Saturday, March 2, 2013

Obama's Job Creation Plan Revealed

Bonus video...
 ↓     Are our wishes becoming true?     ↓
Indict the SOB!

Border Crossings...Could it be that we are being lied to?

Brooks County, Texas March 1, 2013
On Feb, 26th, CSN news reported that DHS has decided to completely revamp the matrix by which they determine the number of illegals that enter this country. They are going to go by apprehensions. The only problem is that by their own DHS/CBP study it was determined that apprehensions were a flawed way of determining the number of crossers.
The next story is just a random selection from many stories done that say our border is as secure as it has ever been. We would ask, based on what?
And the last link tells of the number of deaths in Brooks county Texas for 2012. The 129 dead represent a 54% increase over the record of 84 just a few years ago.
So, as a thinking individual we ask you; how in the world is it LOGICAL that apprehensions are up, crossings are down and more people than ever are dying in just one county in Texas that is 60 miles North of the Texas/Mexico border? Could it be that we are being lied to? Many if not most experts will say that estimating how many illegals cross into this country is not quantifiable. Yet we are told that CBP/BP now get 60% with only 40% escaping detection. Five years ago it was estimated we got maybe 20%. Why the change? How did we get more efficient?

The analogy is simple, I will think of a number between one and a million. You, guess the number and without me telling you the number I picked I will ask you to determine the difference between our numbers. Texas Border Volunteers deal in numbers we see. We see the deaths. We see an increase in the number of crossers that we report to Border Patrol and none of us believe that there is a decrease in the number of illegals coming to this country.
The Texas Border Volunteers, or TBV, is a group of concerned citizens that has operated since the fall of 2006. During this time TBV has performed watches on private ranches in South Texas where we have reported over 1670 illegal aliens, 859 of those have been apprehended by Border Patrol. In 2012 alone, 232 IA’s were observed by TBV with 126 known apprehensions. TBV has also found lost and disoriented illegal aliens (IA’s) that were abandoned by their “coyotes”. These individuals were given lifesaving aid and assistance by our volunteers. Those IA’s have included pregnant women and juveniles.
One of the TBV board members is a South Texas ranch owner as well. She travels the ranch with a group of pets. She calls them her “BEST” team (Blitz, Elsa, Schatten and Tinkerbell). These 4 canines that travel with her have developed a knack for alerting to and finding illegal aliens. For 2012, the BEST team has reported 119 illegal aliens with 101 Border Patrol apprehensions. These numbers are in addition to the 2012 numbers reported above by TBV.
The mission of TBV is to observe and report illegal aliens that criminally trespass on the South Texas ranches we patrol. In addition TBV is actively involved with educating the general public about the border issue through group presentations, radio and media interviews and educational booths at various venues. The volunteers that make up TBV come from a variety of working backgrounds, ethnic origins, and political viewpoints.


Friday, March 1, 2013




↓     ↓     For the security of a free state...listen up!   ↓     ↓

Thursday, February 28, 2013

We are worse off than we were in 1776...but tomorrow is in sight!

"Many Americans have not yet figured out that nothing has changed in 237 years ..."
On his radio show the other day, Rush Limbaugh said the following:
"Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country. To be watching all of this, to be treated like this, to have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it's being insulted? It just makes me ashamed. ..."
I know exactly how he feels yet there's little comfort in knowing that I'm not alone with the way things are going in our country.  Rush also said, "I've said the same things over and over for 25 years. Whether the Clinton presidency or the Obama presidency, whether it's a Pelosi speakership or Tom Foley (who was speaker when I started), it's the same stuff."
Me too!  I've been saying the same stuff for almost as long.  Nothing is changing for the better...and it's not a conspiracy theory to say that everything is getting worse.  It is!  ...and it's bad!  As for feeling alone like all is for naught there's a verse from a song (see credit at bottom of page) that brings my frustrations to light:
Yesterday is dead and gone
And tomorrow's out of sight.
And it's sad to be alone.
Help me make it through the night
Maybe its wishful thinking that  someone would come along and help me make it through the many nights I've spent disseminating what's wrong with our country but I actually do get help from the many others out there willing to have the courage to spell it out the way it is.  Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army, Retired is one such courageous individual (see my previous post here) and another untiring person who never lets up with the truth is Joesph Farah (see below).  Yesterday is dead and gone but tomorrow is in sight if we can only get those who have been dumbed down to see. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Better off now than in 1776? by Joseph Farah @WND
Exclusive: Joseph Farah on why colonists were freer under London than we are under D.C.

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators News Service.. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

It’s not unusual for presidential challengers in election years to ask the question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

It’s a legitimate question, and, at least in 1980, probably got Ronald Reagan elected to the White House.

Everyone knew in 1980 they were worse off than they were four years earlier when Jimmy Carter began his charade as president.

I think it’s a safe conclusion that in 2012, Americans had been so dumbed down by the media, the schools, the universities and other cultural institutions that most voters were too stupid to even know they were worse off than they were when Barack Obama entered the White House.

But I have a bigger question to ask Americans. I don’t expect most to comprehend it for the same reason most didn’t understand what Washington did to them from 2009 through 2012. Most didn’t notice how much liberty they had actually lost – how much of their American birthright they had actually traded away eagerly for a mess of promises.

Here’s my question: “Are we better off now than we were in 1776?”

Why do I ask?

That probably needs explanation for many Americans today. But in 1776, Americans, who were colonists of a foreign power, declared the nation’s independence, famously putting at risk, “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.”

As I wrote in my book, “Taking America Back,” originally published way back in 2003, life in America’s colonies wasn’t all that bad. I suggested then – and I’m more convinced today – that the generation of our Founding Fathers was freer in practically every way than we are in America today under the thumb of a different kind of tyrant. Today, it’s not London that oppresses us. It’s Washington.

So let’s take a quick survey of some of the constitutionally protected rights we secured through the War of Independence:

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from abridging our unalienable rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.

In the 21st century, something happened that our forefathers probably could never envision. The so-called “free press” has become as abominable as the state-controlled media of the 18th century – maybe worse. As I write in my book, “Stop the Presses!” the very concept of the God-given right to a free press was first articulated by America’s Founding Fathers. They saw the press as a vital check and balance against government tyranny. It was later dubbed “the fourth estate,” in reference to the tripartite nature of the government system they created.

What they could never have imagined in the 18th century, I suppose, was that a corporate media, regulated in so many ways by the state, would become, in essence, a tool of the furtherance of state power. Rather than serving as a “watchdog” against corruption, fraud, waste and abuse by government and other powerful institutions, the statist media became a “lapdog” of those interests – limiting and controlling the scope of national debate and dialogue.

How about freedom of religion?

Barack Obama often refers to it as “freedom of worship.” But that’s a whole different animal. Yes, it’s true, you can worship virtually any way you want in America in the assembly of your choice. But just try taking your faith into the public square. Religion in America today, especially in the Judeo-Christian, biblical form that inspired the concept of self-government, the rights of the individual and the rule of law, is on the run. The Ten Commandments are forbidden in any institution controlled by government. Prayer is forbidden in public schools by the order of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bible, which was the foundation of early education in the 18th century, is forbidden from government schools. The churches, for their part, made a huge mistake in submitting themselves to the government for tax-exempt status, restricting their own participation in politics.

I could continue with more and more ways our First Amendment liberties have been degraded over the last 237 years, but I need to move on to other ways we are losing our hard-earned freedoms.

The Second Amendment, like all the other components of the Bill of Rights, makes clear that the right to bear arms is unalienable, meaning it comes from God, not government.

With all the demagoguery about new restrictions on firearms emanating from Washington, do I even need to comment? Note the first shots fired in the War of Independence came in defense of the New England colonists’ armory, which was about to be seized by the British. The British understood that a disarmed citizenry could not resist the tyranny of the most powerful empire in the world at that time. Many Americans have not yet figured out that nothing has changed in 237 years – that the citizenry, disarmed, still cannot resist the tyranny of the new most powerful empire in the world.

How about the Fourth Amendment? It prohibits unlawful search and seizure. Today, laws are being written that would permit government agents to make unannounced searches of homes to ensure that firearms are being properly secured. Governments are flying surveillance drones over the American homeland to spy on us. How about those surveillance cameras at practically every traffic light? How about satellite surveillance? These are abuses that would turn the stomachs of our liberty-minded Founding Fathers. The U.S. government is collecting and storing records of virtually every phone call, purchase, email, text message, Internet search, social media communication you make, not to mention its dossiers on your health information, employment history, travel and student records. Through the Internal Revenue Service, it has detailed records of your most personal and private financial records and history. Do you know why they call your cell phone a “smartphone”? Because it’s a tracking device. Don’t even get me started. Unlawful search and seizure? It’s the norm today in America. Property is being seized for the most specious reasoning of the state – the presence of water on your land, the presence of “endangered species” – for no reason and for every reason.

How about the Fifth Amendment? That’s the one that offers due process. Today, centuries after our genius founders had the foresight to enshrine such protections in the Bill of Rights, the foreign tyrants in Washington claim the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

I’ve gone on too long for one column already.
Perhaps it’s time to write another book.

But, for sure, in answer to the question, we’re worse off than we were in 1776.
Help Me Make It Through The Night
Kris Kristofferson

Emasculating The American Armed Forces

CIC ~ Commander In Chief by NEH

Women in foxholes by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, US Army, Retired
Gen. Patrick Brady says putting females in combat poses 'an insane burden on readiness'

For many Americans, it is hard to believe that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could top his statement in defense of the administration’s tragic bungling of the terrorists’ massacre in Benghazi: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place (The Obama Panetta Doctrine).” But he did top it.

In justification of the administration’s policy to put women in foxholes, he claimed that women in (direct) combat strengthen our military. His statement is a contradiction of every war we have fought and the ethos of every warrior who ever fought in those wars. But it does reflect the attitude of the commander in chief, disastrously over his head in the international arena, a “leader” unable to make tough decision who is fearful of risk and does not know the difference between a corps and a corpse. He is more comfortable around homosexuals and feminists than warriors. Panetta’s statement extolling the readiness multiplier of women leading bayonet charges is beyond the pale.

Neither Obama nor Panetta has ever served in combat, nor has most of Congress. But worse, none of the current military leadership has had any serious combat (in the trenches) experience, and it is beginning to show.

World War II was won by combat veterans from World War I. In Korea we had the veterans of World War II, and in Vietnam the combat veterans of both World War II and Korea. The Vietnam veteran won Desert Storm. All those warriors and their leadership are gone, and we see a military with dismal leadership resulting in unprecedented rates of suicide, PTSD and security breaches. We had one high-ranking officer lament that the terrorist’s massacre at Fort Hood would damage his diversity efforts! Leadership relieved the judge in the trial of the Fort Hood terrorist for enforcing military shaving rules on the terrorist – and after over three years, he is not tried! And they are calling that obvious terrorist massacre “workplace violence,” deliberately depriving those killed and their families of deserved benefits.

Unimaginable in our past, we have leaders who consider awarding medals for not shooting, and now a medal for risking carpal tunnel syndrome that outranks the time-honored Bronze Star for valor. This gaggle actually lost graves of our warriors at Arlington Cemetery and are attacking the benefits of America’s nobility – our veterans. I don’t know where the term girlie men came from, but it perfectly describes many in this administration and their military leaders.

After commanding an all-men medical unit in combat, I commanded a medical battalion, including many women, in peacetime. These units are not direct-combat units but do spend a lot of time on the battlefield and are exposed to enemy fire and casualties. But it is nothing like the exposure of the grunts in the mud and grime for days and weeks at a time.

My rule in the battalion was standards, not gender-governed, except where they were already assigned, i.e., medics and mechanics. This was during the ’70s, a tough time for drugs and discipline in the military. Here is what I found. As a result of competition, my driver and our color guard, highly contested duty, were women. The women had less disciplinary problems than the men. In administrative jobs, they were at least equal to men. But most could not carry their load physically – loading litters in choppers, carrying wounded to safety, even lifting tool chests. As a result the men covered for them, often causing us to use two people when one should have done the job – all of which effected readiness. They were not good in the field and became less functional when issues of hygiene, and feminine hygiene, literally knocked them out and we had to jerry-rig showers, wasting valuable time.

And they got pregnant, which took out key jobs at critical times. Other sexual distractions, favoritisms, fraternization and assault are also readiness disruptions and follow women throughout the military, even in our military academies. I had serious problems with wives whose husbands shared standby shacks with women overnight. This would go on for weeks in direct combat units; think tank crews. Male bonding, immeasurable to success in combat, would be damaged. All in all, the women pose an insane burden on readiness.

My conclusion, which I passed to my division commander at his request, was that I would not want females with me working the battlefield let alone in direct combat. I told him I would not want my daughters in a unit of half women going bayonet to bayonet with an enemy unit 100 percent men. Those comments almost cost me my career because my immediate superior disagreed, which may explain some of the obsequiousness and cowering of military leaders today on this issue and a quad-sexual military.

The move to teach our daughters and mothers to kill is defended using the same criteria I used in my battalion: standards, not sex-govern. It does not work. Most men will not treat women as they do other men – thankfully. And there is no intention to do so despite what we hear. Listen to our top military leader, Gen. Martin Dempsey: “If we decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Those standards have been set over hundreds of years of combat! We should change them to satisfy the crazes of the president’s feminist supporters? Imagine how Gen. George Patton and all the leaders who founded and secured this country would react to those comments.
I have said, and many men agree with me, that Adam’s rib was the greatest investment in human history. Why? Because God then gave man woman, a different creature, who complemented him. God did it on purpose, and we are privileged to live with the differences. Feminists et al., get over it. It is not discrimination to accommodate God’s design; it is acknowledging His will – it is wisdom.
Despite “Kill Bill” and other Hollywood visuals of females pummeling men, women for the most part are not designed to kill. And they will not be good at it. God designed them to produce life and nurture it, not destroy it. They don’t belong in the trenches of the NFL or in the octagon in Ultimate Fighting; combat is the ultimate Ultimate Fighting – and they don’t belong there, either.
It is difficult to teach some men to kill, but they have no choice. Imagine a draft and a nation forcing our women into killing units. Visualize what will happen to women POWs, not to mention homosexuals, captured by our most likely enemies. We have heard of the man who sent his wife downstairs to check on a possible burglar (I actually knew such a man). We are becoming a nation like that man, a girlie nation. There will always be burglars, (international thugs), most of whom are male, and they should be confronted by males.
Why these ridiculous changes? No serous person could believe that women in foxholes will do anything but reduce readiness. Just as devastating is the formation of a quad-sexual military, which introduces sodomy not only to foxholes but military communities – and with it serious health and deployment issues. Pregnant females cannot deploy, and some will get pregnant to avoid it. Homosexuals cannot give blood and may not be deployable. Every warrior is a walking blood bank – who would want his son or daughter to receive a blood transfusion from a homosexual? The NBA stops a basketball game for a drop of blood because of the threat of infection, the Magic Johnson rule; Johnson had AIDS. The battlefield is full of blood. Do we think less of our soldiers than the NBA does of its players? What will be the reaction when a warrior sees his commanding officer dancing and romancing another man – or if he is hit on by a homosexual? Yet we are told these changes will improve readiness.
Sequestration, designed by President Obama, will, if allowed to kick in, emasculate what is left of our military. Aside from the cruel impact these budget cuts will have on military careers and families, they are perfectly suited to Obama’s isolationist goals. He is a rhetorical celebrity dedicated to social issues, i.e. same-sex marriage, gun control and government running just about everything. He is also a man intimidated by crises and the decisions they require. He is a voting-present leader, and we are learning he was not even present to lead during the massacre at Benghazi. He apparently hid out during the entire event and tried to blame it on a video. What would he do during a major 9/11-type crisis? An insignificant military takes us off the world stage and requires only voting present in future crises, which perfectly suits our present leadership. We can only pray there will be no such crises.
Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.

The Same Stream Media

When the media ganged up on George W. Bush over the so-called torture of prisoners during the Iraq war, it was discovered that a prominent newspaper in the mainstream media was the source of the slanderous rhetoric.  The word torture was uttered by a prisoner that had his arms secured behind his back during an transfer flight from overseas to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  When a reporter who accompanied the flight reported the incident to his editor, the editor quickly sent out the word and within hours the word torture was heard and read all over the news media.  I mentioned this to a friend that refused to believe that such control existed in such a competive news-reporting environment...he had no idea how wrong he was!  Now there's no connection to torture in the following but what are the chances that the intro to a story would have the same exact words in stations all over the country... Is this why they call it, "The mainstream media?"...or is that, "The same-stream media?" ~ Norman E. Hooben 

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

UN Official Admits To Climate Change Scam


I can go on and on about this... The global anthropological climate change scam is just that; a scam!   The scam was created by the politic elite in order to scare countries into subscribing to their universal one-world government...and the easily fooled were easily fooled.  By the way, did any of you ever ask the United Nations what they did with all that money they collected that supposedly went to climate change.  Who did they pay it to?  God?  After all, He is the ultimate Weatherman!  The weather has been changing since time began and it will continue to change until the end of time.  Period! 

I like the choice of words for the following headline for it reminds me of the time I dreamt that I was the dictator-in-charge.  If I were the dictator I would have Al Gore admitted to an asylum along with all his cohorts at the UN...and lets not forget TIME Magazine another anthropological scare monger.  For those of you not in-the-know, TIME Magazine is not a news magazine; its an indoctrination magazine.  It's primary purpose was and still is, a means to control the mindsets of its readers.  One of their primary means of doing so was to write scary weather stories...and they wrote a bunch.  All the fools who belived in TIME's weather fabrications would have been better off listening to Samuel Clemmons, aka Mark Twain, who said, "If you don't like the weather, wait a minute."  So there you have it, even Tom Sawyer's creator knew the real scoop about climate change.  Looking forward to see the scamsters in a jail cell.  ~  Norman E. Hooben

World Net Daily
Time to jail the climate scamsters
by Lord Monckton
Exclusive: Lord Monckton says prosecuting 'scientists' is best way to stop hysteria
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, high priest of climate skepticism, advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote leaders for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard. He invented the million-selling "Eternity Puzzles," "Sudoku X" and a promising treatment for infections. See the Science & Public Policy Institute.
SYDNEY, Australia – It’s official. What I was howled down and banned for telling the recent U.N. climate conference in Doha is true. There has been no global warming for 17 years.

Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who heads the U.N.’s accident-prone climate panel, the IPCC, recently admitted this fact here in Australia.

The Hadley/CRU temperature record shows no warming for 18 or 19 years. RSS satellites show none for 23 years. Not one computer model predicted that.

Pachauri said the zero trend would have to persist for 30-40 years before it mattered. Scientists disagree. In 2008 the modelers wrote that more than 14 years without global warming would indicate a “discrepancy” between their predictions and reality. By their own criterion, they have grossly, persistently, profitably exaggerated manmade warming.

The 17-year flatline gives Australia’s $180,000-a-year, part-time climate kommissar, Tim Flannery, a problem. In January he crowed that extreme weather like Sydney’s recent heatwave had been predicted for decades.

Skeptics, he wailed, continued to ignore the thousands of hot-weather records tumbling worldwide. Yet without statistically significant warming for nigh on two decades, recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming.

Warming that was predicted yesterday but has not happened for up to 23 years until today cannot have caused yesterday’s “droughts and flooding rains,” now, can it?

Flannery relentlessly gives only one side of the story when it is his duty to give both. He is carefully silent about the thousands of cold-weather records that have also tumbled in recent years – more than 650 this week in the U.S. alone.

The Northern Hemisphere is enduring one of its coldest winters in 100 years. Before the usual suspects try to blame that too on global warming, the IPCC says – unsurprisingly – that warmer weather means less snow.

Sea-ice extent in the Arctic has reached a record high for this time of year, despite a record low last summer. In the Antarctic, sea ice has been increasing for 33 years.

There will be further extreme weather in the coming decades. It will not matter whether the world warms or cools. Extreme weather is not the new normal. It is the old normal – but the new slogan.

The best-kept secret in climate science is that extreme weather, or “tipping points,” will be no likelier if the planet warms than if it cools. For the climate behaves as a chaotic object. What mathematicians call “bifurcations” can occur at any time.

We may warm the world this century, but not by much. What is important is not only the embarrassingly long absence of warming but also the large discrepancy between the rate of warming the models predict and the real-world rate.

The IPCC baselessly predicts 3 degrees Celsius manmade warming this century. The warming rate since 1950 has been a third of that. The maximum warming rate over any decade since 1850 was equivalent to less than 2 degrees per century.

No surprise, then, that the IPCC recently gave the lie to Flannery in a special report saying extreme weather cannot yet be attributed to manmade warming. Yet its own errors relentlessly exaggerate both manmade warming and its consequences.

In 1990 the first of its five reports said that from then till now the world would warm at 0.3 of a degree Celsius per decade. Outturn: less than half that.

In 1995 the scientists said five times there was no human influence on temperature and they did not know when it would become detectable. IPCC bureaucrats got a single bad scientist – a one-man “consensus” – to rewrite the report to say the flat opposite.

That year another bad scientist emailed a colleague: “We have to abolish the medieval warm period.” His problem was that the Middle Ages were warmer than now. Today’s temperatures are normal.

In 2001 the IPCC’s “hockey stick” graph duly “abolished” medieval warming. The shank showed little temperature change for 1000 years; the blade showed a sudden spurt in the 20th century, which the IPCC – six times – blamed on us. In 2005 two Canadian scientists proved the graph bogus.

In 2007 the IPCC doctored another graph to pretend manmade warming is accelerating. The Obama administration is using this faked diagram to justify introducing a carbon tax just as the EU/Oz tax collapses.

This year will bring a fifth “Assessment Report.” As an expert reviewer I shall try to halt further fraud. It will not be easy. The weevils are at it again. This year’s new predictions, backcast eight years to 2005, bizarrely overstate already measured warming and project the exaggerations to 2050, forecasting unrealistically rapid warming.

A senior Australian police officer specializing in organized-crime frauds tells me the pattern of fraud on the part of a handful of climate scientists may yet lead to prosecutions.

When the cell door slams on the first bad scientist, the rest will scuttle for cover. Only then will the climate scare – mankind’s strangest and costliest intellectual aberration – be truly over.


Attention Ladies... Buy a shotgun! ~ Friendly advice from Joe Biden

Update: Gun Myths Gone from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns

War is hell...but oh so profitable!

Happening Now!!!

The following from: Girls Just Wanna Have Guns
“A call for background checks invokes painful memories of Jim Crow and black codes….Taking guns from the law abiding many, puts to much power into the hands of the ill-intentioned few.“~Star Parker
Never Again
Let this serve as a warning...

Obama-Hagel...Cripple Israel At Any Price!...including the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers

The mainstream media (MSM) continues to feed the American people that which will serve as a smokescreen to hide their sinister ambitions.  Whatever it is the MSM reports you can be rest assured that the majority of Americans will fall for it for they have been conditioned like like cattle destined for might say that the majority of Americans are already in the abattoir chute awaiting that captive bolt to smack 'em in the head.  For instance, nowhere in the American MSM will you read the following:
Obama’s determination in confirming Hagel is based on Obama’s belief that Hagel will cripple Israel at any price: including the deaths of thousands of US soldiers at the hands of Hamas suicide bombs in the Palestinian Authority. ~
No, the MSM will place more emphasis on Marco Rubio's thirst quenching remedy to distract you from the more important issues.  It is well known by some of us that Obama and company hates America and everything she stands for...and that he will do everything that he can get away with to destroy that which took three-hundred years to accomplish.  We already know that Obama has reduced the American military's fighting ability and that he has continued what Bill Clinton initiated and that is, placing like-minded people in leadership positions...especially within the military.  Obama continues to develop plans that will not only weaken our military but also fulfill the wish of the Muslim world to destroy Israel (The old expression, "Killing two birds with one stone." would be Obama's heart's delight).  How do I know this?  Because news items that are relevant do not come from the MSM...they're more likely to come from Maggie's Notebook (see below).  ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following: Maggie's Notebook
Chuck Hagel 2009: Recommends 1967 Borders for Israel – Sends US Soldiers into Gaza: A Jihadi’s Dream   
by Maggie

Former Senator Chuck Hagel is close to a confirmation vote for the cabinet position of Secretary of Defense. It’s unclear who suggested Israel move their borders back to the 1967 borders before the Six-Day War – Hagel or Obama. Obama’s remarks are dated October 2009. The report issued by the U.S./Middle East Project, titled A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement – a Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking, with a list of ten signatories, including Hagel, is not dated – a good measure of government efficiency – but it is reported to be a 2009 report as I read around. Assuming this group could convince Israel to commit this insanity, and move borders back to the 1967 positions, the report also expected U.S. troops along with others (not necessarily allies) to join them in the defense of Palestine. The price tag for America’s defense of Palestine, as signed-onto by Hagel, was about $160 Billion, on top of the $500 million annually, according to a 2008 report, which would be under-stated today (I’m guessing). Then there’s the cost of American lives patrolling in the West Bank – a “US Troops Deathtrap,” a jihadi’s dream.

From the report:
Territory. Borders of the two states would be based on the 1967 armistice lines. Yet they would likely be adjusted by mutual agreement in order to take into account areas heavily populated by Israelis in the West Bank since 1967 and equivalent areas to be ceded to Palestine in exchange. (read it here, page 11)
The wrath of Israel’s supporters in America followed Obama’s remarks. From there, the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu dissolved after Netanyahu politely told Obama 1967 borders were in no one’s future.

The 1967 borders refer to those that existed before the Six-Day War, when Egypt, Syria and Jordan launched a surprise attack on Israel. The result was a decisive Israeli victory that left Israel in control of disputed territories such as the Golan Heights and Gaza Strip. A return to the 1967 borders would mean Israel relinquishing certain territories, a position the country has opposed.
It is important to understand the importance of the Six Day War and what the borders meant – and remember, Hagel wants U.S. troops in Gaza. Can you seriously doubt that Obama wants the same?
Israel After the Six Days War, but there's more to the story (read below map)
Israel After the Six Days War, but there’s more to the story (read below map)
The areas shown in bright green (Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem) were occupied by Israel during the 6-day war. Israel has since returned all of Sinai to Egypt in return for peace, which today the Muslim Brotherhood says they will not honor. Most of Gaza is currently under the jurisdiction of the autonomous Palestinian Authority (2002). Parts of the West Bank (see Map of Israel and Palestinian territories following Oslo II) had been ceded to the Palestinian authority, but these areas are currently re-occupied by Israel. Following the 6 day war, Israel began building settlements in these areas. Click for a map of the settlements.
From one of my previous posts:
Reminders of the 1967 Six Days War:
● In the Spring, Syria conducted terrorist raids against Israel, water was diverted by Syria, from Israel and irrigation projects for south and central Israel, although approved by Arab engineers as non-detrimental to Arab lands, were not approved by the Arab governments.
● In May, Egypt blocked the Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships. “Lebanon, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all activated their militaries. Iraqi troops reportedly approached the Syrian and Jordanian borders while Jordan moved tanks towards the West Bank.”
● Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia formed a “defense pact.” Egyptian President Nasser said “Our basic objective will be the destruction if Israel.” The guerrilla raids on Israel continued, including mine attacks.
The Arab people want to fight….” This link is an excellent map of the areas of attack on Israel from the “pact.” Click to enlarge the map. The tiny nation of Israel was surrounded by “some 500,000 troops, more than 5,000 tanks, and almost 1,000 fighter planes.” France, Israel’s major arms supplier, issued a “complete ban on weapons sales and transfers to Israel.”
● On June 5, 1967 war broke out with 100,000 Egyptian troops on the Sinai border, which Egypt was charged with keeping peaceful in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Syria had at least 75,000 troops on their borders, Jordan 55,000. Iraq placed tanks and fighter jets on the borders of Jordan and Israel. The Pakistani air force, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia joined the coming fight.
Get a visual of tiny Israel surrounded with these masses. Israelis who could, sent their children to Europe. It is believed 100,000 graves were dug. Germany contributed gas masks to Israel.
It is significant that so few know any truth about this period in Israel’s history.
● After three day Israel defeated Jordan and gained control of all of Jerusalem, including the West Bank, known historically as Judea and Samaria.
● Israel took control of the Gaza Strip
● On the fifth day, Israel took the Golan Heights. That ended the Six Days War
These are not defensible borders. Even NATO hated the idea, said it was undoable in its“feasibility study.” So the President who wants the troops home, and is willing to put Chuck Hagel in charge of carrying out his orders, sees a soulmate in Muslim sympathizer, Chuck Hagel, a known anti-Semite – the perfect vehicle for cutting Israel down to size, if not vanishing them from the face of the earth – the goal of every Palestinian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, and Iranian.

Make your Senator aware of this report as soon as possible.

Related and Background:

Monday, February 25, 2013

Home Invasion On Cape Cod...with weapons drawn!

Dennis police search for armed home invasion suspect
Suspect entered West Dennis home and attacked male resident with a hammer
By Maggie Kulbokas @Cape Cod Today
Dennis police responded to an armed home invasion on
Susan Way in West Dennis Sunday night. Google map
WEST DENNIS - Dennis police are searching for the unknown suspect who entered a West Dennis home Sunday night and attacked the male resident with a hammer.

According to police, a man entered a home on Susan Way in West Dennis Sunday night around 7:30 p.m. He was armed with a knife and hammer.

A female resident called 911 to report that the unknown man entered the home and attacked her boyfriend with a hammer, police said. The man reportedly fled the home following a struggle with the boyfriend.

Dennis police are searching for the man who is described as a 20- to 30-year-old white male with facial hair. He was reportedly wearing dark pants and a light-colored sweatshirt, according to a statement from Dennis police.

The male victim was transported to Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis with serious but non life-threatening injuries.

Police did not release a motive or reason for the attack.

Anyone with information about the suspect or the incident is asked to call Det. Thomas Downs or Patrolman Joe Morris at 508-394-1315.

 ↓     ↓ Need more like this...↓     ↓ 

The National Debt ~ Victoria’s 'not so secret' solution

Reform of the US Monetary System: Message of 12 Year Old Victoria Grant
Out of the Mouths of Babes: Twelve-Year-Old Money Reformer Tops a Million Views
by Ellen Brown @Global Research

The youtube video of 12 year old Victoria Grant speaking at the Public Banking in America conference last month has gone viral, topping a million views on various websites (See video at bottom of this page).

Monetary reform—the contention that governments, not banks, should create and lend a nation’s money—has rarely even made the news, so this is a first. Either the times they are a-changin’, or Victoria managed to frame the message in a way that was so simple and clear that even a child could understand it.
Basically, her message was that banks create money “out of thin air” and lend it to people and governments at interest. If governments borrowed from their own banks, they could keep the interest and save a lot of money for the taxpayers.
She said her own country of Canada actually did this, from 1939 to 1974. During that time, the government’s debt was low and sustainable, and it funded all sorts of remarkable things. Only when the government switched to borrowing privately did it acquire a crippling national debt.
Borrowing privately means selling bonds at market rates of interest (which in Canada quickly shot up to 22%), and the money for these bonds is ultimately created by private banks. For the latter point, Victoria quoted Graham Towers, head of the Bank of Canada for the first twenty years of its history. He said:
Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.
Towers was asked, “Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?” He replied, “If Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament.”
In other words, said Victoria, “If the Canadian government needs money, they can borrow it directly from the Bank of Canada. The people would then pay fair taxes to repay the Bank of Canada. This tax money would in turn get injected back into the economic infrastructure and the debt would be wiped out. Canadians would again prosper with real money as the foundation of our economic structure and not debt money. Regarding the debt money owed to the private banks such as the Royal Bank, we would simply have the Bank of Canada print the money owing, hand it over to the private banks, and then clear the debt to the Bank of Canada.”
Problem solved; case closed.
But critics said, “Not so fast.” Victoria might be charming, but she was na├»ve.
One critic was William Watson, writing in the Canadian newspaper The National Post in an article titled “No, Victoria, There Is No Money Monster.” Interestingly, he did not deny Victoria’s contention that “When you take out a mortgage, the bank creates the money by clicking on a key and generating ‘fake money out of thin air.’” Watson acknowledged:
Well, yes, that’s true of any “fractional-reserve” banking system. Even before they were regulated, even before there was a Bank of Canada, banks understood they didn’t have to keep reserves equal to the total amount of money they’d lent out: They could count on most depositors most of the time not showing up to take out their money all at once. Which means, as any introduction to monetary economics will tell you, banks can indeed “create” money.
What he disputed was that the Canadian government’s monster debt was the result of paying high interest rates to banks. Rather, he said:
We have a big public debt because, starting in the early 1970s and continuing for three full decades, our governments spent more on all sorts of things, including interest, than they collected in taxes. . . . The problem was the idea, still widely popular, from the Greek parliament to the streets of Montreal, that governments needn’t pay their bills.
That contention is countered, however, by the Canadian government’s own Auditor General (the nation’s top accountant, who reviews the government’s books). In 1993, the Auditor General noted in his annual report:
[The] cost of borrowing and its compounding effect have a significant impact on Canada’s annual deficits. From Confederation up to 1991-92, the federal government accumulated a net debt of $423 billion. Of this, $37 billion represents the accumulated shortfall in meeting the cost of government programs since Confederation. The remainder, $386 billion, represents the amount the government has borrowed to service the debt created by previous annual shortfalls

In other words, 91% of the debt consists of compounded interest charges. Subtract those and the government would have a debt of only C$37 billion, very low and sustainable, just as it was before 1974.
Mr. Watson’s final argument was that borrowing from the government’s own bank would be inflationary. He wrote:
Victoria’s solution is that instead of paying market rates the government should borrow directly from the Bank of Canada and pay only token rates of interest. Because the government owns the bank, the tax revenues it raises in order to pay that interest would then somehow be injected directly back into the economy. In other words, money literally printed to cover the government’s deficit would be put into circulation. But how is that not inflationary?
Let’s see. The government can borrow money that ultimately comes from private banks, which admittedly create it out of thin air, and soak the taxpayers for a whopping interest bill; or it can borrow from its own bank, which also creates the money out of thin air, and avoid the interest.
Even a 12 year old can see how this argument is going to come out.