There are 9 sunspots on the sun today, the solar wind is 364 km/sec and According to NOAA
analysts, a CME hit Earth's magnetic field on Sept. 6th at 1525 UT. However, the impact was
weak and did not spark geomagnetic storms.
The Benghazi Affair: A Crucial Update
WASHINGTON — CIA officers revealed a clash over how quickly they should go help the
besieged U.S. ambassador during the 2012 attack on an outpost in Libya, and a standing order
for them to avoid violent encounters, according to a congressman and others who heard their
private congressional testimony or were briefed on it.
The Obama administration has been dogged by complaints that the White House, Pentagon and
State Department may not have done enough before and during the attack to save U.S.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, and by accusations that it later engaged in a coverup.

An immediate allegation made on this program the September 16th 2012 was that U.S.
officials told the CIA to “stand down” and not go to the aid of the Americans. Top CIA
and Defense and State Department officials have denied that.

The newly released testimony from the CIA officers and contractors who were in Libya
on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, support our claim, but also shed light on what may have
led to the delay of up to 30 minutes to respond, according to the varying accounts.

The newly released testimony claims loudly that had they been allowed to respond when
they were ready, the lives of Ambassador Stevens and his staff would have been saved.

Those CIA leaders decided they and their security contractor team should wait before
rushing from their annex into the violence roughly a mile away. They said they were
trying to first gather intelligence and round up Libyan militia allies armed with heavy
weapons, according to the testimony by the CIA officers in charge.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, who heads a House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the
employees, said he believes this disagreement was the source of allegations that the CIA ordered
security personnel to “stand down” and not help the people inside the diplomatic mission, and
perhaps was the source of accusations the administration failed to answer a call from the CIA
security team for combat aircraft.
“The team leader knew he was on his own,” said Westmoreland, R-Ga.
He explained that the lack of air support was clear to all CIA employees working in Libya
because of a 2011 CIA memorandum sent to employees after NATO forces ended their mission
in support of the Libyan revolution.
“It basically told people in Benghazi … if you are attacked, you get your ‘package’ (the
personnel they are charged with protecting) and you get out,” he said in an interview with The
Associated Press.
A senior intelligence official confirmed that the CIA officers on the ground in Benghazi
responded to the diplomats’ call for help by trying “to rally local support for the rescue effort and
secure heavier weapons.” When it became “clear that this additional support could not be rapidly
obtained,” the team moved toward the diplomatic compound.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the attack
publicly by name.
One contractor testified that he shouted repeatedly over the agency’s radio system to his CIA
security boss that they should request combat aircraft. But the security chief explained to
lawmakers that he ignored his subordinate’s demands because he said he knew that no combat
aircraft were available for such a mission, Westmoreland said.
Westmoreland said the CIA security contractors loaded into two vehicles, with weapons ready,
the moment they heard the radio call for help from the diplomatic building. Some wanted to rush
to the U.S. compound roughly a mile away, and their agitation grew as they heard increasing
panic when the diplomats reported the militants were setting the compound on fire.
The CIA team leader and the CIA chief at the Benghazi annex told committee members that they
were trying to gather Libyan allies and intelligence before racing into the fray, worried that they
might be sending their security team into an ambush with little or no backup.
At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least
twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by
Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because
they are still CIA employees.
According to previous accounts by U.S. officials, the attacks began at approximately 9:40 p.m.,
and the CIA team arrived roughly 25 minutes into the attack.
The original press release said “None of those who testified would say they believed the
ambassador or the others could have been saved had they arrived any faster, according to two
officials, who also were briefed on the testimony.” They spoke on condition of anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss the closed testimony publicly. As we found out this
last Friday at 10 PM, this turned out to be a lie.
When the seven CIA employees reached the diplomatic compound, they fought their way in and
found the five State Department security personnel who had taken shelter in various parts of the
compound. They found computer specialist Smith, dead from smoke inhalation, but couldn’t
find Stevens and decided to fall back to the CIA annex, because the crowd was building outside
again, Westmoreland and the other officials said. Stevens was found in a safe room and taken by
Libyan civilians to a nearby hospital, but he died from smoke inhalation. All of the surviving
security contractors stated that had they not been ordered to stand down, they could definitely
have been able to save their lives.
The CIA team believes their convoy was followed back to their compound, where they were first
attacked by small arms fire around midnight local time, which quickly stopped when the CIA
team returned fire, Westmoreland said.
Roughly five hours later, the CIA team testified that mortars hit, killing former Navy SEAL
Tyrone Woods, who had helped rescue the diplomats, and former SEAL Glenn Doherty, who
had just arrived with a team from Tripoli.
The lawmakers wanted to hear directly from the contractors about their account before a book
the contractors have written is published in September 2014, if it passes the CIA’s security
review. Regardless of their loud public cry for this access, they were blocked from this access.
No survivors were able to speak to Congress. This is exactly why the security crew joined
efforts to secretly write and publish their book.
Well, Friday, the contractors came forward and told their story on Fox News. It was just as we
said here on this program the night the Stevens assassination was orchestrated.. The State
Department gave the order to stand down, and it was followed by the CIA, who then issued the
order to the contractors. They were delayed for 30 minutes or more critical minutes making sure
that Stevens was dead. This is not an old story. It does make a difference. There is no statute of
limitations on conspiracy to commit murder.
Based on the new book "13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi"
by Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team, the special sets aside the political spin that
has freighted the Benghazi issue for the last two years, presenting a vivid, compelling narrative
of events from the perspective of the men who wore the “boots on the ground.”
The security contractors -- Kris (“Tanto”) Paronto, Mark (“Oz”) Geist, and John (“Tig”) Tiegen
-- spoke exclusively, and at length, to Fox News about what they saw and did that night. Baier,
Fox News’ Chief Political Anchor, asked them about one of the most controversial questions
arising from the events in Benghazi: Was help delayed?
Word of the attack on the diplomatic compound reached the CIA annex just after 9:30 p.m.
Within five minutes, the security team at the annex was geared up for battle, and ready to move
to the compound, a mile away.
“Five minutes, we're ready,” said Paronto, a former Army Ranger. “It was thumbs up, thumbs
up, we're ready to go.”
But the team was held back. According to the security operators, they were delayed from
responding to the attack by the top CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to only as “Bob.”
“It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta-- we need
to get over there, we're losing the initiative,’” said Tiegen. “And Bob just looks straight at me
and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.’”
“We're starting to get calls from the State Department guys saying, ‘Hey, we're taking fire, we
need you guys here, we need help,’” said Paronto.
After a delay of nearly 30 minutes, the security team headed to the besieged consulate without
orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for armed air support, which never came.
Now, looking back, the security team said they believed that if they had not been delayed for
nearly half an hour, or if the air support had come, things might have turned out differently.
“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto
said. Tiegen concurred.
“I strongly believe if we'd left immediately, they'd still be alive today,” he added.
In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official insisted that, “There were no orders to
anybody to stand down in providing support.”
Baier put that assertion directly to the operators.
“You use the words ‘stand down,’” Baier noted. “A number of people now, including the House
Intelligence Committee insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the
compound…so what do you say to that?”
“No, it happened,” said Tiegen.
“It happened on the ground-- all I can talk about is what happened on that ground that night,”
added Paronto. “To us. To myself, twice, and to-- to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were
told to wait, stand-- and stand down. We were delayed three times.”
In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official did allow that the security team was
delayed from responding while the CIA’s top officer in Benghazi tried to rally local support.
In the special, Baier also asks about the infamous YouTube video that was blamed for the
violence in Benghazi.
Paronto laughed at the suggestion that the video played any role in the events of that night,
saying he did not even know of the video until he was out of Libya and on his way home. “I
didn't know about the video ‘till I got to Germany,” he said. “(I had) no idea about any video, no.
No, sir.”
The real issue here is two-fold.
First, the assertion that Libya was being taken down by radical Islamic mercenaries. They were
fighting Ghadafi, who was rich from his country’s oil, but he had taken good care of his people.
Immigrants had no rights, but native Libyans had an income from the country’s oil. They had a
modern military, and a good supply of missiles, grenades, and rockets.
The mercenaries requested air support to beat back Libya’s air force. Valerie Jarrett ordered the
air strikes and intelligence to be given to the Islamic radical mercenaries who were able to
assassinate the president of that country. The question on everyone’s mind, was WHY was this
so important to Ms. Jarrett?
The events that followed in September when the ambassador of Turkey met with the US
ambassador of Libya. Those missiles and rockets and grenades were being brokered to AlQaeda to fight Syria. Ambassador Stevens worked and lived in that area for half his life. He
knew the people, and he loved the people. It sickened him to see the president assassinated, but
it infuriated him that the State Department would fund and arm Al Qaeda to spread radical
murderers to assassinate even more leaders in the Middle East.
A few days later, these mercenaries were funded to and instructed to attack the embassy and to
kill everyone there, specifically Ambassador Stevens.
The second issue was to preserve Valerie Jarrett’s mantra that Al Qaeda was on the run. The
only way to make this happen was to concoct a cover story about a spontaneous demonstration
about a video in Florida. The only way to do this was to make sure no one lived at the embassy.
That is why the Navy, the Marines, and the contract security forces were ordered to stand down.
The truth came out on this program a few days after Benghazi. Piece by piece, the evidence to
back up that truth is falling into place. But, the presidential strategy is flawless and effective. In
order to keep from losing the power of the white house, Ms. Jarrett employs a single strategy. It
has worked since the primaries, all the way through the first term, and will be successful for the
remaining two years of this reign of terror.
That strategy is to wait. Draft the plan, follow the plan, kill the right people, steal the money,
and do this without hesitation or regret. When members of the press respond with outrage and
try to inform the American people about what is going on, they wait. Say nothing. Change
nothing. Just wait. The news cycle is so fast, that the press and the people will forget about
anything, no matter how horrendous or how shocking, the lights will soon go out. The people
will be quickly encouraged to treat it as old news and water under the bridge. It does not matter
if you are popular. It does not matter if you are committing high crimes and misdemeanors. It
does not matter, because no one will remember it in two weeks.
In fact, besides Valerie Jarrett, the woman most responsible for Ambassador Stevens’ death will
win the presidency in 2 years without a blemish on her name. Not even a spot. And it will not
matter if she only gets 10% of the vote. The machines that tally the vote will put her in the white
house.
The Great Invasion of America
Aside from this being a deeply unnerving development, this has the potential to completely
scramble the political thinking in this country regarding immigration reform and border security.
A report from Fox News reporter Jana Winter filed on Friday indicates that Islamic State fighters
are eyeing the porous U.S.-Mexico border as a potential area in which aspiring jihadists can
infiltrate the country and prepare terrorist attacks.
Social media chatter shows Islamic State militants are keenly aware of the porous U.S.-Mexico
border, and are “expressing an increased interest” in crossing over to carry out a terrorist attack,
according to a Texas law enforcement bulletin sent out this week.
“A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that
militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate
the southwest border of US, for terror attack,” warns the Texas Department of Public Safety
“situational awareness” bulletin, obtained by FoxNews.com.
The three-page bulletin, entitled “ISIS Interest on the US Southwest Border” was released to law
enforcement on Thursday.
In related news, White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest told reporters on Friday that the number of
illegal immigrants crossing the southern border had dropped precipitously. When asked if the
crisis on the border was over, Earnest said it was. “For now,” he added.
There are currently no credible and specific threats to targets inside the United States, Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on Friday. That is going to come as cold comfort to
American news consumers. On Friday alone, the United Kingdom increased its terror threat
warning and reporters uncovered a laptop captured in Syria which details efforts to manufacture
and disperse biological agents as part of a mass casualty attack.
A release on the threat via Judicial Watch provides reason to be concerned though not paralyzed
with fear by the increased chatter which regularly precedes the anniversary of the September
11th attacks:
The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of
crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of
the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to
avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them
could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could
forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the
southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”
The news comes as reports indicate a long-awaited executive order from the president which
would extend legal status to millions of illegal residents may be put on hold until after the
midterm elections. On its face, this makes little sense. Why would the president want to delay
executive action until after he has lost the majority of his political capital in the increasingly
likely event his party loses control of the Senate? In the light of this development, however, the
context of the president’s decision to delay a major move on immigration decision becomes
clearer. The president knows full well that that the office of ballot counting is completely under
his control.
WASHINGTON — President Obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until
after the midterm elections, bowing to pressure from fellow Democrats who feared that acting
now could doom his party’s chances this fall, White House officials said on Saturday.
The decision is a reversal of Mr. Obama’s vow to issue broad directives to overhaul the
immigration system soon after summer’s end, and sparked swift anger from immigration
advocates. The president made the promise on June 30, in the Rose Garden, where he angrily
denounced Republican obstruction and said he would use the power of his office to protect
immigrant families from the threat of deportation.
“Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would
be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration
reform to announce administrative action before the elections,” a White House official said.
“Because he wants to do this in a way that’s sustainable, the president will take action on
immigration before the end of the year.”
Protesters outside the White House last month. President Obama had promised to issue broad
directives to overhaul the immigration system by summer’s end.
Cristina Jimenez, the managing director for United We Dream, an immigration advocacy group,
accused Mr. Obama of “playing politics” with the lives of immigrant families and said, “The
president’s latest broken promise is another slap to the face of the Latino and immigrant
community.”
Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama is more determined than ever to take action —
eventually. But the president and his top aides have concluded that an immigration
announcement before November could anger conservatives across the country, possibly cripple
Democratic efforts to retain control of the Senate and severely set back any hope for progress on
a permanent immigration overhaul.
In particular, advisers to Mr. Obama believe that an announcement before the midterm elections
in November would inject the controversial issue into a highly charged campaign environment
that would encourage members of both parties to take more hard-line positions on the issue than
they normally would.
That could drive away support for what the president’s advisers believe are common-sense
changes to the immigration system, even among Democrats. One adviser said that if immigration
was seen as costing Democrats control of the Senate — even if other issues were really to blame
— immigration could become toxic for years in both parties, much like gun control did after the
issue was blamed for Democratic losses in 1994.
The combustible nature of the immigration debate was demonstrated over the summer when the
border crossings of unaccompanied children from Central America quickly became a highly
charged partisan issue. Democrats on Capitol Hill warned the White House to deal with that
issue before announcing broader immigration changes.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that the surge in unaccompanied children at the border undermined
public support for a broader immigration overhaul. He said delaying any executive action would
give the administration more time to get the policy right and explain it to the public.
“I’m going to act because it’s the right thing for the country,” Mr. Obama said in an interview
with NBC’s “Meet the Press” to be broadcast Sunday. “But it’s going to be more sustainable and
more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we’ve done on
unaccompanied children, and why it’s necessary.”
The president and his team believe that waiting until after the election season is over will allow
him to unveil sweeping and sustainable changes to the immigration system that could potentially
shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and provide work permits for many.
“The president is confident in his authority to act, and he will before the end of the year,” one
official said, speaking anonymously to discuss White House strategy.
The president made calls to political allies and others to discuss the decision during Friday’s long
flight on Air Force One as he returned from Europe after a NATO summit meeting.
On Saturday, Republicans quickly attacked Mr. Obama’s decision, calling it a cynical ploy to
avoid letting voters express their opinions on his plan to use executive power on the issue.
“The decision to simply delay this deeply controversial and possibly unconstitutional unilateral
action until after the election — instead of abandoning the idea altogether — smacks of raw
politics,” Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said.
Senator Lamar Alexander Tennessee, said, “The founders of our country did not want a king, and
the American people do not want a president who acts like one.” He called Mr. Obama’s
decision a “shameful presidential trick.”
The delay also is angering Hispanic activists who have been pressing Mr. Obama for months to
sidestep Congress. Leaders of several immigration groups said their members would be furious
with the president for raising — and then dashing — their hopes. They criticized Mr. Obama for
the delay, saying it breaks a solemn pledge to immigrants.
Arturo Carmona, the executive director of Presente.org, called the decision “a betrayal” of the
Latino community and “shameful.” He said the president “is once again demonstrating that for
him, politics come before the lives of Latino and immigrant families.”
And Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, said: “Today, we
are deeply disheartened that the dreams of hard-working immigrant families who have long
contributed to the fabric of the American life remain in jeopardy. The White House’s decision to
delay executive action forces countless families to continue to wait in the shadows of fear.”
The president’s decision on Saturday underscores the difficulties of his broader pledge to use the
powers of his office to govern in the face of a gridlocked Congress. Those efforts have already
sparked a Republican lawsuit alleging that the president has abused his authority and is building
an “imperial presidency.” And he has faced intense political pressure from his Democratic allies
to delay such actions.
The timing of an announcement had developed into a serious political problem for the president.
By saying he would act on his own, Mr. Obama heightened expectations among Hispanics that
he would finally address the deportation fears of 11 million illegal immigrants, many of whom
have been in the United States for decades and have been law-abiding members of their
communities.
Since Mr. Obama took office, his administration has significantly increased the number of
deportations, especially along the border with Mexico. Immigration advocates have complained
that families are being torn apart when parents or children who are in the country illegally are
arrested and sent home.
For years, Mr. Obama said the solution to the deportations was an overhaul of immigration laws.
When that effort failed, he said he would act on his own. The anger over the delay is certain to
intensify in the coming days. But Mr. Obama’s advisers appear to have convinced him that he
will be able to win back the support of immigrant activists — and create a personal legacy on the
issue — as long as he acts boldly after the midterm elections.
History suggests the president’s advisers may be right about the short-term memory.
For years, Mr. Obama promised increasingly impatient advocates for gay and lesbian rights that
he would repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on serving in the armed forces. When
he finally pushed through an end to the policy in December 2010, gay Americans hailed the
action.
In his first term, Mr. Obama earned the scorn of immigrants brought to the United States as
children and were demanding an end to their deportations. But when he created a program to
shield them from deportations in 2012, much was forgiven.
The president’s aides said he was certain to take action after the election, but they have declined
to say specifically what actions he is considering or how many people they could affect. Mr.
Obama said on Friday that he had begun reviewing options and recommendations from Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security.
Among the possibilities that officials have explored is the unilateral expansion of a program that
would provide many illegal immigrants with work permits to allow them to legally live and work
in the country indefinitely.
The president’s pledge in June had committed him to acting in the weeks before the midterm
elections, when a half-dozen Democratic senators must face the voters. Sensing a potentially
powerful issue, Republicans have repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of preparing to usurp power
from Congress and of wildly overstepping the authority of his office.
As Election Day drew closer, nervous Democratic senators in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and
North Carolina told White House officials that Mr. Obama’s actions could cost them victory.
Those conversations culminated in the decision to delay immigration action.
More top Democrats are pressuring President Barack Obama to slow down on immigration
reform, further diminishing the chances that he’ll take sweeping administrative action before
Election Day.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) wants Obama to wait until after November. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)
said he has “concerns about executive action.” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with
Democrats, said it would be a “mistake” for the president to do anything significant.
Until now, few Democrats have been willing to break publicly with Obama over his vow to issue
an executive order on immigration. Democratic incumbents in this year’s most competitive
Senate races have already voiced concern, but the calls from others to hold off on acting suggests
Democrats are growing even more anxious about the decision and its potential to upend the fight
for control of the Senate.
(Also on POLITICO: The man who could upend 2014)
White House officials have been locked in an intense debate over whether Obama should
announce a program to defer deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants before
Election Day. A delay would mark a major reversal from June, when the president stood in the
Rose Garden and pledged to issue an order by the end of the summer, and it would infuriate the
Hispanic community.
But the flagging support among senators is particularly worrisome to the White House, which
will be reluctant to make such a controversial move without the strong backing of congressional
Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declined Thursday to say that Obama should act
ahead of the election — a noncommittal posture that reflects the deep divisions within his
caucus.
(PHOTOS: Deportation rally at the White House)
“The decision is the president’s,” Reid said in an interview at the National Clean Energy Summit
in Las Vegas. “I’m confident he’s going to do something. He has to decide when he’s going to
do it.”
White House officials insist the president has not yet decided what to do on immigration or when
he will do it. Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and chief domestic policy adviser Cecilia Muñoz
delivered that message in a round of calls this week to immigration advocacy groups and labor
leaders.
The personal attention has done little to soothe the activists, who are furious over the White
House’s handling of the decision.
“Our community is done with broken promises,” said Lorella Praeli, director of advocacy and
policy for United We Dream. “There are real consequences in the community.
Rome burned as Nero fiddled. Today, the American-Mexican border is going up in smoke.
America is being invaded and successfully occupied. Obama is fanning the flames of border
violence and artificially contrived human destitution through his unyielding attitude of corporate
servitude resulting in providing the globalists with an endless supply of cheap, illegal alien labor
regardless of the cost to the American people and their safety as well as the safety of the
immigrants themselves. And on a more grand scale, this crisis is one more nail in the coffin in
America and Obama knows exactly what he is doing.
he Daily Caller reports, “a leaked estimate by a top official in the Department of
Homeland Security says the 12-month inflow will reach 90,000 by October, and then grow by
another 142,000 in the next 12 months before October 2015.” That’s over 230,000, nearly a
quarter million that the Democrats hope to dump on US taxpayers. Soon, this number will have
grown by millions.
A Phoenix TV station reported June 6, DHS program that buses immigrants to AZ, no signs
of stopping. The story follows the script of “humanitarian crisis” rather than a created crisis, but
again, make no mistake about it, this administration is following script to undermine this
country. Even Glenn Beck is asking why immigrants are coming.
Playing the Race Card
If you oppose the current and dramatic increase in illegal immigration, some will ask you, “What
are you afraid of? Don’t you like people that speak Spanish and have brown skin”? The race
card is the default position of this administration. Let’s consider the fine work of a Lis-Marie
Alvarado, an immigrant from Nicaragua, who presently resides in the Miami suburb of
Homestead, FL. Last year for a documentary produced by Al Jazeera America TV series,
“Borderland“, she rode the train that they refer to as the” Beast”. Alvarado and five other
Americans traced the journey of immigrants who died while making their way to America on a
train that departs from Nicaragua and heads north to the United States. The train illegally brings
an estimated 500,000 people per year to the United States. Alvarado described the circumstances
aboard the train as being very dire and life-threatening. Scores of people die on this train.
Alvarado states that “… Not only with the sun, but also the water. There’s very limited water,
and that’s a constant, you know. People are taking the journey because you do want a better
future and you’re willing to do whatever it takes, there are a lot of people who aren’t going to
make it.” Where is Obama in all of this?
Many Beast riders have suffered physical injury or death falling off the train or getting sucked
into the wheels trying to board it in motion. In some areas, that’s the only way on. Most of these
future illegal immigrants are making this 1,450-mile trek are not from Mexico, but rather from
countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, which has the world’s highest murder rate.
Both Alvarado and Dannemiller expressed shock about how many children were riding the train.
But you see, this constitutes the main part of the Obama plot. Get the children inside of the
United States and the authorities will have no choice but to permit the parents to come to this
country as well. Again, entire villages are coming to America under the most dangerous of
conditions. The governments of the countries of origins buy bus ticket for the immigrants to
travel to the Beast. Poor people are dangerous to an authoritarian regime and these leaders are all
too happy to see them leave.
The average person in Arizona can see the manifestation of this inhumane immigration program.
Very large segments of the central corridor of my State are under the control of the Mexican
drug cartels. The citizens of Pinal County, which is adjacent to metropolitan Phoenix, are under
siege by these former Mexican army soldiers turned drug runners.
Their penchant for violence is well documented. For example, Pinal County Deputy Louie Puroll
was ambushed and shot as he tracked six drug smugglers near Casa Grande, Arizona. In the
Phoenix suburb of Chandler, Arizona, a drug cartel rival was beheaded. Citizens have been
terrorized and many of these have been victims of crime from the cartels. In a drug cartel related
activity, Phoenix leads the country in kidnappings most of which are related to the sex slave and
labor slave trafficking practices of the Zeta and Sinola drug cartel gangs. These events are the
byproduct of this insane Obama plan.
NAFTA, CAFTA and How America Got the SHAFTA
By applying the perspective of history, it becomes clear that the agenda of the original SPP
which was to bring us the concept known as CANAMEXAMERICA was to be employed and
made legal by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The plan called for the
creation of an international corridor of highways, controlled by the globalists, but paid for by the
American taxpayer. The plan was designed to erase all national boundaries between Canada,
Mexico and the United States. SPP, often referred to as the North American Union, was designed
to promote the free movement of all people in Central America to the United States. This is
precisely what we are witnessing as this was codified into law by the Central American Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
What is going on at our southern border is not merely a series of spontaneous events,
culminating in a humanitarian crisis. This is a manufactured crisis in which specific short-range
and long-range political and economic goals are being carried out.
The Goals of the Present Border Crisis
If these policies are not good for the people on either side of the border, then it must be good for
someone else.
This administration needs a new influx of potential democrats as Americans are waking up the
tyranny and recklessness coming out of Washington. Washington wants democrats that don’t
understand when their rights are being violated. They want Democrats who do not understand
that the Bill of Rights is for them and protects them against a growing tyrannical government.
They want Democrats who will be thrilled to embrace the specter of Obamacare, because where
they come from, there is no healthcare for most people.
Can you name even one thing the Obama administration has done to help the middle class? … I
am waiting, please name just one thing….. The fact remains that this “President” is on a mission
to bring this nation into the North American Union and overwhelming the nation with lower
socio-economic immigrants is Obama’s primary tool of subjugation.
One question that you will never hear asked on CNN is “How many third world immigrants does
it take coming into America, before America is a third world nation?
If Obama truly wanted to be a humanitarian, he would enforce a humanitarian immigration
policy. He would demand processing and screening of immigrants to keep out the felons and the
drug cartels. That is not happening. If Obama wanted an immigration policy in which tens of
thousands of immigrants did not die trying to get into America, we would have naturalization
programs for successful applicants. The naturalization program would contain a requirement to
pass a test on American History and Constitution to make certain the new citizens understand
their rights and how our system is supposed to work. Further, successful immigration applicants
should be provided with English speaking lessons in a naturalization process which would take
seven years. Such an immigration program would promote Constitutional liberties, but Obama
and his handlers want none of it. Yet, this is what we used to do as a country. We successfully
processed 13 million immigrants at Ellis Island without computers. Obama has the ability to do
the same. He has the tools to shut down the border, streamline the immigration process to months
needed to apply instead of the decades as is presently the case! The solutions are within reach,
but Obama has a different agenda.
What is going on at the border is no
more than a cheap false flag event. If enough immigrant children are deliberately imperiled by
this administration, of course Americans are going to open their hearts and wallets to these
people. The fact remains is that we have 146 million Americans receiving some form of federal
assistance. We simply cannot afford this. When millions of immigrants arrive under Obama’s
“friends and family” plan, where are we going to find the infrastructure to take care of these
people? Where will we find the water? Where will we find the money to build the schools to
educate the children of these people? Asking these questions does not make one a bigot, it makes
one a realist. And how many immigrants can a country take on before the country is stripped of
its culture and traditions? Historically, when Americans have lost employment, they could find
work further down the economic ladder in order to put food on the table. Increasingly, because of
unchecked immigration, these opportunities are disappearing. Our future, as being determined by
the Obama administration, has been foretold generations ago in a book by G.K. Chesterson.
The Chesterson Prophecies
America’s future has indeed been foretold in G. K. Chesterton’s, The Flying Inn (1914). The
book provides present day Americans with an opportunity to understand what is happening to
their loss of culture and of national sovereignty. The book consists of a “fictional” account of
how England had been stripped of its cultural identity. The book was written at the end of the
British imperialistic period of dominance in which England had collapsed under the sheer weight
of attempting to maintain its vast empire.
In the book, Chesterton maintains that England lost far more than its preeminent position as the
world’s sole super power. He postulated that England had lost its national soul through the
unintended integration of its culture with more “barbaric cultures” that it had previously
conquered.
The protagonist in The Flying Inn, Dalroy, proclaimed that great nations have frequently
followed a similar pattern of progressive and complete self-destruction:
1. The great nation declares victory over the barbarians.
2. The great nation begins to enjoy the fruits of cheap labor by employing the barbarians that
it had conquered.
3. The barbarians become so enmeshed into the great nation, that an alliance with barbarians
is formed (e.g., de facto amnesty including members of criminal organizations).
4. Assimilation is followed with the barbarians becoming a privileged class. Thus, the great
nation is conquered.
Near the end of the book, almost every virtuous cultural tradition, of the great nation, comes
under sharp criticism, while every cultural tradition emanating from the barbarians’ place of
origin became praiseworthy.
Conclusion
Those of you who think Obama is crazy, you are correct. Obama is crazy like a fox. He is
merely the facilitator of a plot that was hatched more than a generation ago.
Yes, these Latin American immigrants are indeed children of God and do not deserve to be
abused or taken advantage of. None of them should have to die as they attempt to enter our
country. Their blood can squarely be placed on the Obama administration. This is a totally
manufactured crisis and these people are the unwitting pawns.
America cannot afford to maintain our own social structure, let alone Latin America’s. What
Obama is doing is by design and he is abusing people on both sides of the border. A sensible and
reasonable immigration plan, such as the one we had nearly a 140 years ago is what is needed,
not the contrived undermining of our country
Despite the best attempts of the Obama administration to
declare ISIS a “regional threat” and label their
ideology rootless, the truth has now penetrated the public
consciousness: ISIS has global reach, largely because their
ideology does as well.
The latest indicator that ISIS just the latest label slapped on the growing phenomenon of radical
Islamism comes courtesy of Great Britain, where Palmira Silva, an 82-year-old greatgrandmother, was beheaded, allegedly at the hands of a charming character called “Fat
Nicholas.” Obese Nick is reportedly a Muslim convert.
This is not the first public beheading in Britain, unfortunately. In May 2013, two young British
Muslims, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, ran over British soldier Lee Rigby in a
car before Adebolajo attacked him with a machete, attempting to decapitate him. Adebolajo then
stuck around to brag to passersby, threatening the rule of Islam. The day before, Adebolajo
bought a set of five knives. A copy of the Koran was found on his person.
The dangerous ideology of ISIS – which is also the basic ideology of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic
Jihad, al Qaeda, and a myriad of other terror groups and terror supporters – is gaining adherents
all over the globe: 12,000 foreigners are currently fighting with ISIS, including 500 British
citizens and at least 100 American citizens. Why are these Americans joining ISIS? Let ISISaffiliated former cop and ex-Catholic Don Morgan, 44, explain:
My reason for the support of ISIS is because they’ve proven time and time again to put Islamic
law as the priority and the establishment of an Islamic state as the goal… I would not classify
myself as a radical, but by Western definition, I would be classified as a radical.
Many Americans are deeply and correctly concerned with the possibility of ISIS fighters
crossing America’s borders to commit acts of terror; as we learned last week, ISIS’s plans to
cross the southern border to commit terror attacks alerted the U.S. government to the possibility.
But the far more significant threat to America isn’t ISIS fighters coming to America. It’s
homegrown ISIS sympathizers going Nidal Hassan, turning their guns on their fellow citizens.
All ISIS really needs to do is keep their converts in their home countries and provide them the
logistical and moral support to commit acts of terrorism.
Already we have seen the first early signs of ISIS sympathizers in the United States. Thus far,
these sympathizers are largely sounding off via social media, tweeting out pictures of ISIS flags
near potential terror targets. But the Department of Homeland Security is worried about the
possibility of violent action by ISIS fans in the United States. DHS and the FBI have told local
law enforcement: “because of the individualized nature of the radicalization process – it is
difficult to predict triggers that will contribute to attempting acts of violence.”
That warning came just a few weeks after NBC News White House Correspondent Chris Jansing
stated that the White House said, “there is nothing in the intelligence that suggests that ISIS is
prepared or even interested in attacking the US homeland.” Within hours of that announcement,
the feds arrested an alleged ISIS sympathizer at JFK Airport in New York for weapons
trafficking and possession.
The threat of radicalization inside the United States is quite real – and we can only hope that ISIS
recruits continue to stream to Syria and Iraq, rather than staying in the United States and
attacking the American public. Just this week, we saw an alleged ISIS terrorist killed in Iraq after
leaving the United States, where he worked at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Yes, he had security clearance there.
The Obama administration’s response to the threat of ISIS recruiting inside the United States has
been to release an anti-ISIS video over the weekend, featuring images of ISIS beheading people,
blowing up mosques, and executing Muslims. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the stuff that
ISIS uses to recruit its friends, demonstrating once again that the disconnected Obama
administration simply does not understand the attraction of the radical group to radical Muslims.
The UN reports there are some 45 million refugees in the world today. All but 3% of them are
running for their lives from Jihadist activities. There is nothing anywhere on Earth that indicates
that Islam is a religion of peace. The tactics are perfect and it appears unstoppable.






Infiltration
Imams
Minarets
Isolation
Islamization
Implosion
What if all Attack Planes are not Hijacked
Reports that 11 commercial jetliners are missing from the main airport in Libya's capital of
Tripoli are raising fears that militants could use them in terrorist attacks to mark the 13th
anniversary of 9/11 next week.
The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news website, cited anonymous sources who said
intelligence agencies have warned the jets could be used in attacks in North Africa and elsewhere
on Sept. 11.
The date also marks the second anniversary of the Libyan terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic
compound in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, "We have nothing to confirm these reports
about missing airliners."
A spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, Bernadette Meehan, also said
there's been no confirmation that aircraft had been stolen.
Images have surfaced online showing militants posing with the jetliners taken when the militants
overran Tripoli's airport last month in a fierce battle that left much of the airport and its aircraft
damaged.
In the past four months, a renegade general has battled Islamic militants in the eastern city of
Benghazi — cradle of the 2011 uprising that toppled Moammar Gadhafi — as powerful regional
militias have fought for control of the Tripoli airport. Islamist-allied militias have seized virtually
all of the capital. They have also taken possession of tens of thousands of rockets, missiles and
propelled grenades as well as chemicals and oil.
Moroccan military expert Abderrahmane Mekkaoui said there was "credible intelligence" that
one Libyan militia "is plotting to use the planes in attacks on the (region) on the 9/11
anniversary," The Huffington Post reported, citing Al Jazeera television.
An aviation security expert said the planes, if actually seized by terrorists, would pose more of a
threat to countries near Libya than the U.S. homeland.
Jeffrey Price, author of Practical Aviation Security and professor at Metropolitan State
University in Denver was cited as an expert on why ISIS could not attack the US with these
planes.
Airliners are required to file flight plans before entering U.S. airspace, and air-traffic monitors
would be looking for aircraft matching the description of any stolen planes, Price said. An
airliner could try to fly below radar to avoid detection, but the U.S. military has developed
systems to detect and stop low flying threats, he said.
Price said most countries near Libya, including in Europe, do not have the same air-defense
capabilities and would be more at risk. I guess someone forgot to tell him that Obama took
down our defenses on our Southern border.
The reports of the missing planes, which first surfaced in mid-August, likely sparked an
international search for the planes by intelligence agencies, Price said. "It's hard to hide a big
jet," he said.
Now, some of these planes were damaged from the battle. They are hand-me-downs. They have
transponders on the frames, and they probably have ID transmitters on the engines. We should be able to
find them if they take to the air. That is if the transponders or transmitters are working. If they have been
disabled, then they will show up like a sore thumb in the navigation airways. A radar signature without a
transponder signal will scrambled jets in response.
But, what if they are not picked up by radar? What if they are flown below the radar sources? Well, that
is no worry either. At least up to March of last year. Why? Because in March of last year, the Tethered
Aerostat Radar System (TARS) was ordered by Valerie Jarrett to be dismantled. Exelis, the contractor
who supplies and operates this for the Air Force, shouted loudly that our Southern border will be wide
open to low-altitude attacks.
These attacks could be done with drones, cruise missiles, or even jet liners flown at low altitude. We now
have no ability to detect them. Sounds like perfect timing and planning, huh?
Responding only to the political effect aiding and abetting the enemy may have on the election of more of
his henchmen, President Barack Obama has decided to launch limited, open-ended air strikes
against Islamic militant positions in Iraq has drawn criticism that the situation demands a more
muscular military response.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Armed Services Committee,
described the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the force that has quickly occupied a large
section of Iraq, as "an existential threat" to the United States.
"Do you really want to let America be attacked?" Graham asked on Fox News Sunday. "What is
going on in Washington when the FBI director, when the head of national intelligence, the CIA,
the Homeland Security secretary, tells every member of Congress, including the president, we’re
about to be attacked in a serious way because (of) the threat emanating from Syria and Iraq?
"If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call these guys, they
are coming here. This is not just about Baghdad. This is not just about Syria. It is about our
homeland," Graham said.
In this fact-check, we examine whether each of those high ranking officials have said "we’re
about to be attacked in a serious way because (of) the threat emanating from Syria and Iraq."
Graham’s office sent us several quotations from three of the officials the senator listed.
FBI director James Comey
On Jan. 9, 2014, FBI Director James Comey said: "My concern is that people can go to Syria,
develop new relationships, learn new techniques and become far more dangerous, and then flow
back."
This quotation appears in an ABC News report. We found three news reports of Comey
answering journalists’ questions about the threat posed by Americans who joined the fight
against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and have returned to the United States. The New York Times
reported on the high priority the FBI has put on tracking people returning from Syria.
"It’s something we are intensely focused on," Comey said.
In an article later in January, the Los Angeles Times repeated that Comey said the FBI was
putting a "tremendous amount of time and effort into identifying those who go to Syria." The
article summarized Comey’s assessment this way: "The threat ‘keeps me up at night.’ He
(Comey) sees the region as a ‘launching ground’ for potential Sept. 11-style mass-casualty
attacks in this country."
These stories emerged almost exactly at the time that ISIS began its assault in Iraq and had yet to
show how effective it could be. Comey saw a threat from returning combatants, but a largerscale attack was more a future risk than an immediate danger.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
Graham’s office pointed to comments from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from Feb.
7, 2014.
"We are very focused on foreign fighters heading to Syria," Johnson said. "Based on our work
and the work of our international partners, we know individuals from the U.S., Canada and
Europe are traveling to Syria to fight in the conflict. At the same time, extremists are actively
trying to recruit Westerners, indoctrinate them, and see them return to their home countries with
an extremist mission. … Syria has become a matter of homeland security."
Johnson made these comments during a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.
Johnson spoke of the evolving terrorist threat and, like Comey, specifically mentioned the
citizens who come back from fighting in Syria.
But Johnson went further and talked about the people who "self-radicalize" and never train with
foreign fighters.
"In many respects, this is the terrorist threat to the homeland, illustrated last year by the Boston
Marathon bombing, that I worry about the most," Johnson said. "It may be the hardest to detect;
involves independent actors living within our midst, with easy access to things that, in the wrong
hands, become tools of mass violence."
Johnson was describing less an imminent threat from ISIS and more a chronic risk posed by
radical Islam.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
Graham’s office pointed to comments from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence,
on Jan. 29, 2104.
He spoke of "the sectarian war in Syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism
and the potential threat this poses to the homeland."
On Feb. 11, 2014, Clapper talked about forces in Syria: "The three most effective are the AlNusrah Front, Aura al Sham and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, as it’s known,
whose numbers total more than 20,000. Complicating this further are the 7,500-plus foreign
fighters from some 50 countries who have gravitated to Syria. Among them are a small group of
AfPak (Afghanistan-Pakistan) al-Qaida veterans who have aspirations for external attack in
Europe, if not the homeland itself."
The first quote comes from a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing where Clapper, like Comey
and Johnson, was talking mainly about the conflict in Syria serving as a breeding ground for
trained militants, some of whom might return to the United States.
Clapper said, "We should be very concerned about this."
In February, Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan testified before the House Select
Intelligence Committee. Clapper, as the quotation from Graham’s office said, talked about Syria
as a magnet for radical fighters. Clapper did not necessarily tie ISIS to attacks on America itself,
but for a subgroup of al-Qaida veterans, he spoke of their "aspirations" to launch an operation "in
Europe, if not the homeland itself."
When Brennan was asked whether training camps in the region presented a real threat to
America, he said they did. When asked if groups like ISIS might need to "prove themselves"
with an operation outside of Syria, Brennan said, "It's a near-term concern, as well as a long-term
concern."
Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution, an academic center in
Washington, said Graham has a point that ISIS should be taken seriously, but O’Hanlon offers a
caveat.
"The ISIS threat is very grave, but attacks are not — and in fact, virtually never are —
inevitable," O’Hanlon said. "We have a host of defense mechanisms and shouldn't be fatalistic
about protecting ourselves."
Our ruling
Graham said that four top administration officials have said "we’re about to be attacked in a
serious way because (of) the threat emanating from Syria and Iraq." Graham’s office sent
quotations from three of the four. While each of them voiced strong concern about attacks on
American soil, the role of ISIS was more indirect and less immediate than Graham would have
us believe.
The government officials spoke of the conflict in Syria as a training ground. Johnson, the
Homeland Security director, also cast the Syrian civil war as a cause that could inspire "lone
wolf" terrorists in the mode of the Boston Marathon bombers.
The government officials talked about the "aspirations" of some al-Qaida veterans and the steps
they were taking to track the people who posed the greatest risk. They spoke of taking the threat
seriously, but their words fell well short of Grahams’ phrase that,"we’re about to be attacked in a
serious way."
The realization one should draw is that we have lowered our Southern guard. Hundreds of
thousands of unknown people have walked across that border in recent months. ISIS drones are
being staged as we speak in Mexico that are able to fly across the border without detection
directly as a result of the Jarrett disarmament plan. Like Texas and Arizona, we are on our own.
Washington refuses to defend us, because we are not politically valuable.
Our only hope must be that since they will not defend us, they have no plans to invade us.
One thing is for sure, our ability to say anything about it, or elect anyone who openly says they will do
something about it, will soon be limited. The First Amendment is about to be cloaked with a new law
crafted and implemented by no less than Harry Reid.
First Amendment Struck Down
SJ 19: Joint Resolution to end the First Amendment
Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality
for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral
processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and
spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal
elections, including through setting limits on the size and type of
contribution any one entity can make to a federal election campaign.
[Struck out->] `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for
nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office;
and [<-Struck out]
[Struck out->] `(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in
support of, or in opposition to such candidates. [<-Struck out]
[Struck out->] `Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of
political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the
legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to
regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with
respect to State elections, including through setting limits on-- [<-
Struck out]
[Struck out->] `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for
nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
[<-Struck out]
[Struck out->] `(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in
support of, or in opposition to such candidates. [<-Struck out]
[Struck out->] `Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to
grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press. [<-Struck
out]
[Struck out->] `Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to
implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'. [<Struck out]
While the amendment has very little chance of becoming a reality, the fact that nearly 20% of the
Senate introduced the measure is startling. In essence, S.J. Res. 19 would only allow
government-approved journalists to editorialize during elections (see below). For example, a
group such as Citizens United could not fund an advertisement in support of a particular
candidate in the New York Times under the proposed amendment, but the New York Times could
print a favorable editorial of the same candidate (or his/her opponent), since the proposed
amendment expressly exempts “the press.”
The amendment, therefore, creates a state-approved (and, therefore, state-controlled) press.
When the government prosecutes individuals for violating the statutes passed to enforce the
powers granted by the proposed amendment, the state is, in effect, declaring which outlets are
considered “the press,” and which are not. This is dangerous ground to tread, as any
administration may take the position that a hostile outlet is not really “the press” and prosecute
them (the term “prosecute” here means filing for adverse action in court, whether criminal or
civil). Even if the courts reject a particular civil claim or criminal charge, anyone who has had to
deal with defending charges (or IRS audits) knows that the mere possibility of years of litigation
can be emotionally and financially draining.
When analyzing free speech cases, the courts frequently invoke the term: “chilling free speech.”
This means that particular laws, regulations, and other government actions are designed to
suppress free speech, if not expressly, then by coercive means. In essence, it would “chill,” or
freeze, an individual’s ability or desire to freely speak on a topic. It is hard to imagine a scenario
that fits more precisely the courts’ concerns.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the sweeping language used in the proposed amendment.
Despite offering two examples, giving the appearance that this is all the amendment authorizes,
the language states that “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of
money . . . with respect to Federal elections, including” the enumerated examples. This means
that Congress would have the ability to legally deny all individuals the ability to raise and/or
spend money in support of a candidate. For example, if the amendment is passed, Congress
would constitutionally be permitted to restrict raising money for elections to 501(c)(3)
organizations, whom it has already approved, thus placing full discretion as to who may
participate in the electoral process in the hands of the executive branch. Of course, there are
many other avenues the government may take to limit political participation.
The following Senators, as well as their party affiliation, state of representation, and Washington,
D.C. contact information, are as follows, should you desire to express your opinion directly to
your representative:
Tom Udall (D – New Mexico): (202) 224-6621 .
Michael Bennet (D – Colorado): (202) 224-5852.
Tom Harkin (D – Iowa): (202) 224-3254.
Charles Schumer (D – New York): (202) 224-6542
Jeanne Shaheen (D – New Hampshire): (202) 224-2841.
Sheldon Whitehouse (D – Rhode Island): (202) 224-2921.
Jon Tester (D – Montana): (202) 224-2644.
Barbara Boxer (D – California): (202) 224-3553.
Chris Coons (D – Delaware): (202) 224-5042.
Angus King (I – Maine): (202) 224-5344.
Chris Murphy (D – Connecticut): (202) 224-4041.
Ron Wyden (D – Oregon): (202) 224-5244.
Al Franken (D – Minnesota): (202) 224-5641.
Amy Klobuchar (D – Minnesota): (202) 224-3244.
Mark Udall (D – Colorado): (202) 224-5941
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved this proposed 28th Amendment to the US
Constitution (S.J. Res. 19, in Congressional parlance) which Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)
initiated, and to which 47 Senators have now pledged their support.
S.J. Res. 19 would reverse the Supreme Court’s determination in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (FEC), that essentially gave corporations (and unions) the green light to
spend what they may please on advertisements and other tools to advocate for the election or
defeat of candidates for political office. It would also overturn two complementary decisions,
namely McCutcheon v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo, both of which installed obstacles to
legislatures that would seek to put any limits on election campaign contributions by individuals.
S.J. Res. 19’s progress reflects four years of grassroots campaigning from pro-democracy
organizations around the country, who have tracked the corrupting influence of money in
American politics as it has escalated over the last several decades. One of these organizations is
Public Citizen, a non-profit democracy advocacy center established in Washington in 1971.
Public Citizen and some partners launched the effort to overturn Citizen’s United with a
Constitutional Amendment immediately after the decision came down in 2010.
Margrete Strand of Public Citizen told Radio VR that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision
Thursday to send S.J. Res. 19 to the Senate floor for a vote (most likely in September) “is a huge
step. It’s an ambitious goal (to pass a Constitutional Amendment). But the fact that there is a
serious conversation about it in the Senate is very encouraging. Every poll of public opinion
shows that the public is fed up…. We have seen massive support, since the American public
understands how damaging the system is.”
Strand added that S.J. Res. 19 went through the Judiciary Committee clean, with no markups
beyond light touches made to it in recent months. And she said that public participation in the
process has remained strong to this day, with constituents calling their Senators in large numbers
to put pressure on them to support S.J. Res. 19.
The path to realization of a Constitutional Amendment is still long. Two-thirds of the Senate
must approve, then three-fourths of the states, and also two-thirds of the House. But 16 states and
550 cities have already asked for this Amendment, and 170 members of Congress have
expressed their support. It could just happen
The Death of the Dollar
Hitler initiated a false flag event and burned down the Reichstag to gain control over the
German government. Could the same happen here in the United States? My initial
response to that question is, does it really matter? The pattern of societal collapse and
subsequent governmental enslavement of the American people will be largely the same
whether the precipitating incident is a false flag attack or a currency collapse. For the
purpose of simplicity, let us call the precursor event to all-out martial law, a currency
collapse.
The Federal Reserve Is the Enemy of Humanity
The Federal Reserve has been bleeding this country to death for a century. What the
dollar bought 100 years ago, can only buy three cents of product today. This means that
97% of the value of our currency has gone into the pockets of the Federal Reserve
investors for the past 100 years.
I am amazed at the abject ignorance of the American people and that they think the
Federal Reserve is actually part of the federal government. As we like to stay in the
alternative media, the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express. For
the record, the Federal Reserve is a privately held corporation which sells stock to
preferred insiders. In 1913, a small majority of Congress commissioned the Federal
Reserve to control banking in the United States. Without a doubt, this was the worst
decision ever made by an act of Congress.
The Dollar Is Diving
The world is running from the dollar, or should I
more accurately state the Petrodollar. Until recently, our dollar was used as the
currency of international trading. Further, the dollar was also the reserve currency for
oil. All foreign countries wishing to purchase oil from the Middle East, first had to
purchase dollars from the Federal Reserve. After FDR took us off the gold standard
during the Great Depression and Richard Nixon finished the task of providing America
with a totally Fiat currency, the only backing that our dollar enjoys is that of being the
reserve currency for both trading and for oil (i.e. the Petrodollar scam).
The major cause of the present economic calamity is fractional reserve banking. When
the government goes to the private Federal Reserve and asks for one trillion dollars, the
federal reserve gets to print one trillion for the government, at interest, and $10 trillion
dollars for themselves and to lend out at high interest rates. This inflationary practice
erodes the value of your dollar while enriching our Federal Reserve investors.
Ultimately, the currency upon which we depend on will be destroyed and life as we
know it will be changed forever.
The practice of fractional reserve banking should be wholly illegal because it creates a
state of permanent inflation for the benefit of a few and sets up economic demise for the
many.
A Changing of the Financial Guard
The nations presently running from
our petrodollar are India, China, Iran, Japan, South Africa and Australia have signed
their own trade agreements and their currency of choice is no longer the dollar!
When the collapse of the dollar occurs, it will literally and figuratively come like a thief in
the night, and I do mean overnight!
We are all familiar with the concept of inflation, which is the intentional byproduct of the
Federal Reserve. But I am not just talking inflation, I’m speaking about hyperinflation
which is caused by the collapse of the value of the currency resulting in runaway prices.
Silver may go as high as $1,000 an ounce. Gold will be unattainable for the average
person.
History is replete with examples of currency collapses and they typically follow very predictable
patterns in which a nation unravels and social chaos, and many times, widespread violence and
even genocide becomes part of the national landscape.
What Does a Currency Collapse Look Like?
It can accurately be stated that a lot has been written and rehearsed by the federal government
on the topic of the effects of a currency collapse and its subsequent impact on society.
NORTHCOM, DHS and FEMA as well as other federal entities have practiced for this
eventuality. In each and every scenario, the facts remain the same, human beings and society
follows a very predictable pattern of decline when the currency of the day collapses. And
normally, the currency collapse comes without any warning to the general public.
When George Soros recently pulled his money from the S&P 500 and from Bank of America,
Citibank and JP Morgan, all Americans should have sat up and taken notice. Generally, when
the currency collapses, a stock market crash is right on its heels. Because of the repeal of GlassSteagall, a banking meltdown will immediately occur following the collapse of the stock market
because since Clinton’s presidency, banks are now allowed to loan money for investment in the
stock market and for down payments for homes. It was irresponsible of Congress to repeal
Glass-Steagall, because it made surviving an economic Armageddon a near impossibility just as
it did during the 1929 crash.
In a currency collapse, your life savings will be wiped out. From this point on, the effect
cascades like a roaring tsunami racing across the open ocean.
Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy demonstrated that gas stations will be bone dry within two days
following a complete collapse. Subsequently, commerce will not move. If you are on vacation,
you may not make it home. On the second day following a currency collapse, being on the road
will be a risky endeavor because of other desperate motorists who will lie in wait to rob other
motorists of essential supplies and resources.
With no available fuel, the grocery and drug stores will be empty within one to three days. There
will be no food to be had except for that which is decaying in your refrigerator and that in which
you can beg, borrow and steal from your neighbors who will also be begging, borrowing and
stealing. from your other neighbors. If you have an adequate food and water supply, you better
have an adequate gun and ammo supply in order to defend your assets. And when will you
sleep? The protection of your critical assets is a 24/7 proposition. Therefore, having a cooperative
survival plan is critical.
Without gas, people will stop going to work. Corporations will disappear overnight. Hurricane
Katrina showed America that the police cannot be expected to stay on the job more than 48-72
hours as they will be home protecting their families and foraging for food and water like everyone
else. The emergence of former police, now operating as gangs, will become common in an effort
to secure the products which will ensure survival. Therefore, when your home is under attack,
there will nobody to call. Everyone will be on their own.
The elderly and the chronically ill will be the first to die. Too old to defend their assets, the elderly
will find themselves overpowered as they will make easy preys of opportunity for the roving
gangs. The chronically ill will have no way to procure their medication and even if they survive the
looting rampage which will follow a currency collapse, these poor souls will perish without access
to their life-sustaining prescriptions.
The money in your wallet will be useless. Cell phones will not work. Heating and air conditioning
will not work either and depending on the time of year, the environment could prove deadly to
untold numbers of people.
Water treatment plants will stop operating for the same reasons that you will not be able to find a
cop during this crisis nobody will be manning the water treatment plants. Toilets will back up and
diseases will spread like wildfire. Cholera will become the leading cause of death even
surpassing homicide. Something as simple as toilet paper will become a prized commodity.
There will be no trash pickup and more disease will result due to the increased rodent population.
Clean drinking water and hunger will become the dominant motivator in society. Roving bands of
looters, turned murderers, will sweep through neighborhoods seeking to obtain these critical
elements of survival. Young women will sell themselves for a can of food for their children.
Society will see the widespread loss of human dignity and self-respect.
Infanticide and euthanasia of the weak will become common events because there will be
decided efforts to reduce the amount of mouths to feed. There will be the stark realization that the
lights are not coming back on and the ensuing sense of hopelessness will lead to murdersuicides within families and simple incidences of suicide will be used as a means to escape the
horrendous circumstances.
Humanity’s Darkest Hour
There will come a time when all the available animals will be devoured and then there will be only
one place to turn to for food. History shows that cannibalism will set in by the beginning of the
third week. Extreme hunger will lead to humans hunting humans as an available food supply.
There is a real possibility that this could begin to occur within 15-20 days following the currency
collapse.
The Government’s Version of the Final Solution
If the establishment military has properly planned, they will move into take control but
they will not move quickly. The more death there is, the fewer people there will be to
control. Government will typically move in with their solutions towards the end of the
second week as has been the case in past economic collapses. The earliest the military could
be deployed on the streets would be about four days from the event. Even then, the military
cannot be everywhere. Christians should pay particular attention for when the Roman
currency was debased in the third century, there was a revolving door for Roman
emperors and Christians became the scapegoats for the economic issues.
To fully understand the relationship that will exist between yourself and the government, Google
“Executive Order 13603″. The reasons behind the creation of Executive Order 13603 will soon
become readily apparent. You will retain ownership over nothing including food, water, guns,
ammunition, your house, your car and even yourself. If you survive, you will be conscripted to
work in some capacity in a specialty and location not of your choosing. The provisions for dealing
with potential dissidents will go into motion under the NDAA which allows for mass arrest and
secret incarcerations without due process. There is one ironclad thing that you can count on, food
and water will be used to control the people following the collapse of the dollar
Who Will Help Us?
When past currency collapses occur, organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, the UN
and the US have appeared to render their predatory version of help in exchange for control of
critical infrastructure and other capital considerations. Because of this aid, more people survived
in the impacted areas. However, what happens when the top dog collapses? Who would be able
to come and render aid in America? Even in a world disgusted by our imperialistic ways would
offer help, could they? Not under the coming circumstances could anyone offer help because
they will be in a worse situation.
In short, there will be nobody riding in to rescue the United States. Despite some rebelling against
the dollar, the world is still dependent upon our currency. When the currency collapses it will pull
the rest of world down with us. The subsequent collapse of global currencies will indeed
constitute a major depopulation event and all the elite have to do is wait it out in places like the
tunnels under Denver International Airport.
During this time, Americans will truly discover if there really are FEMA camps and what they will
be used for. If people want to eat, they will be enticed to go where food is promised. Although you
can count on the above mentioned events transpiring in the event of a currency collapse, what
lies ahead is unknown to a large extent because the top dog will not have been economically
obliterated in modern history.
Conclusion
In addition to what has previously been written, in an economic collapse, we can expect the
government to impose travel restrictions and martial law. Life, as we know it will not be
recognizable.
Obama is willing to talk about the $17 trillion dollar deficit. However, you never hear the
government nor the media discuss the real debt? Our real financial obligations total $240 trillion
dollars through programs like social security, Medicare, public pensions and welfare.
Subsequently, I want to make one thing abundantly clear; It is not a matter if we are going to
have a currency collapse, it is when. And the when is much sooner than later. It could happen
tomorrow, next month and even next year. We do not have two years left in the American
economic engine. A currency collapse is nothing to look forward to, and people who intend on
surviving the event should be in the midst of their preparations.
There is now nothing the USA can do to prevent the collapse of its currency, and its
economy. It has no reserves to support its value, and has the most indebted country in
the world, is dependant of the credit from America's former enemies. Over the last
couple of days, both Russia and China have said they will be switching their
considerable dollar reserves into Euro. This will only hasten the lack of confidence in
the dollar, creating a global lack of confidence in the currency, and setting into freefall. It will soon bring about the total collapse of the dollar, and the American
economy.
The collapse of the dollar will throw the world into a global depression. Those nations
with large external debts will not be able to trade sufficiently to earn the income to
service their debts, and will slide into bankruptcy. The economies of New Zealand,
Australia, Canada and the UK will also totally collapse, as a result of their
indebtedness and not being able to service their borrowings. It will result in the
Anglo-Saxon nations facing abject poverty, our people facing starvation, and a total
break-down in society. Crime will become rampant. Law and order will cease to exist.
Disease will become widespread.
The Asian economies, which have depended upon American trade, will also be
severely affected. However, they will recover after a period, but only after
considerable political and economic turmoil.
The EU will be in a much better position to survive the coming economic chaos. An
influx of capital into the Euro zone by those selling dollars will provide the funding
for rebuilding the economies of the new United States of Europe. However, the
collapse of the $US will still severely affect the already depressed German and French
economies. The resulting economic turmoil will create the need for the acceptance of
a strong EU leader, who will be able to make the necessary political and economic
reforms to enable Europe revive their economies. Those nations that accept the new
EU Constitution will come under the control of this new leader, creating Europe as the
world's new Super Power.
The Euro will become the world's only reserve currency, creating the means for the
new United States of Europe to become the dominant economic power in the world.
The new Europe will be able to dictate the terms on how the global economy should
be run. They will take over the administration of America and Britain, placing the
Anglo-Saxon people in bondage for repayment of their debts.
Americans do not appear to comprehend the bitterness that has grown around the
world as a result of their illegal invasion of Iraq. While once Europeans looked up to,
and admired America; today it is held in utter contempt for its arrogance and
warmongering. Anti-European comments in the American media have only added to
this hostility towards the US. America's attempt to impose its version of government
on the world, its hypocrisy in claiming to be the moral leader of the world, while
flooding the media with degenerate filth and garbage, has bought upon it disgust and
contempt that few Americans can comprehend.