said, ‘Brian Williams, NBC News.’ And across from me was David Muir, the new guy on ABC. It said, ‘David Muir, ABC News.’ And then, over next to the president, was Scott Pelley, and it said, ‘Scott Pelley, ABC News.”
Sounds fine so far.
“And I looked at mine, and it doesn’t say anything about news. It just says, ‘Fox.’ And I looked at Bret Baier’s and it said, ‘Bret Baier, Fox.’ But all the rest of them got ‘news.’ I mean, I don’t care — lunch was great.”
Smith tried to keep his response classy, but conservative pundits and websites were in an uproar. Townhall.com called it an “incredibly petty move,” the Daily Caller said it was “passive-aggressive,” and Tammy Bruce panned the move as “immature.”
It might all be an innocent mistake, but the White House has taken swipes at Fox News before.
In 2009, the administration tried to prevent Fox News from interviewing Kenneth Feinberg, the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation popularly called the “Pay Czar.”
A week before the attempt to limit Feinberg’s availability, White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News that Fox News was not a real news organization, and other networks shouldn’t treat it as one.
But the journalistic community didn’t respond like the administration had hoped, especially the network pool. The network pool is a group of major news outlets, including Fox, that share the costs of covering the White House in exchange for equal access to the information. The network pool announced that if Fox News couldn’t interview Feinberg, no one would.
Whether the pre-SOTU luncheon incident was another, more passive attack on Fox News‘ legitimacy isn’t clear.
Still, Shepard Smith defended his own reputation as a journalist, adding onto the end of his report, “I guess there’s a message received, but I think Bret and I are good to go with the news part, and I think you know that too.”
The Fox News reporter then flipped a peace sign and checked out.
January 25th, 2015
By Barry Secrest
Many Americans are now beginning to both believe and even affirm that Conservative opponents of Obama who were sounding the alarm bells back in 2008, were definitively correct in their assertions and for very good reason.
The President's authoritarian actions have placed him into political isolation across a score of policy fronts while defenders have dropped back into wildly ridiculous counter-arguments in an effort to make Obama's actions seem both reasonable and justified, when in fact they are anything but.
Indeed, the fact that the NSA is monitoring every single move of every American via their phones, computers and even travels, while ignoring the threat from hundreds of thousands of Illegals pouring over the border, some certainly hostile, should give every single American thoughtful pause regardless of political leaning, and yet, it apparently does not.
In addition, a recent report from the Bureau of Labor & Statistics detailed that fact that since the year 2,000 virtually all of the 5.7 million new jobs created in that time period went to either legal or illegal aliens, leaving natural born Americans out in the cold. Yet Obama mocks and insults his concerned opposition for not fulfilling his desires, while simultaneously ignoring their constituent issues, and then blaming them for intransigence, calling it gridlock. The President then routinely threatens an executive bypass of voter representatives in Congress, while a seemingly vacuous pseudo-media claps and begs for more.
Objectifying onlookers might view these manifestations as being not the actions of a concerned President, but rather symptomatic of an underlying disorder commonly associated with pathological narcissism as complicated by a tendency towards authoritarianism.
Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside Out
However, it's Obama's actions with regard to the Mideast and Islamic Extremism, which now has many concerned foreign policy experts wondering what could possibly be next, from the President.
Obama's promise to 'stand with them' (the Muslims) has seemed to have taken full flight even as the winds have certainly shifted into an ugly political direction, but it's also which brand of Islamic extremism which Obama seems to be supporting that has many alarmed.
Indeed, in February of 2011, National Director of Intelligence James Clapper appeared before a US intelligence committee and iterated to everyone in attendance that one of the primary players in the Egyptian Revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood, was a "secular group dedicated to non-violence."
It was only a few months later and after the Brotherhood took over that the Muslim Brotherhood began crucifying, hanging and beheading Egyptian Christians at an unprecedented rate.
Although largely forgotten now, we can obviously see that Clapper's testimony was not one of fact, but rather reflected an erroneous worldview which both Obama and his Regime wants America to see, in abeyance to a totally differing truth which they would rather keep hidden.
This hidden worldview by America's leadership, in fact, speaks to what both could and should be defined as a clear and present danger to America and its future. However, Obama's polished theatrical skills in concert with the warped optics reflected by a largely co-opted media, leaves many not a little dazed if not completely confused as to the President's overall agenda.
Moreover, we can see this phenomenon by meaningfully noting what the President has done, in responding to each Mideast event, as opposed to what the President has obtusely stated, prior to his overall reaction by noting the penultimate response and the hindmost outcome. While the President seems to have been finally if not reluctantly dragged to a war-party footing of stopping the spread of ISIS, Obama has instituted what could be termed mini-pin prick attacks designed to irritate the enemy, at best and anger his Generals, at worst.
Further, the President has sought to now intensify the arming of the same radical Islamic element of Syrian rebel fighters, who eventually became the ISIS -caliphate state, in the first place.
While Obama has consistently proffered the open hand of friendship towards America's avowed enemies within most if not all of the Islamic world, the President has chillingly shunned America's Israeli allies in the Mideast.
Recently Obama stunningly halted shipments of US hellfire missiles to Israel even while arming and funding the same Al Qaeda rebels in Syria who eventually broke off and became the brutal Caliphate building terrorist group known as ISIS.
This because the deadly terrorist group Al Qaeda could supposedly no longer accept ISIS' radical extremist views, if one can imagine that. Nor are Obama's true feelings concerning Israel's Jewish President a big secret when an open mic incident in late 2011 caught Obama bemoaning the fact that he had to deal with the Israeli leader on a daily basis.
In fact, even while the terrorist organization, Hamas, was lobbing rockets into Israel from Palestine, the US President continually scolded and even warned Israel for firing back and counter-attacking the bloodthirsty Islamic group in a clearly defensive posture, prompting many to ask exactly whose side Obama was on.
During the HAMAS missile firing conflict with Israel, a transcript of a heated conversation between Obama and Israel President Netanyahu was released in 'The Times of Israel' which was subsequently translated into English, and published in the Wall Street Journal, as follows:
Barack Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities, in particular airstrikes.
Benjamin Netanyahu: And what will Israel receive in exchange for a ceasefire?
BO: I believe that Hamas will cease its rocket fire — silence will be met with silence.
BN: Hamas broke all five previous ceasefires. It’s a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
BO: I repeat and expect Israel to stop all its military activities unilaterally. The pictures of destruction in Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.
BN: Kerry’s proposal was completely unrealistic and gives Hamas military and diplomatic advantages.
BO: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas based on the 2012 understandings, including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege and restrictions on Gaza.
BN: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It’s impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.
BO: I trust Qatar and Turkey. Israel is not in the position that it can choose its mediators.
BN: I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks –
BO: (interrupting Netanyahu) The ball’s in Israel’s court, and it must end all its military activities.
The question which should be asked might center on whether or not the President also had such a conversation with HAMAS leadership, which started the conflict in the first place.
So, is the President siding with America's most passionately avowed enemies or America's greatest ally? Perhaps the answer lies partially within the fact that in February 2014, prior to the ISIS rampage, Obama actually referred to the medieval inclined terrorist group invading Iraq as a "JV team."
Indeed, Obama's insidious attitude towards the nation of Israel has recently instituted a modern-day "Exodus" from the Democrat party by a number of Jewish US citizens, according to recent reports. In fact, Obama even stated the following as an exclamation point to these rather telling facts:
“Because Israel is so capable militarily, I don’t worry about Israel’s survival.”~ Barack H. Obama
However, the penultimate slap in the face by the Obama Regime against Israel occurred when Secretary of State John Kerry sided with two of Israel's greatest opponents, the nations of Turkey and Qatar, which both fund and back Hamas, in order to broker a cease-fire with Israel at Egypt's original behest and an event which the Washington Post described, as follows:
"By turning to Turkey and Qatar, Kerry also enhanced their position in the regional power game. That’s contrary to the interests and desires of the United States’ traditional allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the moderate Palestinian camp headed by Abbas."
Either way, despite the vast majority of Americans who support Israel, Obama's allegiance against the consent of the governed in America has increasingly inclined towards siding with Islamic terrorist-states as opposed to democratically elected non-Islamist allies of the US.
The question is why?
The issue seemed to have begun in earnest when Obama sought to topple Presidential dictator Hosni Mubarek's peace-keeping authoritarian regime in Egypt, in apparent favor of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. Egypt is populated primarily by Sunni Muslims, which are the same Islamic sects which comprise the terrorist group ISIS or ISIL which, once again, is now overtaking Iraq.
Not by coincidence, the Muslim Brotherhood is also comprised of Muslims belonging to the Sunni sect of Islam, as does Wahhabiism or Silafism, both forms of ultra-extremist Islamism.
After Sunni leader Mohamed Morsi took over Egypt as President and promptly suspended the constitution, the Islamists came out in full force and through Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood followers, began a form of religious cleansing which include killing and crucifying of Christians all over Egypt, eventually causing the Egyptian military to step in and take over due largely to populous demands.
During the same time period of Morsi's reign of terror, Obama had finalized an agreement in which F-16 fighters, tanks, and billions of dollars in funding was being sent over by the US. When the Egyptian military finally took over the government, Obama promptly halted both the transfer of aid and arms.
So, the first question one might begin asking could be centered upon whether or not a declaration of martial law is acceptable to Obama. The next question might be that if martial law is indeed acceptable-- then why is a martial law takeover, by the military at the behest of the governed, then somehow not? In essence, "what difference at this point does it make?"
Of note is the now buried fact that the Obama Regime actually facilitated the overthrow of Western ally Mubarek, in favor of the western hating Muslim Brotherhood. According to an article which appeared in the UK Telegraph on January 28, 2011, agents of the US Government were fully engaged in the overthrow of the Mubarek Regime.
"The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police."
"On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011."
So, it would appear that the Obama Regime was at the very least culpable in the destabilization of one of America's and Israel's most stable Mideast allies.
With the nation of Egypt now economically and culturally in tatters, one wonders if the Egyptians are enduringly appreciative of Obama's brand of "Change We Can Believe In?"
Or perhaps stolen democratic elections and regular democratic elections are apparently viewed as one and the same in Obama's increasingly warped Acorn-inspired viewpoint. Either way, Obama seemed to come down squarely in support of an Islamic extremist takeover of Egypt and if not for Egypt's military, would have achieved just that.
In essence , Obama supported the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt which by the way, is primarily Sunni Muslim, against the secular military's recapture of the government in order to restore full order and put an end to the religious cleansing.
Despite Obama's consistent promises with regard to red lines and chemical weapons when it came to Syria, Obama's desire to immediately attack and bring down Bashar al Assad's autocratic government, was stifled by political pressure leveled by none other than the American people from all sides of the political perspective....