EAS Test Allows Obama to ‘Seize Control’ of Communications Nov 9 At 2PM
(An actual alert code is being used by fema, not a test code so an actual alert will be broadcast on radio an tv. People who are not aware that it is supposed to be a test will think it is a REAL national emergency. Why is fema using a real code and not just a test code? Expect people to panic because they think it is real. Expect the government to screw the test up. This is test to control all communications. Its not for national emergencies.
The upcoming Emergency Alert System test being conducted by Homeland Security and FEMA on November 9 gives the government the pretext to “seize control” of communications in America, because for the first time broadcasters will have no choice on whether to partake. I don't trust the government, do you? This will be a government manufactured crisis.) Story Reports
In every previous instance where the EAS system was tested, broadcasters were in control of whether or not to flip the switch, although they did face losing their broadcast license if they failed to partake.
For the very first time, the federal government will have complete control over the broadcast frequency and will be able to override all radio and television stations.
Next month’s test also marks the first time that the alert has been conducted nationwide.
“The nationwide test may last up to three and a half minutes. The public will hear a message indicating that “This is a test.” The audio message will be the same for radio, television and cable,” states a FEMA press release.
The first of its kind test will give the government the pretext to take over all civilian communication outlets under the guise of a national emergency.
The process “seizes control of the broadcast frequency.”
Why it was being conducted in the middle of a work day at 2pm and not at midnight on a Saturday.
FEMA has indicated it isn’t even sure whether television broadcasts will display a message or not during the test.
The fact that the government has also chosen a date which is the reverse of 9/11 (the 9th of November being 11/9), is also unlikely to reduce anxiety surrounding the test.
According to a message being circulated by local school and government officials, there is "great concern in local police and emergency management circles about undue public anxiety over this test."
"Fear is that the lack of an explanation message might create panic.
The test is being conducted jointly by the US Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Weather Service.
The test is part of the Emergency Alert System designed to transmit, via TV and radio, emergency alerts and warnings regarding weather threats, child abductions and other types of emergencies, according to officials.
While state and local tests already take place frequently, a simultaneous, nationwide test of the national EAS "emergency action notification" code has never occurred.
........................................................................................
Various Comments By Other People:
Reminds me of this old movie called ‘Don’t Open the Window’. Makes me wonder what this broadcast signal is really prepping us for. On 9/11 we did not need the siren it was live on TV. This is really creepy that they want the attention of the masses all at once. Like a Pied Piper the Feds definitely have a hidden plan for this. And it is coming to a broadcast near you whether we like it or not.
My question is what is the validity of a Nationwide Alert System. From what I have read it is to report tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, etc. Typically disasters like this are localized events that would be covered by localized emergency alert systems right? Something seems Nefarious about a system that needs to control the entire media nationwide for any duration. This feels like a prelude to a much larger story.
Did it ever occur to you that the worlds internet and interdependent communications system is not a light switch that can be turned on and off?
It is far more complicated than that. Shutting down may be possible but the real trick is turning it all back on.
The governemnt says it is a test. Now eliminate that from a possible outcome and proceed from there.
Why Wednesday???? Most people are at work and also restaurant business begins to pick up slightly on Wednesday. Sunday would make more sense so as not to interfere with trafic, and normal routine human behavior. We do know that AU 55 makes is closest earth approach on Nov 9, 2011. Not a conincidence. The largest sun spot in many many years is evolving and more earth facing. Also the sun blew a huge CME of the north polar region. Very strange indeed because it did not come from a sun spot.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Obama and congress are allowing a shadow government of czars to exist that are not accountable to congress but only to obama
(Why does congress allow obama to appoint a shadow government of "czars"? Congress has the power to stop the unconstitutional appointment of a shadow government of "czars". Obama and congress are allowing a shadow government of czars to exist that are not accountable to congress but only to obama.) Story Reports
Obama's czars are seizing more power
Obama Proposes New Czar
Barack Obama has made a number of decisions during his tenure proving that he has little regard for the U.S. Constitution or the rule of law. At the top of the list is Obama’s penchant for installing radical leftists as czars in his administration without the constitutionally-mandated vetting and approval by the U.S. Senate.
These political appointees, called “czars,” are powerful and difficult to track. Nonetheless, Judicial Watch’s investigation team has taken on the important and exhaustive task of documenting these czar appointments (which number 45 according to our latest tally) and detailing the control these czars have over government operations.
Czar appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.
The Obama administration fights tooth-and-nail to allow these czars to operate in secret.
Every time Obama creates a new federal government bureaucracy he also creates the opportunity for more czars to join the Obama Big Government team.
Obama is proposing a new group of czars as a part of his “jobs” act – the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) czars. President Obama’s newest czars will be given the authority to manage over a trillion dollars of federal funding for roads, bridges, buildings, waterways, dams and other infrastructure.
Obama's style of management--bypassing the senate-confirmed agency heads--has failed to yield the results promised to the American people. You would think Obama would give up on the failed idea of using a curious collection of White House czars to manage complex economic and regulatory issues. No way.
Obama hopes that few legislators or American citizens will read the deadly details buried within the 199 pages of his proposed American Jobs Act that will establish this latest czar-ship, nor understand just how expensive AIFA is going to be.
As with Obama’s other czars, the AIFA czar comes with infrastructure requirements of his own: staff, office space and technology needed to perform the job. Managing what is in reality a trillion dollar budget is going to require a huge new staff that will, essentially represent an entire new federal agency.
Of course, nowhere does President Obama tell us why a new czar is required to manage infrastructure projects. More importantly, Obama does not explain why the vast federal bureaucracy now responsible for these activities must be bypassed and a new, redundant agency is built.
Make no mistake: the AIFA Czar position is redundant. All of the infrastructure projects and tasks identified to be performed by Obama’s new Czar are already the responsibilities of the Senate-confirmed heads of Department of Transportation, the U.S. General Services Administration and the Department of Energy.
Some of these tasks are:
"oversee entering into and carry out contracts, leases, cooperative agreements or any other transactions as are necessary"
to approve the acquisition, lease, pledge, exchange and disposal of real personal property
to review all financial assistance packages to all eligible infrastructure projects" which includes “any non-Federal transportation, water, or energy infrastructure project, or an aggregation of such infrastructure projects, as provided in this Act.
the construction, alteration, or repair, including the facilitation of intermodal transit, of the following subsectors:
Highways or roads.
Bridges.
Mass transit.
Inland waterways.
Commercial ports.
Airports.
Air traffic control systems.
Passenger rail, including high-speed rail.
Freight rail systems.
Waterwaste treatment facilities.
Storm water management systems.
Dams.
Solid waste disposal facilities.
Drinking water treatment facilities.
Levees.
Open space management systems.
Pollution reduced energy generation.
Transmission and distribution.
Storage.
Energy efficiency enhancements for buildings, including public and commercial buildings.
(Obama won't need to declare martial law to control everything because if his fake jobs bill passes obama through his czars will control everthing. Obama will morph from a hoax "president" into a full blown dictator.
Why does congress allow obama to appoint unconstitutional czars when congress could make law to keep obama from managing his shadow "government" of czars?
ANSWER: Congress is just as corrupt as obama!) Story Reports
Find Your Lawmaker And Ask Why Has Congress Allowed Obama To Form A Shadow Government Of CZARS?
Example Email:
Every time Obama creates a new federal government bureaucracy he also creates the opportunity for more czars to join the shadow government that congress allows obama to control like a dictator!
Obama won't need to declare martial law to control every thing because if his fake jobs bill passes, obama through his czars will control every thing.
Why do you sir allow obama to appoint unconstitutional czars?
If your answer is the executive branch can appoint czars why doesn't congress make law to keep obama from controlling America bypassing congress through a shadow government of his CZARS?
I want a simple answer.
Signed
Obama's czars are seizing more power
Obama Proposes New Czar
Barack Obama has made a number of decisions during his tenure proving that he has little regard for the U.S. Constitution or the rule of law. At the top of the list is Obama’s penchant for installing radical leftists as czars in his administration without the constitutionally-mandated vetting and approval by the U.S. Senate.
These political appointees, called “czars,” are powerful and difficult to track. Nonetheless, Judicial Watch’s investigation team has taken on the important and exhaustive task of documenting these czar appointments (which number 45 according to our latest tally) and detailing the control these czars have over government operations.
Czar appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.
A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.
The Obama administration fights tooth-and-nail to allow these czars to operate in secret.
Every time Obama creates a new federal government bureaucracy he also creates the opportunity for more czars to join the Obama Big Government team.
Obama is proposing a new group of czars as a part of his “jobs” act – the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) czars. President Obama’s newest czars will be given the authority to manage over a trillion dollars of federal funding for roads, bridges, buildings, waterways, dams and other infrastructure.
Obama's style of management--bypassing the senate-confirmed agency heads--has failed to yield the results promised to the American people. You would think Obama would give up on the failed idea of using a curious collection of White House czars to manage complex economic and regulatory issues. No way.
Obama hopes that few legislators or American citizens will read the deadly details buried within the 199 pages of his proposed American Jobs Act that will establish this latest czar-ship, nor understand just how expensive AIFA is going to be.
As with Obama’s other czars, the AIFA czar comes with infrastructure requirements of his own: staff, office space and technology needed to perform the job. Managing what is in reality a trillion dollar budget is going to require a huge new staff that will, essentially represent an entire new federal agency.
Of course, nowhere does President Obama tell us why a new czar is required to manage infrastructure projects. More importantly, Obama does not explain why the vast federal bureaucracy now responsible for these activities must be bypassed and a new, redundant agency is built.
Make no mistake: the AIFA Czar position is redundant. All of the infrastructure projects and tasks identified to be performed by Obama’s new Czar are already the responsibilities of the Senate-confirmed heads of Department of Transportation, the U.S. General Services Administration and the Department of Energy.
Some of these tasks are:
"oversee entering into and carry out contracts, leases, cooperative agreements or any other transactions as are necessary"
to approve the acquisition, lease, pledge, exchange and disposal of real personal property
to review all financial assistance packages to all eligible infrastructure projects" which includes “any non-Federal transportation, water, or energy infrastructure project, or an aggregation of such infrastructure projects, as provided in this Act.
the construction, alteration, or repair, including the facilitation of intermodal transit, of the following subsectors:
Highways or roads.
Bridges.
Mass transit.
Inland waterways.
Commercial ports.
Airports.
Air traffic control systems.
Passenger rail, including high-speed rail.
Freight rail systems.
Waterwaste treatment facilities.
Storm water management systems.
Dams.
Solid waste disposal facilities.
Drinking water treatment facilities.
Levees.
Open space management systems.
Pollution reduced energy generation.
Transmission and distribution.
Storage.
Energy efficiency enhancements for buildings, including public and commercial buildings.
(Obama won't need to declare martial law to control everything because if his fake jobs bill passes obama through his czars will control everthing. Obama will morph from a hoax "president" into a full blown dictator.
Why does congress allow obama to appoint unconstitutional czars when congress could make law to keep obama from managing his shadow "government" of czars?
ANSWER: Congress is just as corrupt as obama!) Story Reports
Find Your Lawmaker And Ask Why Has Congress Allowed Obama To Form A Shadow Government Of CZARS?
Example Email:
Every time Obama creates a new federal government bureaucracy he also creates the opportunity for more czars to join the shadow government that congress allows obama to control like a dictator!
Obama won't need to declare martial law to control every thing because if his fake jobs bill passes, obama through his czars will control every thing.
Why do you sir allow obama to appoint unconstitutional czars?
If your answer is the executive branch can appoint czars why doesn't congress make law to keep obama from controlling America bypassing congress through a shadow government of his CZARS?
I want a simple answer.
Signed
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Impeachment is now in play
Leo Donofrio
Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.
Folks, you have the evidence you need to protect the Constitution. And the stakes are as high as they come. It’s really up to you out on Main Street. If you are lazy with this, the Constitution may never recover. Mark my words. A full investigation needs to take place.
The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia’s bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.
Tim Stanley CEO Justia.com made $37 million creating databases from our national body of case law. Then his company took criminal liberties with that body of law, sabotaged the living hell out of it, and probably changed national history in the process too. You want to talk about the 1% vs the 99?
Tim Stanley is now in the very scary position of holding the evidence capable of putting Obama’s administration in true jeopardy. If Stanley was asked, forced or paid to sabotage the cases and/or to maintain them that way after Obama became President, then high crimes were committed. Therefore, Quo Warranto is not the only possible option on the table any longer.
Impeachment is now in play.
.......................................................................................
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."
And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains:
"Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.
In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.
The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.
4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.
6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.
Lawyer Leo Donofrio
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
The Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights. That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed.
My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.
Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.
Folks, you have the evidence you need to protect the Constitution. And the stakes are as high as they come. It’s really up to you out on Main Street. If you are lazy with this, the Constitution may never recover. Mark my words. A full investigation needs to take place.
The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia’s bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.
Tim Stanley CEO Justia.com made $37 million creating databases from our national body of case law. Then his company took criminal liberties with that body of law, sabotaged the living hell out of it, and probably changed national history in the process too. You want to talk about the 1% vs the 99?
Tim Stanley is now in the very scary position of holding the evidence capable of putting Obama’s administration in true jeopardy. If Stanley was asked, forced or paid to sabotage the cases and/or to maintain them that way after Obama became President, then high crimes were committed. Therefore, Quo Warranto is not the only possible option on the table any longer.
Impeachment is now in play.
.......................................................................................
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."
And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains:
"Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.
In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.
The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.
4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.
6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.
Lawyer Leo Donofrio
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
The Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights. That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed.
My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Aruba Tommy was Jessie Jackson's Travel "Assistent"
Aruba Tommy was Jessie Jackson's Travel "Assistent" and now he is spilling the beans on jessie jackson.
Gay ex-employee alleges sexual harassment, bias by Rev. Jackson and staff.
A former employee of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. has filed a discrimination complaint with Chicago's Commission on Human Rights, alleging that he was harassed by colleagues and by Jackson himself, and was terminated from his job at Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition based on his sexual orientation.
The complaint was filed against Jackson and Rainbow PUSH in early 2010 by Tommy R. Bennett, 55, an openly gay Chicago man who is known for past appearances on The Tom Joyner Morning Show where fans know him as "Aruba Tommy."
In the complaint, Bennett describes what he calls "demeaning and demoralizing tasks" that he was asked to perform as part of his duties for PUSH -- everything from escorting women to and from Jackson's hotel room and cleaning up after sexual intercourse, to fetching erectile dysfunction pills for Jackson and, in one instance, being asked to apply ointment to a rash on Jackson's inner thigh. He was asked to do these things, he says, because of his gender and his sexual orientation.
"They asked me to travel with the Reverend for just a couple of weeks, and that turned into a year," Bennett said in an interview with theGrio. "I would never apply for a job to pack his clothes, clean up the hotel room after he met different folks there, buy his underclothes. [But] I tried my best because I loved serving the community, and before my feelings, I put the community first.
(You won't hear about jessie jackson's gay travel boy on the national news but you do hear talk about allegations about Herman Cain.)
Gay ex-employee alleges sexual harassment, bias by Rev. Jackson and staff.
A former employee of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. has filed a discrimination complaint with Chicago's Commission on Human Rights, alleging that he was harassed by colleagues and by Jackson himself, and was terminated from his job at Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition based on his sexual orientation.
The complaint was filed against Jackson and Rainbow PUSH in early 2010 by Tommy R. Bennett, 55, an openly gay Chicago man who is known for past appearances on The Tom Joyner Morning Show where fans know him as "Aruba Tommy."
In the complaint, Bennett describes what he calls "demeaning and demoralizing tasks" that he was asked to perform as part of his duties for PUSH -- everything from escorting women to and from Jackson's hotel room and cleaning up after sexual intercourse, to fetching erectile dysfunction pills for Jackson and, in one instance, being asked to apply ointment to a rash on Jackson's inner thigh. He was asked to do these things, he says, because of his gender and his sexual orientation.
"They asked me to travel with the Reverend for just a couple of weeks, and that turned into a year," Bennett said in an interview with theGrio. "I would never apply for a job to pack his clothes, clean up the hotel room after he met different folks there, buy his underclothes. [But] I tried my best because I loved serving the community, and before my feelings, I put the community first.
(You won't hear about jessie jackson's gay travel boy on the national news but you do hear talk about allegations about Herman Cain.)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Crockett Keller, Texas Gun Safety Instructor, Refuses To Teach Liberals And Muslims
Crockett Keller, Texas Gun Safety Instructor, Refuses To Teach Liberals And Muslims
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.Cro
That's because the Texas firearm safety instructor refuses to teach liberals.
In a radio advertisement that could cost him his ability to teach concealed handgun safety classes, Keller made it clear that an Oct. 26 course at Keller's Riverside Store in Mason wouldn't be open to people who voted for President Obama and Muslims.
"If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class," Keller says in the advertisement, which is described as "controversial" on his own website. "You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law."
"Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame; I am Crockett Keller ... thank you and God bless America," the radio spot concludes.
Keller's restrictions could infringe on the rights of Texans seeking to acquire concealed weapons permits, but the 65-year-old told KVUE that he is just trying to protect his rights as a teacher.
"I call it exercising my right to choose who I instruct in how to use a dangerous weapon," Keller said, according to the news station.
"The fact is if you are a devout Muslim then you cannot be a true American," Keller reportedly added. "Why should I arm these people to kill me, that's suicide."
The Texas Hill Country businessman told The Houston Chronicle he has received many calls from neighbors who are supportive of his stance.
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.Cro
That's because the Texas firearm safety instructor refuses to teach liberals.
In a radio advertisement that could cost him his ability to teach concealed handgun safety classes, Keller made it clear that an Oct. 26 course at Keller's Riverside Store in Mason wouldn't be open to people who voted for President Obama and Muslims.
"If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class," Keller says in the advertisement, which is described as "controversial" on his own website. "You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law."
"Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame; I am Crockett Keller ... thank you and God bless America," the radio spot concludes.
Keller's restrictions could infringe on the rights of Texans seeking to acquire concealed weapons permits, but the 65-year-old told KVUE that he is just trying to protect his rights as a teacher.
"I call it exercising my right to choose who I instruct in how to use a dangerous weapon," Keller said, according to the news station.
"The fact is if you are a devout Muslim then you cannot be a true American," Keller reportedly added. "Why should I arm these people to kill me, that's suicide."
The Texas Hill Country businessman told The Houston Chronicle he has received many calls from neighbors who are supportive of his stance.
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS (The Heritage Foundation List)
Liberal ideas are a lot of things: dangerous, wasteful, unconstitutional, even socialist at times.
MOST LIBERAL IDEAS HAVE FAILED . . . miserably!
Liberals love to call themselves compassionate. So why do their ideas so often end up with catastrophic results on the people they're intended to help?
They call themselves progressive. Truth is, though, their ideas are recycled schemes that continue to blow trillions of dollars on bloated, failed programs that take the country backward.
They talk about personal liberty like they invented it. But everything they do butts into every corner of your personal life.
In short, many liberal ideas are recycled failures that backfire and can't get simple concepts straight.
1. The War on Poverty
In their compassion for the poor, liberals earmarked $50 billion in 1964 to provide medical care, housing, cash transfers, and food subsidies to ease the plight of the disadvantaged.
Hatched by social engineers who cooked up President Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society," the War on Poverty spawned a welfare mentality that has trapped the poor in a web of dependency, spent $16 trillion—without making a dent in the poverty rate—and will burn through another $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
2. The U.S. Department of Education
President Obama proposed a new education reform package called "Race to the Top," which includes increased federal funding to states whose public schools improve student performance.
The U.S. Department of Education has spent trillions of tax dollars growing a bloated, top-down bureaucracy, but American public education still lags behind other countries. Now, President Obama wants to bribe states with billions more if they give in to additional federal interference in their schools: "If states show that they’re serious about reform," says President Obama, "we’ll show them the money."
If these ideas are so good, why do liberals have to pay people to use them?
3. The U.S. Department of Energy
Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be.
Despite funding numerous projects that never get off the ground, the U.S. Department of Energy has seen its budget grow by more than $11 billion in the last 10 years—a 76% increase! Because our nation is looking for spending to cut, the DOE might be the place to start. Instead of focusing on opening new sources of energy, the DOE pushes politically correct pet projects that are expensed to the American people.
4. The Community Reinvestment Act
Liberals created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage private lenders to meet the needs of borrowers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
The CRA spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid-1990s under President Bill Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers—the low-income people the CRA was created to help—found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.
5. 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform
Senate liberals' latest immigration proposal offers multiple "paths to citizenship" for foreign nationals who are in America illegally.
They’re touting their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 as the complete and real solution to America’s immigration problems. Hoping Americans will ignore history, though, liberals’ current manipulation is as catastrophically irresponsible as the amnesty law Congress adopted in 1986, which more than quadrupled the population of people here illegally.
If $16 trillion hasn’t made a dent in the poverty rate, isn’t it kind of ridiculous to think another $10.3 trillion will solve the problem?
And if President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus didn’t create jobs, isn’t it ridiculous to think another $450 billion “jobs plan” will do the trick?
Of course it is.
President Obama and his liberal cohorts in Congress, however, don’t see a problem with recycling failed liberal ideas from the past and spending the country into oblivion to enact them.
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS (The Heritage Foundation List)
Liberal ideas are a lot of things: dangerous, wasteful, unconstitutional, even socialist at times.
MOST LIBERAL IDEAS HAVE FAILED . . . miserably!
Liberals love to call themselves compassionate. So why do their ideas so often end up with catastrophic results on the people they're intended to help?
They call themselves progressive. Truth is, though, their ideas are recycled schemes that continue to blow trillions of dollars on bloated, failed programs that take the country backward.
They talk about personal liberty like they invented it. But everything they do butts into every corner of your personal life.
In short, many liberal ideas are recycled failures that backfire and can't get simple concepts straight.
1. The War on Poverty
In their compassion for the poor, liberals earmarked $50 billion in 1964 to provide medical care, housing, cash transfers, and food subsidies to ease the plight of the disadvantaged.
Hatched by social engineers who cooked up President Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society," the War on Poverty spawned a welfare mentality that has trapped the poor in a web of dependency, spent $16 trillion—without making a dent in the poverty rate—and will burn through another $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
2. The U.S. Department of Education
President Obama proposed a new education reform package called "Race to the Top," which includes increased federal funding to states whose public schools improve student performance.
The U.S. Department of Education has spent trillions of tax dollars growing a bloated, top-down bureaucracy, but American public education still lags behind other countries. Now, President Obama wants to bribe states with billions more if they give in to additional federal interference in their schools: "If states show that they’re serious about reform," says President Obama, "we’ll show them the money."
If these ideas are so good, why do liberals have to pay people to use them?
3. The U.S. Department of Energy
Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be.
Despite funding numerous projects that never get off the ground, the U.S. Department of Energy has seen its budget grow by more than $11 billion in the last 10 years—a 76% increase! Because our nation is looking for spending to cut, the DOE might be the place to start. Instead of focusing on opening new sources of energy, the DOE pushes politically correct pet projects that are expensed to the American people.
4. The Community Reinvestment Act
Liberals created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage private lenders to meet the needs of borrowers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
The CRA spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid-1990s under President Bill Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers—the low-income people the CRA was created to help—found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.
5. 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform
Senate liberals' latest immigration proposal offers multiple "paths to citizenship" for foreign nationals who are in America illegally.
They’re touting their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 as the complete and real solution to America’s immigration problems. Hoping Americans will ignore history, though, liberals’ current manipulation is as catastrophically irresponsible as the amnesty law Congress adopted in 1986, which more than quadrupled the population of people here illegally.
If $16 trillion hasn’t made a dent in the poverty rate, isn’t it kind of ridiculous to think another $10.3 trillion will solve the problem?
And if President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus didn’t create jobs, isn’t it ridiculous to think another $450 billion “jobs plan” will do the trick?
Of course it is.
President Obama and his liberal cohorts in Congress, however, don’t see a problem with recycling failed liberal ideas from the past and spending the country into oblivion to enact them.
Dr. Ron Polland Video Evidence That Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate
Dr. Ron Polland Video Evidence That Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate
The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007.
Busted: White House Now Claims They Ordered Short-Form COLB From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008 Yet COLB Is Date Stamped 2007
The Obama lies keep mounting The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007
(Obama continues the deception about his short form birth certificate. This is more proof obama is a HOAX/FRAUD. Obama is the foreign enemy within.) Story Reports
The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007.
Busted: White House Now Claims They Ordered Short-Form COLB From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008 Yet COLB Is Date Stamped 2007
The Obama lies keep mounting The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007
(Obama continues the deception about his short form birth certificate. This is more proof obama is a HOAX/FRAUD. Obama is the foreign enemy within.) Story Reports
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
