Obama and Hillary Clinton...Their objectives are money, power and oil. ...and power, and power, and power!

An "Up-date" to this commentary is published below (from CounterPunch.org).

Extra commentary by me...the real story follows.

Ellen Brown has been sending me her latest articles for several years and over that period of time I’ve begun to rely on her expertise (not always agreeing) in matters of finance and banking.  She is the author of several books including a best seller, “The Web of Debt”; she is also an attorney and the founder of the Public Banking Institute.   Her latest article, “Exposing the Libyan Agenda:  A Closer Look at Hillary's Emails” does not surprise me, albeit I have not previously thought about the connection between Hillary Clinton’s infamous e-mails and Muammar el-Qaddafi’s gold.  It does, however, bring to mind another story that may at the outset appear to have no relation to this one…but it does expose the corruption of the Obama White House and his entire administration which whom Hillary Clinton is part and parcel to…I should also add, the main stream media (MSM) as a co-conspirator to Obama’s House of Lords…Czars, he calls them.

That other story is all about Obama; a story not covered by the MSM.  The validity of the story may be in question but no-one has yet to deny it.  The title, “Russia “Shocked” Over $18 Billion Iran Payment To Obama After Failed US-Backed Saudi Coup” was published back in 2009. 

So why should anyone make a big deal out of Iran giving Obama eighteen billion dollars when it is widely known (outside the MSM) that Obama is one of Iran’s best friends.  The reason I brought this up was that supposedly, then President Medvedev of Russia, let it be known that the $18 billion was transferred to Obama’s “personal account”… Wow! That should be enough to at least make the late night news casts over at CNN or NBC… Even if it wasn’t true, they at least could have made a denial or some other explanation. ~ Norman E. Hooben

See also: Hillary Clinton’s Globalism – Get Rich Off the World
See also:  QOTD at bottom of this page.

Provided by Storm'n Norm'n

The following from Op Ed News

 

Exposing the Libyan Agenda:  A Closer Look at Hillary's Emails
By Ellen Brown

Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton's recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.

Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton's recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a "victory lap." "We came, we saw, he died!" she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, "as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain."

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, "the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as 'thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,' and 'kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant'."

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world's largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with "the full spectrum of military operations required."

The Secretary of State's victory lap was indeed premature, if what we're talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention. But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton's private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails, dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a "source comment," the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

Increase French influence in North Africa,
Improve his internal political situation in France,
Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a "rape policy" involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this "regime change" by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya's wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa -- or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Toppling the Global Financial Scheme

Qaddafi's threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

It is banks, not governments, that create most of the money in Western economies, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged. This has been going on for centuries, through the process called "fractional reserve" lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold domestically with central bank-created reserves, but gold remained the reserve currency internationally.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created money system globally. An IMF ruling said that no paper money could have gold backing. A money supply created privately as debt at interest requires a continual supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries wound up in debt to the IMF. The loans came with strings attached, including "structural adjustment" policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the US dollar traded interchangeably with gold as global reserve currency. When the US was no longer able to maintain the dollar's gold backing, in the 1970s it made a deal with OPEC to "back" the dollar with oil, creating the "petro-dollar." Oil would be sold only in US dollars, which would be deposited in Wall Street and other international banks.

In 2001, dissatisfied with the shrinking value of the dollars that OPEC was getting for its oil, Iraq's Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. Regime change swiftly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than just sell his oil in another currency.

As these developments are detailed by blogger Denise Rhyne:

For decades, Libya and other African countries had been attempting to create a pan-African gold standard. Libya's al-Qadhafi and other heads of African States had wanted an independent, pan-African, "hard currency."

Under al-Qadhafi's leadership, African nations had convened at least twice for monetary unification. The countries discussed the possibility of using the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money to buy African oil.

Until the recent US/NATO invasion, the gold dinar was issued by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL). The Libyan bank was 100% state owned and independent. Foreigners had to go through the CBL to do business with Libya. The Central Bank of Libya issued the dinar, using the country's 143.8 tons of gold.

Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community -- with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas.

Showing What Is Possible

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO's War on Libya and Africa:

[T]he goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.

Mystery Solved

Hilary Clinton's emails shed light on another enigma remarked on by early commentators. Why, within weeks of initiating fighting, did the rebels set up their own central bank? Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi's overthrow . . . may never be known for certain -- at least not publicly.

There the matter would have remained -- suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption -- but for the publication of Hillary Clinton's emails after an FBI probe. They add substantial weight to Newman's suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

Submitters Bio:

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling WEB OF DEBT. In THE PUBLIC BANK SOLUTION, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are http://EllenBrown.com, http://PublicBankSolution.com, and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

___________________________________________

Up-date : Source CounterPunch.org

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with “the full spectrum of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if what we’re talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention. But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails, dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1  A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

2 Increase French influence in North Africa,

3 Improve his internal political situation in France,

4 Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

5 Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a “rape policy” involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa – or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Toppling the Global Financial Scheme

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

It is banks, not governments, that create most of the money in Western economies, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged. This has been going on for centuries, through the process called “fractional reserve” lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold.  In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold domestically with central bank-created reserves, but gold remained the reserve currency internationally.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created money system globally. An IMF ruling said that no paper money could have gold backing. A money supply created privately as debt at interest requires a continual supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries wound up in debt to the IMF. The loans came with strings attached, including “structural adjustment” policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the US dollar traded interchangeably with gold as global reserve currency. When the US was no longer able to maintain the dollar’s gold backing, in the 1970s it made a deal with OPEC to “back” the dollar with oil, creating the “petro-dollar.”  Oil would be sold only in US dollars, which would be deposited in Wall Street and other international banks.

In 2001, dissatisfied with the shrinking value of the dollars that OPEC was getting for its oil, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. Regime change swiftly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than just sell his oil in another currency.

As these developments are detailed by blogger Denise Rhyne:

For decades, Libya and other African countries had been attempting to create a pan-African gold standard.  Libya’s al-Qadhafi and other heads of African States had wanted an independent, pan-African, “hard currency.”

Under al-Qadhafi’s leadership, African nations had convened at least twice for monetary unification.  The countries discussed the possibility of using the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money to buy African oil.

Until the recent US/NATO invasion, the gold dinar was issued by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL).  The Libyan bank was 100% state owned and independent.  Foreigners had to go through the CBL to do business with Libya.  The Central Bank of Libya issued the dinar, using the country’s 143.8 tons of gold.

Libya’s Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa).  In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas.

Showing What is Possible

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya’s own state-owned bank.

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

[T]he goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.

Mystery Solved

Hilary Clinton’s emails shed light on another enigma remarked on by early commentators. Why, within weeks of initiating fighting, did the rebels set up their own central bank? Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow . . . may never be known for certain – at least not publicly.

There the matter would have remained – suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI probe. They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

___________________________________________

 

Quote of the day...from Doug Ross Journal

 

QOTD: "If you think you are smarter than every foreign-policy expert in the room, any room, then it is tempting to make up your own grand strategy. That is what Obama has done, to an extent that even his critics underestimate. There is no “Obama doctrine”; rather, we see here a full-blown revolution in American foreign policy. And this revolution can be summed up as follows: The foes shall become friends, and the friends foes.

In the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia are out, Iran is in. Similarly, in the Far East, China is out, Vietnam is in. As for a special relationship, the president would rather have one with Cuba than Britain. Nothing could better illustrate the extent of Barack Obama’s repudiation of the “foreign-policy establishment.”

Yet grand strategies are judged by their consequences, not by their intentions, and in the Middle East—not to mention North Africa and parts of South Asia—the consequences are not looking pretty.

If the arc of history is in fact bending toward Islamic extremism, sectarian conflict, networks of terrorism, and regional nuclear-arms races, then the 44th president will turn out to have been rather less smart than the foreign-policy establishment he so loftily disdains." --Niall Ferguson

 

Death by Democrats...it's a naturally occurring event

Implying that Allah is God

Narrative before the post: Students Change Pledge Of Allegiance From ‘Under God’ To ‘Under Allah’ see below

Note : I was going to post this along with "The 'Real' State Of The Union" but
I thought it deserved it's own place albeit it is the Real State Of The Union

Implied: adjective

1. involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood:

an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.

 

If an objective historian were to...no, no, let me change that!  No if's about it!  Historians have agreed that the Constitution for the United States of America was founded upon Christian principles.  Although it is not explicitly stated within the 4, 400 word document, the implications are that the founders were undeniably Christians; whether they were good or bad Christians is another matter.

That influence does not make America a Christian nation, but it does provide a theological starting point for subsequent analysis of "intent."
Before he became president, Barack Hussein Obama was quoted as saying, “Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”  Here Obama implies that we were once a Christian nation but because we are no longer, then we are in danger.  Yet, Obama, since becoming president has encouraged sectarianism in his favoritism of and for Muslims ←(this is undeniable and there's no room for argument here).
The U.S. Constitution is considered (not implied) the basic law of the land and all subsequent laws must not deviate from that foundation.  The Founders intended that all relationships to the Constitution should be consistent  with the teachings of Biblical Christianity and be consistent with ancient Biblical law and 5,000 years of tradition.  Therefor, in my opinion, America is and should always be a Christian nation ←(this is not the establishment of a government church...it simply means we follow the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers...and it does not mean all Americans must be Christians).
Now if your wonder where I'm going with all this let me explain a bit of history for you.  At no time in the history of America has anyone ever proclaimed that God was not the creator in regards to whose rules we follow...it was never someone by the name of Allah.  No one in my lifetime has ever mention such un-Godly statements as, "In Allah we trust."  So I vehemently oppose any insinuation that Allah is on any level of respectability compared to God!
But now we have (influenced by Obama and company) a school principal, Tom Lopez, implying that Allah is God.  If you don't agree with him he calls it, "hate"...  Obviously if you look into his motives you can imply that Mr. Lopez hates God and America!  ~ Norman E. Hooben

______________________________________

Students Change Pledge Of Allegiance From ‘Under God’ To ‘Under Allah’

Posted by USHerald / March 1, 2016

Source

The political correctness movement across America is rapidly changing our government, immigration policies and definitely our education.

The pledge of allegiance has been unchanged and spoken in classrooms across our country from as early as 1892 when it was written and unchanged since "1954, when in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today."

It has served us as a country and a way of teaching young students about patriotism for over 100 years but now liberals and Muslims want to change all that to their current liking.

More from American News:

Students and teachers at Rocky Mountain High School in Colorado got quite the surprise when during the Pledge of Allegiance recited over the loud speaker; they heard “one nation under Allah” rather than “one nation under God.” 

The Pledge of Allegiance is read every Monday at the high school.   A member of the Cultural Arms Club decided to replace the word. 

Principal Tom Lopez has since gotten numerous complaints from angry parents, who believe that using “Allah” to replace “God” is unpatriotic. 

Lopez, however, is standing by his decision. 

“These students love this country,” he said, “They were not being un-American in trying to do this. They believed they were accentuating the meaning of the words as spoken regularly in English.” 

Danielle Clark, the communications director for the school district commented as well, “We understand not everybody would agree with the students’ choice. We’ve heard there are some who are upset.” 

She defends the Arabic reading by pointing out that the Arms Club has a known history for reading the Pledge in different languages—like French and Spanish. 

Most students at Rocky Mountain High are defending their classmates, pointing to the motto of the Cultural Arms Club, which is to “destroy the barriers, embrace the cultures.” 

Student Skyler Bowden said, “No matter what language it’s said in, pledging your allegiance to the United States is the same in every language.” 

Meanwhile, Lopez has been accused of pushing a Muslim agenda. 

“I’ve been shocked with prejudicial statements that have been made,” said Lopez. “I’ve been shocked with the lack of seeking understanding.  There’s definitely suspicion and fear expressed in these people’s minds. There’s some hate.”

What do you think of this change to the pledge?

Should 'under Allah' be substituted in American schools for 'under god'?
For comments go here:http://usherald.com/students-replace-under-god-with-under-allah-in-pledge/#

___________________________________________________________

_______________

_________

 

Thought you might like this: Letter from a Democrat....

Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, DC , 20510

Dear Senators:

I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a Command Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related stresses shortly after his retirement. It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important - honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments. I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.

Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government. I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold. I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year! Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers. So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.

Last year, the president spent an estimated $1.4 billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $ millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year! And our House of Representatives and Senate have  become  America's answer to the Saudi royal family. You have become the "perfumed princes and princesses" of our country.

In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare," a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.

You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the "one percenters," consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).

You understand very well the only two rules you need to know - (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a handout rather than a job. Your so-called "safety net" has become a hammock for the lazy. And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps - pretty much all Democrat voters - and the program is
absolutely rife with fraud and absolutely no congressional oversight?

I would offer that you are not entirely to blame. What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves. It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a
leadership role. To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.

As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 - 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I'm only guessing that this applies to the female sex
as well. Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?

While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or
hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day.

As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me "You'll just have to take a pill," while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.

The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares. This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the
chance to read one person's opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.

I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $19 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours,
ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.

My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy the country that I deeply love. You have put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power.

For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. And that, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress. The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits. This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.

Sincerely,

Bill Schoonover
3096 Angela Lane
Oak Harbor, WA

_________________________________________________________

 

Something else YOU should know! ↓

 

 

Plus! You got to see this!

Trey Gowdy leaves the Media SPEECHLESS!
It only takes Trey Gowdy 3 minutes to leave the Media totally speechless. RE-POST PATRIOTS!~Ace Dog @ Nation In Distress
Posted by Nation In Distress on Tuesday, March 10, 2015

 

And this ! (Every Hillary and/or Bernie supporter should watch this...10 Times! or more!)

_______________________________________________

See also: Some thoughts on Islam...here and in Europe

A word about the flag...no, not that one, the other one!

 

Attention! All Americans, You are hereby ordered to undergo...



Psychiatric Evaluations !

"The noose is tightening around the neck of freedom each day unconstitutional laws, such as Obamacare, and agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services are allowed to continue to exist."

Source: Freedom Outpost

Feds Recommend Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluations for All Americans

At this point in time, the Constitution for the United States of America is very close to ruin. In some areas, the administration and Congress have already shredded much of it. All that is left is a few individual God-given unalienable rights for the government to usurp away and this nation as a free republic ceases to exist. While many citizens of this great nation seethe in anger and focus on the dog and pony show 2016 presidential candidate nominee debates by both parties, this administration is moving rapidly closer to infringing on the one right through the back door that will leave this nation's citizenry defenseless – the Second Amendment.

With the government gaining control over the health care insurance agency, it has the power to make the rules on what is mandatory to have concerning coverage as well as what evaluations every individual is mandated to have according to the core coverage requirements. According to Infowars.com, "Next time you visit your doctor, be careful how you respond to his questions, or you may just be branded "mentally ill" and subjected to "treatment."

That is because a panel advising the Obama administration, in partnership with Big Psychiatry, wants to make doctors subject all American adults and children over age 12 to screening for alleged "mental health" disorders — particularly depression, at least to start with. Then, anyone found to harbor any alleged mental disorder, including children as young as eight, should undergo "therapy," often including powerful psychotropic medications that experts say have dubious value but often come with well-documented and highly dangerous side effects.

Remember, this will not be optional. Obamacare health plans will be forced to cover the service and pay for it. While the panel is limiting coverage to children over age 12, one can take to the bank the age requirement will go lower and lower for mental health evaluations and "behavioral health services," whether you as a parent want it or not. There will be no choice in the government's eyes – agree or face the wrath of Big Brother. "School teachers, social workers, and more are all already being enlisted in the federal government's search for supposed 'mental and behavioral health' issues — a list that is perpetually expanding as psychiatrists invent new 'illnesses'." Naturally, this could be a back door into gun control and confiscation, as well as denying future adults the right to keep and bear arms due to having a mental disorder or illness.

The American Psychiatric Association relies heavily on the DSM-V and has added new "mental health disorders" that would include American patriots, such as Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD), while removing disorders such as homosexuality. This "listing" is entirely subjective and constantly expanding "as psychiatrists vote to create new ones, literally, as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — the 'Bible' of psychiatry that has been widely criticized, even by leading psychiatrists." All health care insurance plans are required to conform to the minimum standards of mandatory coverage of Obamacare. Whether you want it or not, Big Brother will subject you to a mental health evaluation as well as your children over the age of 12.

However, the ACA did leave the door open to include children under the age of 12.

The New American reports: “Feds Seek “Mental Health” Testing of All Children, Adults”

The latest demands come from the United States Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF. The influential outfit, appointed by the Obama administration's increasingly radical Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommends various unconstitutional federal health policies for Big Brother to decree into pseudo-law via regulation.

Its latest recommendations for children and adolescents 12 and older were published earlier this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine. "The USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years," the HHS task force said in the summary of its position. "Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up."

The outfit also left the door open for recommending such "screening" for children under 12, too. "The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children aged 11 years and younger," the Obama HHS panel wrote. The recommendations also call for using controversial medications such as Prozac to drug children between 12 and 17, while advocating powerful psychotropic substances such as Lexapro for children as young as eight.

In the movie, Prozac Nation, based on the book of the same name by Elizabeth Wurtzel, "We are living in a Prozac nation – the united States of Depression." How apt and appropriate that statement will be when the "mandatory" evaluations for mental illness begin in earnest. Big Pharma and Big Brother have tag-teamed the citizens in order to produce a nation of "pill poppers" easily controlled through psychotropic medication. Big Pharma gets richer as more of the citizens are medicated and Big Brother garners the ultimate control over a zombie population.

Many may not realize that one in 10 "American school-aged boys has been labelled and drugged under the guise of 'Attention Deficit Disorder' (ADD) and 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' (ADHD). Known as the "father of the diagnosis," the now deceased Dr. Leon Eisenberg admitted in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel before his death that the supposed "disease" is a "prime example of a fabricated disorder." American citizens are witness to more and more normal behaviors being listed as symptoms of "alleged "disorders, which critics claim is a troubling trend. The supposedly "independent advisory panel" wants to cast a much wider net.

"The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women," said the outfit, which adds that its views should not be construed as the official position of the "Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality" or Obama's HHS. "Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up."

In its "rationale" for recommending that all U.S. adults be screened for depression, the panel claims that the "illness" is "common in patients seeking care in the primary care setting." It also cites "adequate evidence" allegedly showing some "improvements" if its advice is followed.

Not surprisingly, this "panel" downplays the risks cited by The New American as well as other sources – including Big Pharma and the government. "For instance, the panel admits that antidepressants are 'associated' with harms, including an increase in suicidal behavior, an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, fetal harm, and more. But despite that, the task force 'concludes with at least moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit' to screening all American adults. And by all, the task force means all: 'The USPSTF recommends screening in all adults regardless of risk factors,' it said."

Those who attempted to warn the citizenry about this unconstitutional Affordable Care Act were maligned as "heartless," "uncaring," and "selfish," among more unsavory terms, because liberals accused those individuals of wanting to deny health care services to those without insurance. These individuals never stopped to truly evaluate Obamacare or review the information many gathered and presented to inform the public of the invasiveness and loss of control in an individual's health care. Their only goal was the destruction of a free nation under the guise of an egalitarian utopia.

Although, there are individuals that claim to support the Constitution who accept and applaud "mandatory" health procedures – court ordered blood draws to determine whether someone is drunk driving comes to mind, court ordered colonoscopies, and roadside strip searches. Now, it will be mandatory for adults to endure a mental health illness evaluation. If you refuse, citing individual "rights," you can be diagnosed with ODD, meaning you will become a member of the Prozac Nation. Your children will be subjected to the same, whether you agree or not. Congratulations.

The moment the government realizes individuals accept it crossing one line, the government invariably expands its authority, unlawfully, and crosses into all areas. We, the citizens of the united States, are witness to this expansion of totalitarianism.

The new mandatory evaluation will go along nicely with the "National Adult Immunization Plan" (NAIP) "to track Americans' vaccination records, wage a massive propaganda campaign to 'encourage' more inoculations, and force more controversial vaccines on adults against their will. Critics noted the agenda includes eventually imposing vaccines at gunpoint." Let that sink in for a moment. The government will impose vaccines upon you at gunpoint.

Violating and ignoring the Constitution comes at a price. The price is freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and at times, life itself. It's a high price to pay. Yet, many Americans are willing to pay that price. And, they are willing for you to pay it as well. The noose is tightening around the neck of freedom each day unconstitutional laws, such as Obamacare, and agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services are allowed to continue to exist. No authority is given to the federal government to mandate health care, mental health of its citizens or to establish unconstitutional agencies. Yet, it is being done. The threat is becoming clearer and the solution more urgent. If violations of the Constitution are allowed to continue, the united States will be the Prozac nation Elizabeth Wurtzel so declared and the united States of Depression will be the reality.