Petraeus: NAFTA Has Replaced the USA

Gen. Petraeus was speaking on the “After America, What?” panel at the Centre for Policy Studies’ Margaret Thatcher Liberty Conference at the Guildhall in the City of London on 6/18/14

———————————————————
www.telegraph.co.uk
15.13 General David Petraeus has answered the question “after America, what?” with a robust defence of America, or “North America” as it’s traditionally known. He said the “highly integrated” forces of Canada, the United States and Mexico would provide the world’s next powerhouse for energy production and scientific advancement.
There are four revolutions that are ongoing at various level in each of the countries but foremost in the United States. The energy revolution is the first of those, which has created the biggest change in geopolitics since the rise of China since 1978.
He explained that the remaining industrial revolutions in IT, manufacturing and life sciences, “as highly integrated as they are, allow you to argue that after America comes North America”.

 

 

July 1987: Rex 84 plan for Martial Law disclosed during Iran Contra hearings

Oliver North Questioned by Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX),
Rex 84 Exposed During Iran Contra hearings in 1987 (May 5, 1987: Iran-Contra Committee Begins Public Hearings; Oliver North testified on July 7-10)

————————————————————
August 3, 1987 and After: Iran-Contra Hearings Conclude
www.historycommons.org
The Iran-Contra hearings come to an end after over 250 hours of testimony from 28 witnesses. [New York Times, 11/19/1987] The hearings have been unsatisfactory at best, with the committee saying in a final statement, “We may never know with precision or truth why [the Iran-Contra affair] ever happened.” [Aug 3, 1987 – PBS]

 

Rand Paul continues to mislead on immigration

24ahead.com

6/12/14

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul spoke on a conference call organized by Michael Bloomberg‘s Partnership for a New American Economy and – together with Grover Norquist – promoted comprehensive immigration reform (what most call “amnesty”).

Now, either because he got pushback or to take the sales job to his Tea Parties base, Paul offers a guest editorial at Breitbart News ( peekURL.com/z96LtY3 ). I’ll briefly describe how it’s wrong and how he’s attempting to deceive you. If you’re a Rand Paul supporter, I hope to change your mind.

Paul begins:

I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform—smart reform that starts with border security.

Characterizing that position as “amnesty” is simply untrue.

What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration’s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration – unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law.

My “Trust but Verify” plan will ensure that our border is secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward until this happened.

1. The first paragraph is the “we already have defacto amnesty” line popularized by Marco Rubio. Paul’s talking point is deceptive because it assumes we must choose between the current situation and some form of mass legalization. There are other options that Paul is ignoring, such as attrition. If Paul and his colleagues really wanted Obama to enforce immigration laws, they could make it happen. To some extent, Paul’s first paragraph is an extortionist’s threat: give me what I want or things will get worse.

2. For various reasons, the mass legalization Rand Paul wants would encourage more illegal immigration. It would give more power to far-left groups that currently support illegal immigration, such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Paul’s plan wouldn’t punish employers that knowingly hired illegal aliens in the past, it would let them off the hook and encourage them to keep hiring illegal aliens if they can. And, as can be seen currently, weakness on immigration – such as talk of mass legalization – can lead to a mad rush for the borders. Rand Paul’s plan would also reward political corruption, such as those politicians who’ve looked the other way on illegal immigration because of large donations from business groups. Rand Paul’s plan would reward such behavior and encourage more of it.

3. In the second paragraph, Rand Paul plays word games. His plan is what most people would refer to as “amnesty”. But, to avoid confusion, let’s play his game. Let’s not use the shorter “amnesty” but the longer “mass legalization”. Instead of arguing with Rand Paul whether his plan is amnesty or not, let’s just show how his plan will harm the U.S. See reform not amnesty for more on that aspect.

4. There is one group for whom Rand Paul’s plan – and all other immigration “reform” plans so far proposed – are definitively amnesty. As alluded to above, all those businesses that knowingly or not hired illegal aliens will get off the hook. Illegal aliens will be forced to pay some kind of fines (unless those are waived) and will face other “tough” punishment. But, their employers will get a full and complete amnesty for their past hiring of those illegal aliens. In some or many cases those employers knew what was going on but looked the other way, or knowingly accepted fake documents. They won’t face any sort of punishment for that.

5. Rand Paul is in the “secure the border first” crowd: as discussed at the link you have to ask what comes second. In Rand Paul’s case we know: mass legalization of millions of illegal aliens.

6. Whether putting Obama or Congress in charge of declaring the border secure, that’s letting the fox guard the henhouse. Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and previous Congresses brought us to the current situation. Rand Paul certainly isn’t doing all he could to secure the border right now, nor are most other leading politicians. Some of those politicians might be marginally better than Obama on immigration, but generally speaking trusting leading politicians – Democrats or Republicans – on immigration isn’t a wise idea because they’ve shown themselves to be quite corruptible (generally either by racial power in the case of the Democrats or business donations in the case of Republicans).

7. Why is Rand Paul holding “national security and border security” hostage to his mass legalization plan? If he were truly concerned about the security of the U.S., wouldn’t he at least push that separately? Yet, Rand Paul is tying them together: demanding mass legalization as a precondition to securing the border.

Rand Paul then details his high-tech plans for border security, which will include “and yes, surveillance drones”. Then:

My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed. If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element of immigration reform will be stopped.

8. See #6 above. Congresses come and go, some will be better on immigration than others. The very people who’ve shown themselves to be corruptible on immigration will be the ones voting on whether to continue aspects of Rand Paul’s plan. His plan will give more power to the people and groups that currently try to undercut border security: the ACLU, the National Council of La Raza, and hundreds more. They’ll use that increased power to make sure that, for instance, politicians weaken some aspects of Rand Paul’s plan to allow certain programs to continue (like DACA) even if the border isn’t judged secure. Rand Paul’s last sentence above is cruelly deceptive: he knows that once his plan is started it’s not going to be stopped. The forces that would oppose stopping it or halting parts of it are too strong and have too much money.

Rand Paul continues:

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history, our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved.

Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.

9. See nation of immigrants and immigration tradition fallacy for a discussion of the hoary talking points uses in the first paragraph above.

10. The people and groups that Rand Paul’s plan will give power to tend to oppose assimilation, such as the NCLR. There is little current external pressure on immigrants to assimilate. Those who try to assimilate immigrants tend to get smeared by the far-left and tend to back down. Rand Paul’s plan would make that worse.

11. The U.S. is a lot more than just the shopping mall/flea market Rand Paul envisions. Some immigrants have opinions on various topics that simply aren’t compatible with fundamental American concepts. We can’t have people coming here just because they want to make money: that’s not what the U.S. is all about.

Rand Paul ends with this:

I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.

I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves. However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure.

Rand Paul is still playing word games, still using bogus talking points (system is broken), and still holding border security hostage to his mass legalization plan. He’s also not putting numbers on the (no doubt high) legal immigration he wants.

We could move forward on border security right now. Rand Paul could go on a crusade demanding that Obama enforce immigration laws at the border and at the workplace. Rand Paul could speak out against the various actions Eric Holder and other administration officials have taken to encourage more illegal immigration. Instead, Rand Paul is holding all that hostage to a massive legalization plan that would have massive negative impacts on the U.S.

If you were and still are a Rand Paul supporter, I want to change your mind. Contact me at @24AheadDotCom.

If, on the other hand, you realize how deceptive Rand Paul is and want to oppose his plans, then make the arguments on this page to those who haven’t seen the light. That could take you as little as a few minutes: search Twitter for those who tweet approvingly to @SenRandPaul, and then make the points on this page to them.

“Terroristic” Dress-code Violations and Other Threats to Gun Ownership

By Claire Wolfe, June 7th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.

JPFO.ORG

 

Click to enlarge

If Thursday’s news reports are accurate, hysterical fear of “terrorism” has just reached a new low. Two dozen middle schoolers were suspended because they commented on or shared a Facebook post urging mass resistance to their school’s dress code. This is the kind of small act of resistance adolescents have indulged in forever — particularly in the heady last week before summer vacation.

Whether they deserve punishment or not is in the eye of the beholder. But according to at least one of the students and one parent, the principle of Cowen (I’m tempted to write “Coward”) Road Middle School in Griffin, Georgia, accused participants in the FB discussion of making “terroristic threats.”

I’ll wait a moment while your eyeballs stop rolling.

Now, you might laugh at the idea of a school official being so diaper-wetting petrified of a conspiracy to commit sartorial infractions that he or she feels terrorized and threatened. The situation is less funny to the honor student who got kicked out of school merely for typing, “I’m in!”

But the situation is really, really, really unfunny when you consider how the growing misuse of the concept of “terrorism” is damaging both the future of freedom and the future of one of freedom’s essential protectors, the right to own and use firearms.

Words have meaning

Wikipedia defines a ” terroristic threat” as: “a declaration of intent to commit a crime of violence against another with the intent of threatening a person, building, facility, or public or private habitat.”

I’ve never heard of anybody violently threatening to wear an outfit, have you? Even with rising fear of kids wearing gang colors or pro-gun tee-shirts, it’s hard to imagine how someone could “violently” wear a skirt or pair of pants.

But it’s still worse. The very concept of “terroristic threat” only entered the U.S. lexicon after 9-11, and that panicked school principle is far from the first to misuse the term and stretch the concept past its limits. Legalmatch.com notes that many states are increasingly redefining all manner of violent criminals as “terrorists.”

The concept of “terrorism” legitimately applies only to “those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).”

So never mind said school official’s alleged “terror” of defiantly dressed 12 year olds. Even a genuinely violent person shouldn’t be called a terrorist or be said to make “terroristic threats” unless he or she is using or threatening violence against innocents with ideological goals in mind.

But (you may be saying) why should we care if a word is being misused? We live in an age when terrorism — no matter what you call it — is a geniune threat; quit being petty about definitions, Claire!

If you’re saying that, I’ll refer you to Mr. Orwell for discussion on the importance of the meaning of words and the perils of their political abuse.

But if you’re wondering something more along the lines of, “What does all this have to do with guns and gun-rights?” … follow me.

What “terrorist” hysteria has to do with gun rights

There is this abominable piece of legislation that’s been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate repeatedly since at least 2009. Its title is the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” (of 2009, 2011, 2013, etc.). According to the bill’s summary:

Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2013 – Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit (or revoke such license or permit) if the Attorney General: (1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism or has provided material support or resources for terrorism; and (2) has a reasonable belief that the transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.

Extends the prohibition against the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to include individuals whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities. Imposes criminal penalties on individuals engaged in terrorist activities who smuggle or knowingly bring firearms into the United States.

Authorizes the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation lawsuits and from employers if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security.

Click to enlarge

In other words, if this bill ever became law, one unelected official (currently that paragon of honesty, openness, and fairness, Eric Holder) would unilaterally decide who would be “allowed” to own a firearm. The process would be completely arbitrary, based solely on the AG’s subjective “determination,” and the process could be kept secret based on an equally subjective (and unverifiable) claim of “national security.”

Lucky you, though, you’d still have the right to sue after being denied your other constitutional rights. Maybe after five or six years, half a million dollars in legal expenses, and constant denials of needed information in the name of “national security” you might even win.

Fortunately, so far, this “terroristic threat” of a bill has never made it out of committee. At the same time, it’s not just one of those little “hobby horse” bills that certain lone legislators submit over and over and over again without either hope or co-sponsors. Given the right moment — the most handy crisis — this one could eventually pick up and go somewhere. And that would be a very bad thing.

The bill’s authors have never explained the difference between a “dangerous terrorist” and a harmless terrorist. Perhaps it’s the sort of tee shirts they wear. (Dangerous terrorists in red? Harmless terrorists in blue? It’s quite the mystery.) But the authors and co-sponsors are the heavyweights of authoritarian anti-gunnery. They include: Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer (of course) and Sens. Boxer, Gillibrand, Levin, and other usual suspects in the Senate. Signing on to this bill was one of the last legislative acts of Frank Lautenberg before his misspent (but very long and powerful) life ended. In the House, sponsors have included: Charles Rangel, Peter King, Henry Waxman, and others of their ilk.

But okay, maybe this bill will never, ever become law. We can hope. Still, it represents and reflects the very same trend that’s going on at Cowen Road Middle School — crying “terrorism” to justify every overreaction of authority. Not only is the language changing (through political manipulation), but so is the legal landscape of the U.S.

Don’t forget that, according to the FBI businesses should already report you as a suspected “domestic terrorist” if you do such innocuous things as pay with cash, buy MREs, get the same tattoo your friends have, talk about your constitutionally protected rights, or even park in the “wrong” parking space at a hotel or motel.

The Obama administration even cried “terrorism” to cover up a nasty paperwork error.

“Terrorism.” It’s so handy! So convenient!

Don’t think for one minute that this administration — or any other in the future — would hesitate to call all gun owners “terrorists” if it suited their political purposes. Don’t think power-seeking authoritarians would hesitate to declare gun ownership itself a “terroristic threat.” Maybe not this year or next. But when the word “terrorist” can be applied to anyone who challenges power, and that person so labeled can be punished accordingly — then eventually powerful people will use that “wonderful” control tool to fulfill their rapacious aims.

They haven’t succeeded yet, but already there are people in Congress who want to hand exactly that power over to unelected, secretive, gun-hating bureaucrats.

Sen. Boxer (D-CA) responds to UCSB slayings just as you’d expect

Originally posted by   on  Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 11:31am

Proposed rules unlikely to prevent similar incidents.

legalinsurrection.com

LI #03

Despite the fact that when half-Asian Elliot Rodger went on his murder spree, he knifed three of his victims to death, the response of progressives has been primarily focused on two topics: “White Male Privilege” and “Gun Control”.

Legislation to outlaw either being white or male cannot be proposed…yet.  However, one of the most progressively activist of all of California’s elected representatives offers a new set of gun control rules: The “Pause for Safety Act”.

Fascinating, I think, that “gun” does not appear in the title of Senator Barbara Boxer’s latest masterpiece. Her proposed rules would do the following:

• One, it would help ensure that families and others can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.

• Two, it would help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.

• Three, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.

According to Boxer: “We have a function here not to allow someone who is unstable or violent to get a weapon.”

So, how would this legislation have prevented Rodger from gaining access to knives? And, by the logic that produced this chestnut, perhaps we should regulate the distribution of hot coffee?:

 

July 2011: Rodger splashes coffee and tea on two couples during a jealous rage in separate incidents in July of his first summer in Isla Vista, according to his writing. He became “livid with envious hatred” at the sight of a young couple “kissing passionately” at a Starbucks, he wrote.

In addition to guns and knives, the report linked above also indicates that Rodger used his vehicle as a weapon:

He fired his guns through the driver’s side window parallel to the sidewalk as he drove his vehicle down the wrong side of the road, the sheriff said. He shot at a woman before a sheriff’s deputy fired at him. His car struck and injured a bicyclist before Rodger shot four pedestrians, the sheriff said.

Maybe we should tack on a car violence prevention warrant?

Even if the court grants a family’s request to deny a relative the right to purchase or have possession of a weapon, when do madmen follow rules? With enough money and motivation, a person intent on obtaining a gun will eventually find a way to procure one.

Let’s look at the local police force’s assessment of Rodger, which is related to the third item on Boxer’s wish list and occurred shortly before the rampage.

At approximately 10:17 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Emergency Communications Center received a call from a mental health staff member assigned to answer the Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Toll Free Access Line. The staff member requested deputies check the welfare of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who lived at an apartment in the 6500 block of Seville Road in Isla Vista. The staff member said she had been contacted by a person who identified himself as a friend of Elliot Rodger. Based on information from the caller and Elliot Rodger’s mother, the staff member on the Mental Health hot line requested a welfare check on Elliot Rodger.

….When Sheriff’s deputies arrived at Rodger’s address, they contacted him outside of his residence. Deputies found Rodger to be shy, timid and polite. When questioned by the deputies about reported disturbing videos he had posted on-line, Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself. Based upon the information available to them at the time, Sheriff’s deputies concluded that Rodger was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that they did not have cause to place him on an involuntary mental health hold, or to enter or search his residence. Therefore, they did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger.

Perhaps instead of using “gun registries”, rules to permit a 72-hour mental evaluation hold for a family member would be a better solution, if agreed to by a court? Whereas someone like Rodger could keep it together for a 30-minute friendly interview with authorities, it would be more of a challenge to fake sanity during an intense 3 days with a court-designated psychiatrist while the professional also evaluated the entire content of a patient’s social medial collection.

In the wake of the slaughter of the 20 children and 6 staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School at the hands of another mentally ill individual, over 1500 state gun bills were proposed. For example, one California bill that passed in this flurry of activity required psychotherapists whose patients threaten violence to report the threats. As Rodger’s case shows, simple reporting (by the parents in this instance) did not prevent the young man from killing.

None of those new rules helped prevent the UCSB slayings. And it is unlikely Boxer’s new proposals, offered with earnest sincerity and good intentions, will prevent a similar incident from occurring in the future.

Why Is The Media Silent About The Crucifixion Of Christians By Radical Jihadists?

endoftheamericandream.com

By Michael Snyder

Originally posted on  May 1st, 2014

Question Mark Photo By Salazar210 at WikipediaCould you imagine the uproar in the mainstream media that we would see if a member of a politically favored class of people was crucified for who or what they are?  There would be front page headlines for weeks.  But because members of a politically favored class (Muslims) are doing it to members of a non-politically favored class (Christians), it is not newsworthy at all according to the media.  In many instances, Christians are being crucified by jihadists that are actually being assisted and funded by the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia.  Yes, our tax dollars are being used to help arm and supply radical jihadists that are beheading and crucifying Christians.  And yet none of the big media organizations considers this to be news.

How sick and twisted do you have to be to crucify a little child for being a Christian?  Of course you never heard about this from the mainstream media, but that is exactly what happened in Syria recently…

Sister Raghida, former head of a Christian school in Damascus explained the horrific event. “Islam or death” was the choice given to many Christians in Syria on Tuesday during the height of the conflict in Syria. She said many Syrian Christians have been affected by the atrocities taking place in the Christian population of the Middle Eastern country, an area once known for the harmonious coexistence of Muslims and Christians.

According to Sister Raghida, the Muslims came to the two youths and said, “So you want to die as a teacher in whom you trust? Please choose: either to renounce (faith) or you will be crucified!”

The boys both refused to renounce faith in Jesus Christ and were martyred because of it. One of them was crucified in front of his father, who was then killed. The nun went on to tell the radio station that the Jihadists entered the city of Maaloula and started killing men, women, and children.

This kind of brutality is absolutely unprecedented!

Who has ever heard of such a thing being done to pregnant women and children?

You would think that crimes of this magnitude would be front page news all over the globe.

But instead, there is mostly just silence.

About the only mainstream news outlet in the U.S. that will even touch this stuff is Fox News.  And even they don’t give it front page treatment.  Usually you have to really dig to find a brief story about the slaughter of Christians that we are seeing all over the planet.

The following is an excerpt from a Fox News story about another incident of crucifixion that just happened recently…

Al Qaeda-backed jihadists are hanging the bodies of executed enemies on crosses crucifixion-style in a town in Northern Syria, according to a Syrian opposition group.

The executions reportedly took place Tuesday in Raqqa, where the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, an Al Qaeda-linked network, has taken over the city, according to Abu Ibrahim Alrquaoui, who identifies himself as a founder of a group called Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently.

As I mentioned above, the jihadists that are doing this have the support of Saudi Arabia and the United States.  The Obama administration and the Saudia are desperate to overthrow the Syrian government, and Obama seems to have no problem allying us with some of the most despicable jihadists on the entire planet in order to make that happen.

The brutality against Christians by U.S.-backed fighters has been going on for month after month with very little notice by the outside world.  Just check out what has been going on in one little village in the middle of the war zone…

For a major part of the past year, it was occupied by Islamist Syrian rebels associated with al-Qaida who took advantage of its commanding position over Maaloula to help keep their grip on this Christian village. During the occupation of the village by the Saudi- and U.S.-supported rebels, strict Shariah law was enforced. Those Christians not able to flee were treated as slaves. Several Christian men were beheaded, and many of the women were forced into “temporary” marriages with multiple Islamic fighters.

And of course Syria is far from the only place where we see this kind of brutality on a consistent basis.  For example, Christians are regularly slaughtered by radical jihadists in Nigeria.  The following is just one recent example…

While many of us were enjoying our Friday evenings, a massacre was taking place in Nigeria that left between 100 and 150 Christians dead and around 200 homes burned to the ground.

At around 10pm Nigeria time last night while villagers were asleep, more than 40 Fulani herdsmen attacked the Ungwan Gata, Me-Sankwai and Tekum villages in Manchok (Kaura Local Government), which is located in Southern Kaduna, Nigeria. Southern Kaduna is a predominantly Christian.

These jihadi attackers first set fire to homes and when the Christians attempted to escape their homes, they were shot dead or butchered with machetes. The ones who could not escape their homes burned to death.

No one attacked was spared, including women and children. A pastor, his wife, and their children, of one of the villages, were said to be among the butchered.

Have you heard about that incident before now?

Probably not.

You see, the truth is that the elite control the “matrix” known as the mainstream media, and they don’t consider such stories to be important.

You probably haven’t heard about the young Christian woman that was dragged out of her car and beaten to death by a Muslim mob in Egypt either.  Fortunately, there are some non-mainstream outlets that are covering this…

Eyewitnesses have given a harrowing account of the murder in Cairo of a young Coptic Christian woman, hauled out of her car and beaten and stabbed to death by a Muslim mob, apparently targeted because of a cross hanging from her rear-view mirror.

And to say that she was “beaten to death” doesn’t really capture the full horror of what happened to her…

Protestors climbed onto her car, collapsing the roof, then hauled her from the vehicle, beating and mauling her – to the extent, he said, that portions of her scalp were torn off. She was stabbed multiple times, her throat was slit and when she was dead, the mob torched her car.

This is evil to the highest degree.

But even in the midst of the slowest news year in ages, the mainstream media still won’t touch this stuff.

There is an extreme hesitance in the western world to report anything that will put Muslims in a bad light or put Christians in a good light.

Meanwhile, as Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims all over the globe, the western world is doing all that it can to shut down criticism of Islam.

For instance, the leader of a political party in the UK could be facing up to two years in prison for the “hate crime” of quoting Winston Churchill…

Political party leader Paul Weston was arrested by police and faces up to two years in jail for criticizing the religion of Islam during a public speech in the United Kingdom.

Weston’s “racially aggravated” hate crime consisted of him quoting Winston Churchill.

Weston’s arrest reveals the chilling implementation of thought crime in Britain and how political correctness is being used as a weapon with which to destroy the edifice of freedom of speech across the western world.

The following is what appears to be the quote that got Weston in trouble…

“The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

And in the U.S., great efforts are being made to make Muslims as comfortable as possible in our schools.  Even as Christian prayers are being banned, entire prayer rooms are being set aside for Muslim students in schools all over the country.  In addition, many school systems are now giving students days off during major Muslim holidays.  In fact, this will soon be happening in New York City…

New York City is moving to close school for two Muslim holidays and the Lunar New Year — but Mayor de Blasio isn’t so sure about the Hindu festival Diwali.

Appearing on WNYC’s “Brian Lehrer Show” on Monday, the mayor said he hadn’t taken a position on whether Diwali, the festival of lights celebrated in India and other South Asian countries, should be a day off from school.

But he said he’d move forward with closing schools for Lunar New Year and for Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, Muslim holy days.

But that is nothing compared to what happened at one high school in Colorado.  As students recited the Pledge of Allegiance, the words “under God” were replaced with “under Allah”…

The principal at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, is facing a hailstorm of criticism from some very angry parents and residents.

The school recites the Pledge of Allegiance weekly, on Mondays. Last Monday, a member of their “Cultural Arms Club” led the student body in an Arabic version of the pledge, replacing the words “under God” with “under Allah.”

Principal Tom Lopez denies any attempt to push an Islamic agenda, saying, “These students love this country. They were not being un-American in trying to do this. They believed they were accentuating the meaning of the words as spoken regularly in English.”

In the U.S., people are bending over backwards to make the Muslim minority feel more comfortable.

But in Muslim countries, Christians are being beaten to death, beheaded and crucified and very few people in the western world even want to talk about it.

Has our society become so “politically correct” that we cannot even denounce great evil when it is happening right in front of our eyes?

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?

endoftheamericandream.com

By Michael Snyder

Originally posted on May 18th, 2014

White House MeetingWhen the U.S. military “liberates” a nation, shouldn’t it result in more liberty, freedom and peace for the people living there?  Instead, we find just the opposite.  In fact, in every single case since 9/11, when the U.S. military has “liberated” a nation it has resulted in the persecution of Christians in that country becoming much worse.  In areas where we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and where thousands of precious American lives were sacrificed, churches are regularly being bombed, Christians are being brutally beheaded, and laws have been passed to make it illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.  If we were not even able to provide the most basic of liberties and freedoms to the people living in those nations, what in the world did we actually accomplish by “liberating” them?

Just look at what has happened in Afghanistan.  We have been at war in Afghanistan for more than a dozen years, and yet things are so bad for Christians in that country at this point that there is not a single church left…

The supposedly “moderate” Karzai government installed by the U.S. upholds many of the draconian laws enforced by the Taliban—including the apostasy law, fiercely persecuting those who seek to convert to Christianity—and, in 2011, under U.S. auspices, it destroyed Afghanistan’s last Christian church.

We find a similar story in Iraq.  It is estimated that before the invasion, there were up to 2 million Christians living in Iraq.  Now that number is down to less than 450,000, and it is falling fast.

In fact, things are so dire for Iraq’s Christian community that some Iraqi Christian leaders are warning that Christians may soon become “extinct” in that nation…

As the mass exodus of Iraq’s Christians continues, so does the call for ending the plight of those who have remained. Like Iraq’s ancient Jewish community before them, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities may soon cease to exist.

The disappearance of Iraq’s religious minorities has been a troubling trend since the US-led invasion in 2003, and it has threatened to end the cultural diversity of Iraq. As the violence in the country spikes and religious intolerance grows, many Christians, Yazidis, Mandaeans and other minority community members are leaving the country.

Last week, the head of the Iraqi Catholic Church sent a chilling warning that Iraq’s 2,000-year-old Christian community is on the brink of extinction as new waves of Christians take the journey of exodus.

It is estimated that the Iraq war cost U.S. taxpayers more than 2 trillion dollars.

We spent more than a million dollars on one soccer field alone (which has now turned to dust).

In the end, what did we actually accomplish?

The Obama administration likes to brag about how it got rid of Qaddafi and “liberated” Libya, but now al-Qaeda is in control of much of the country and things are much worse for Christians than ever before…

Ever since U.S.-backed, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists overthrew Qaddafi, Christians—including Americans—have indeed suffered extreme persecution. Churches have been bombed; Christians have been tortured and killed (including for refusing to convert); and nuns have been threatened.

In Syria, the Obama administration is shamelessly allying with radical al-Qaeda jihadists in a desperate attempt to overthrow the Assad regime.

As these jihadists torture, behead and even crucify Christian believers, the mainstream media in the United States is virtually silent about it.

Why is the media being so quiet?

Well, because exposing what is going on would make the Obama administration look bad.

Those carrying out this persecution of Christians in Syria are being directly funded and aided by the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia.  For much more on what is going on in Syria, please see my previous article entitled “Why Is The Media Silent About The Crucifixion Of Christians By Radical Jihadists?”

And of course it is not just in the Middle East where this kind of persecution of Christians is taking place.

While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department refused to label Boko Haram as a terrorist organization.

But now the whole world is talking about Boko Haram.  This group has attacked more than 700 churches in Nigeria over the past seven years, and this has resulted in a massive exodus of Christians from northern Nigeria to southern Nigeria…

Christian groups estimate that up to a quarter of the 4,000 people killed by Boko Haram since 2009 have been Christians, and more than 700 churches have been attacked in the last seven years alone, according to the Nigerian Catholic Bishop’s Conference. Across the troubled north-east, many Christian neighbourhoods are now ghost towns as tens of thousands of residents flee south. It is one of the biggest Christian exoduses of the century, yet largely unremarked outside of Nigeria.

It is hard to put into words how brutal Boko Haram can be.  As a recent article in the Telegraph described, the persecution of Christians in northern Nigeria by Boko Haram  has been absolutely relentless…

Arriving at St Joseph’s church in the Nigerian town of Gashua, Father John Bakeni knew he was taking on a tough posting. A flyblows settlement near the northern border with Niger, his new parish was smack in the heart of Boko Haram territory, and in the previous three years, all but a fraction of its 3,000-strong Christian minority had fled.

Sent by his bishop to show that the diocese had not deserted the town, he spent much of the following year trying to reassure the 200 remaining parishioners. But nearly every time he ventured from his rectory, a reminder would await him of the difficulty of his mission.

“Several times a week I would find a dead animal had been thrown in the compound, usually a chicken, goat or sheep, but sometimes dead cats too,” said Fr Bakeni, 38. “Stones would get thrown at the church almost every day, and sometimes also people would bang the gates and shout: ‘Infidel, we are going to kill you.’

So why has the Obama administration been so hesitant to speak out against Boko Haram until now?

In fact, although most Americans do not realize this, the Obama administration has been quite supportive of Boko Haram in the past.  Obama even actually threatened the Nigerian government with economic sanctions in 2013 in an attempt to keep them from cracking down on Boko Haram.

What in the world was the Obama administration thinking?

Whose side are they on anyway?

If you love liberty and freedom, you should be deeply troubled by the spread of groups such as Boko Haram.

Just look at what is happening in another part of Africa where jihadists have gained control.  In Sudan, a pregnant woman was recently sentenced to death by hanging for marrying a Christian man…

A Sudanese woman doctor who married a Christian man and who was convicted earlier this week on charges of “apostasy” was sentenced to death on Thursday, judicial officials said.

According to the Sudanese officials, 26-year-old Meriam Ibrahim, whose father was Muslim, was convicted on Sunday and given four days to repent and escape death. She was sentenced after that grace period expired, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

The BBC reported the woman’s death by hanging will not be carried out until two years after the birth of her child.

This kind of tyranny should not be tolerated in today’s world.

But instead, the U.S. government seems to be helping to spread it.

With primaries over, NCGOP doubles down in push FOR toll roads

by

originally posted May 10, 2014

dailyhaymaker.com

It’s no surprise that politicians save discussion of controversial issues until AFTER they have safely secured another term at the public trough.  It appears the “honorables” on Jones Street are keeping that tradition alive.

I had heard that state Rep. Skip Stam had a real problem with accidentally sending business emails to people who they weren’t intended for.  Well, one of those emails ended up in our inbox (Click image to enlarge):

 

Snip20140510_3

stam1FYI — Don D’ambrosi  is a Triangle area land-planning consultant.  

Attached to this email are talking points to be used in debating Tea Party sources opposing the installation of toll roads in the state.  At the 2013 NCGOP convention,  delegates passed a platform plank opposing toll roads.  That upset state speaker — now US Senate nominee — Thom Tillis to the point that he took his team back to Raleigh and rammed through legislation allowing for toll roads.    Sources at Gov, Pat’s NCDOT leaked word that they were seriously considering the implementation of toll roads to finance road maintenance and construction.  (Not much word about weeding out waste in current projects or cutting the gas tax to off-set the pain in the wallet toll roads will inflict.) 

Just before the primary vote, we got word that NCGOP insiders drafting a platform for 2014 are striking anti-toll road language from that document. 

Let’s get down to the meat-and-potatoes of The Gospel of Skip: 

[…] The Toll Road program is an important tool to be included in the measures for building public infrastructure.

Use of Toll Roads can greatly accelerate the implementation of crucial projects. In the case of 540 in western Wake County it has been estimated that this project was able to be constructed some 20-25 years earlier than it would have been if it followed traditional funding/construction processes.

With the 540 Toll Road in place existing motorists have been provided with an excellent alternative for reaching the RTP, Durham, RDU Airport and eastern NC in far less time and with much greater ease. Future residents will also be able to enjoy the benefits of this facility immediately upon their arrival.payup

[…]

Toll Roads give us the flexibility of following a new axiom which is “ Since we can clearly project the unquestionable need for improvements let’s go ahead and get it in place so it is there before we have a catastrophic failure of the existing , limited, facilities.”

Along with improving mobility (the ability to move safely and efficiently from point A to Point B and back again) having alternative routes in place also helps to meet our requirements to reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions.

Our region has long been under an air quality improvement mandate from the EPA. […]  Even with the addition of buses to reduce the number of idling vehicles there was no significant improvement as few people chose to use the bus. Further, the region’s steady population growth added new drivers to the mix at a rate that far outstripped any advantage gained by the limited number of people who chose the transit option.

Hmmmm.  An admission that concepts like light rail don’t work?  MORE: 

The only reliable fallback that we could take has been to expand and add new roadway facilities to provide much needed alternatives and keep vehicles moving so that no single area would be subjected to the long periods of inching vehicles with idling engines that would severely impair the air quality at that given location.Given limited state and federal funding that might provide for a few improvements over a 7 to 10 year time period, local governments have been confronted with having to build new roads completely on their own. This has required approval of bonds by the voters within the respective community, or a tax increase, or both. Even so, our communities still find themselves with the need to improve or construct even more roads.legislature

[…]

If the logic of the 540 toll road saving both time and money even with the payment of the tolls is proven, then the facility is notpunitive to those who use it. If the logic is proven that the toll road saves money by reducing fuel costs even after the tolls are accounted for then the facility cannot be discriminatory as the benefit is there for all. Further, if one’s personal time were valued at $10 an hour a reduction in commute time by at least 15 minutes each way is a $5 benefit. If the commute is reduced by 30 minutes each way there is a $10 realization in time. That is much more than the toll.

Of course, Stam included some arguments to use against those *awful* Tea Partiers:

[…] Are Toll roads punitive;

At 18.4 cents per gallon, the federal gas tax was last raised in 1993. Since then, it has lost nearly 40 percent of its purchasing power. The gas tax would need to be raised to nearly 30 cents per gallon to give it the purchasing power it had in 1993.

Similarly, while the North Carolina state gas tax is a combination of a flat rate plus a variable rate based on wholesale prices (capped since 2012), North Carolina has seen the power of its highway construction dollars decline 52% between 2002-2013.  This reduction of purchasing power at both the federal and state levels creates challenges to funding our infrastructure systems now and in the future.

Let’s not forget the shameful raiding of highway funds to pay for pork barrel projects to ensure legislators’ reelection bids.  MORE: 

The use of tolls is a central component to this nation’s transportation funding system.  Tolls establish a direct connection between the use of the road and payment for that use. For too long, motorists have falsely believed our roads are free. Our highways are not free nor have they ever been. However, it’s easy to see why that misperception persists. There is no direct link between paying the fuel tax and using the roads it funds. Tolling re-establishes that connection.

There are no free roads. There are only toll roads and tax supported roads. A toll is a user fee, not a tax. You only pay for a toll road when you use it. Every road needs maintenance and reconstruction, and that costs money.  No road is ever fully paid for. A road, just like a home, requires ongoing upkeep and maintenance.  Tolls provide a sustainable source of revenue for ongoing road maintenance and improvement.

It is a common misconception that the Interstates are “already paid for.” Infrastructure of all kinds needs routine maintenance, upgrading and eventual replacement. Though it cost $129 billion to construct, it will cost nearly $2.5 trillion over the next 50 years to rebuild the interstate system, largely at state expense. States are looking for new, sustainable revenue streams to support their highways, especially the Interstate highways. A growing number of states are exploring (or revisiting) the benefits of tolling as part of the options for renovating and upgrading their roadways.

Tolls are voluntary user fees. Drivers can choose to pay tolls or take alternative routes, whereas taxes are mandatory and charged to everyone. Yes, customers of toll facilities also pay taxes, but the taxes are used to fund non-toll roads. Since toll roads are primarily self-financed and do not rely on taxes, the customer is not paying twice for the facility. In fact, without tolls, taxes would be higher.

Do Toll roads discriminate;

Tolls are a fair and precise way to pay for transportation facilities because there is a clear and direct link between use of the facility and payment for that use.

A toll is a user fee, not a tax. If you don’t use the facility, you don’t pay for it. You only pay a toll when you choose to drive on a toll road for a higher level of convenience, reliability or safety.

Many surveys have shown that drivers of all income levels use tolled facilities and support having the option to use high-quality toll roads. A well-designed pricing plan can be less burdensome to low-income citizens than systems that are based on regressive taxes, such as car registration fees, sales taxes and the gasoline tax.

Do Toll roads alleviate traffic congestion;

Tolls provide money today for projects that can be built in the near future and meet demand for decades to come.

Tolls provide a dedicated and predictable revenue stream that allows toll operators to program capacity improvements as they are needed.

Today, most toll roads, bridges, and tunnels collect tolls electronically, which eliminates the need to stop and pay tolls at a traditional toll plaza.

Toll roads are generally safer than non-tolled roads due to better maintenance, pavement, and technology.  Toll operators employ state-of-the-art technology to monitor road conditions and have a financial incentive to keep their roads running as safely and smoothly as possible.

Toll roads tend to be less congested than tax-funded roads, where unrestricted access often leads to congestion. Toll roads also lead to time savings and congestion relief on nearby roadways by increasing the total road capacity available. Moreover, most toll operators are eliminating toll plazas and expanding their high-speed, automated tolling options. Most new facilities are being built as cashless systems, with no stopping or slowing down to pay a toll.

Do Toll roads cost $1.9 million more per mile to build;

Capital costs for the Triangle Expressway included:

·         Roadside Toll Collection System (RTCS) – $11.98M

·         Electronic Toll Collection System (ETCS) – $2.77M

·         Initial Transponder Purchase – $3.59M

·         Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) – $6.05M

·         Back Office System (BOS) – $3.57M

·         Consultants – $7.61M

Including only the RTCS, ETCS,and 60% of the Consultant Labor ($19.32M) which accounts for roadside toll equipment costs specific to the Triangle Expressway (18.8 miles), the roadside toll technology cost is $1.03M/Mile.  These project costs were included in the overall project cost and plan of finance.

 As of March 31, 2014, the Triangle Expressway has delivered $24,180,503.56 in actual revenue.  This is 22% above projections, project to date

It’s ironic that Stam mentions the Triangle Expressway.  ABC 11 ran a piece talking about how the Expressway is lightly used and not even coming close to paying for itself.