02/9/13

Drone warfare on Americans, coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

The headlines are scary enough to cause nightmares but our ever diligent news media either ignores the implications and lulls us back to sleep or makes light of the situation. Such is America today where the government first claimed the right to suspend the Bill of Rights to gain advantage and track terrorists. Then they put most of us in the categories they defined as terrorists. Then that same government gave itself the power to arrest and detain without trial or legal representation any American who opposed the government. And, of course most conservatives do oppose the government we now have. Then the government announced they will be flying predator drones across America’s skies. And now, our government declares it has the right to kill any American, on American soil, it decides is supporting terrorism – and take note of how they defined terrorists in the first place.

For purposes of explanation I am defining the Democratic Party as “our government” since they successfully stole the last elections and are now calling all the shots in Washington. (no pun intended) Now some of our elected representatives are trying to negotiate a compromised solution whereby it would take a panel of judges to decide which American will be targeted for assassination. Isn’t that a relief.

US senators propose assassination court to screen drone targets

By Judson Berger, Published February 08, 2013, FoxNews.com

It sounds like an Orwellian idea from a futuristic sci-fi movie. Government officials gather in a secret courtroom, poring over documents and weighing whether to approve the fly-by killing of a suspected terrorist.

If the judges say yes, the target dies. If not, the target lives.

But U.S. senators are now floating the idea of an assassination court as a way to rein in the ever-expanding drone program — a secretive operation that, as it is, sounds like thriller fiction, but isn’t.

The idea was bandied about during Thursday’s confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, who fueled the talk by saying he thinks the concept is “worthy of discussion.” The nominee, as a vocal supporter of the targeted-killing program, has come under scrutiny for what some lawmakers see as the administration’s unchecked power to kill, even if the target is an American citizen.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/08/us-senators-propose-assassination-court-to-screen-drone-targets/?test=latestnews#ixzz2KRD6bVhq

Will there be more house explosions coming soon to your neighborhood?

There has been a rash of house explosions across America lately, due mostly to faulty gas lines. A few were even the result of some murderous intent. I am not a conspiracy nut like the guy who claimed the house explosion in Indianapolis was caused by a drone launched Hellfire missile. But images of drone strikes in Pakistan that have targeted al Qaida insurgents produce results that are almost identical. It is also well known that the government has been creating a database of GPS coordinates for every home. Global Positioning Satellites have been used to target the drone strikes in Pakistan, as well. Lately it seems fairly easy to spot the homes of conservatives because they almost always have an American flag outside. And conservative bloggers like me get a lot of web site hits from Washington, D.C. Maybe the current wave of house explosion were caused by gas explosions but it sure gives the government a handy excuse to cover their collective asses when the poo-poo hits the fan.

Local news media thinks this is all very funny.

The Kentucky Enquirer ran some political cartoons on its editorial page today. They called it “A lighter take on the week’s news” but I don’t see any humor in it. The largest one shows a smiling Obama riding a predator drone. Granted, the cartoonist made reference to the Constitution but since the media, with the exception of Fox News, hasn’t given much coverage to the discussion on drone warfare over America’s skies or the authorized killing of Americans, the point of the humor doesn’t come across very well.

This is what happens when the mainstream news media fails to publish stories that may cause embarrassment to a Democrat administration. Couple the Fox News coverage about the drones to another story this past week about a candid remark made by Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters from California and you have all the makings of a Tom Clancy novel. This was picked up by several conservative blogs including the following from theconservativebyte.com.

Maxine Waters: Obama Has a Database on Everything About Every Individual

Posted on February 9, 2013

Here’s Maxine Waters. This was last Sunday on TV One’s Washington Watch with Roland Martin. Maxine Waters, Democrat from California. Her district is basically the Watts area of Los Angeles, and Roland Martin said, “The reality is like anything else, you’d better get what you can while Obama’s there because, look, come 2016, that’s it.” Now, what Roland Martin’s saying here is all of you who are looking for prosperity from the government, you better get it and get it now. Get it while you can, get it while Obama’s there, because come 2016, he’s not gonna be there, and then you’re gonna be on your own. You better get what you can get now. And here’s what Maxine Waters said in reply.

WATERS: Well, you know, I don’t know. And I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/02/maxine-waters-obama-has-a-database-on-everything-about-every-individual/#ixzz2KQw8yj3Y

Rush Limbaugh also had an interesting opinion on this candid statement. “RUSH: Hmm. Okay. Cool. Fine. What’s that got to do with getting benefits after 2016? Maybe she didn’t understand what he was talking about. He’s talking about, you better get in there, get your goodies right now because in 2016 he’s gone. Better get it while you can. She says, “I don’t know, Roland, he’s got this database.” Maybe she means he’s not going anywhere. Maybe that’s what she means, folks. He’s not going anywhere, ’cause he’s got this database with information about everything on every individual. I’ll bet that’s what she meant, Snerdley. That 2016 isn’t a big deal ’cause he’s not going anywhere. That has to be it. ”

And lets not forget that ominous comment attributed to Barack Hussein Obama’s White House Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett, “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.”

Now all we need to worry about is Barack Hussein Obama’s Civilian National Security Force, the one he promised to create back in July 2008. With this update from WesternJournalism.com.

Is Obama Looking To Create A Civilian National Security Force?
February 9, 2013 By Daniel Noe

The Department of Homeland Security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in just the past 10 months. The military used approximately 70-million rounds in each year of the Iraq war. Could it be that DHS is looking to arm a new civilian national security force?

It’s getting to sound like George Orwell’s 1984 all over again, only worse. Orwell’s worst fears were re-indoctrination.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.

02/9/13

Weekly Featured Profile – David Orr

KeyWiki

David Orr has been Cook County Clerk since 1991. He is the chief election authority for suburban Cook County, Illinois, the third largest election jurisdiction in the United States.

As president of the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks, and a member of the Board of Advisors to the Election Assistance Commission – he has played pivotal roles in helping to shape federal and state election reforms.

In 1996, Orr successfully spearheaded the legal fight to fully implement the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the motor voter law. Overcoming “stiff partisan opposition,” Orr argued that prohibiting voters who registered under NVRA from participating in state and local elections violated constitutional rights and threatened to disenfranchise voters. Just prior to the November 1996 presidential election, a federal appellate court judge agreed with Orr and refused to overturn a lower-court’s decision.

The motor-voter legislation combined with Orr’s ambitious and creative efforts to register new voters at grocery stores, sporting events, schools and summer fairs, has resulted in a record number of voters in Illinois. Since taking office in 1990, more than 1 million new voters have been added to the county voting rolls.

Also, Orr led the fight for the new early voting legislation, which will allow people to vote over a 20-day period prior to an election without having to provide a reason or excuse.

Orr has been honored by the Communist Party USA led Chicago Peace Council and he has long term ties to Chicago’s largest Marxist group, Democratic Socialists of America.

He has been a regular at the annual Chicago Democratic Socialists of America organized Eugene V. Debs – Norman Thomas – Michael Harrington Dinner since the 1980s.

The Chicago Democratic Socialists of America PAC endorsed four candidates in the 1990 Democratic primary election, two of whom won: Miguel del Valle won reelection as the Democratic candidate to the State Senate from the 4th Senate District (he is now Chicago City Clerk) and David Orr won the Democratic nomination for County Clerk.

Democratic Socialists of America member Monty Tarbox, also served on Orr’s staff during the 1980s.

In the early 1990s, Orr was a leader of Progressive Chicago, a sister group to the radical New Party, alongside several DSAers, two ACORN leaders and a young radical lawyer named Barack Obama.

In the 1990s, Orr was an early supporter of Soviet front activist Alice Palmer in her bid for U.S. Congress.

In the mid-1990s, David Orr was listed as a member of Friends of Alice Palmer, alongside future Congressman and DSA member Danny Davis, later convicted fraudster Tony Rezko and Barack Obama.

(more…)

02/9/13

Thousands Oppose Governor O’Malley’s Ill-conceived Gun Bills

By: James Simpson
Accuracy in Media

Exclusive to Accuracy in Media

Wednesday I traveled to Annapolis to testify in opposition to SB 281, the painfully misnamedFirearms Safety Act of 2013.” I was not alone. Media outlets counted “hundreds” but there were probably at least 5,000. According to the office of Senate Judiciary Proceedings Committee Chairman Brian Frosh, 2,444 people originally signed up to testify. Another 200 or so signed handwritten sheets to voice their opinions. Within the Miller Senate Office Building, the hearing room and two overflow rooms were closed as they reached their rated capacity. The hallways were jammed with people. Thousands of people milled about the State House courtyard outside.

I was told it was likely the largest crowd ever signed up to testify in Maryland history. They have not taken a count of supporters vs. opponents, but most opposed.

There were actually four gun-related bills slated for discussion: SB 281, SB 266, SB 420 and SB 228, but the primary focus was SB 281. Hearings began at approximately 1:00 p.m. Chairman Frosh allotted eight hours for testimony, four hours for each side.

Governor O’Malley began the testimony, stating in his remarks that they were only making “sensible” proposals and weren’t trying to take away anyone’s gun rights. In response, Carroll County Senator Joseph Getty relayed concerns from retired law enforcement members in his community who had faced death threats from criminals, afraid their gun rights would be lost. O’Malley replied without irony that there would be exceptions for law enforcement.

Thirty-three people testified in support of the bill, primarily Democrats in various state and local government posts who Governor O’Malley could rely on for political support, and a few “expert witnesses.” A few local leftist advocacy groups also testified. They told us not to worry about the Second Amendment because, after all, the U.S. Constitution was a “living document.” They added that Bigfoot has been sighted in Montgomery County, butterflies are free and unicorns really do fly.

The last few O’Malley supporters trailed out of the building before 8 p.m., but at that point Chairman Frosh said there were still over 1,000 opponents who had not yet spoken. He cut off further testimony at 9 p.m., but allowed those still waiting to come to the podium and announce their names. When I left at 9:30, there remained a line that stretched out of the hearing room, down the hall, around the corner, along the main hallway and down the stairs to the first floor.

As is typically the case, the O’Malley crowd trotted out an endless stream of straw-man arguments to plead support for this awful legislation. Proponents described the gruesome impacts of gun wounds, the violent-crime rate, scary magazine capacities of some semi-automatic firearms, and the entirely false characterization of “assault” weapons subject to this new legislation as machine guns.

Yes, these are straw-man arguments. We all know that gunshots cause terrible wounds. We all know that people are wounded and killed every year by other people with guns, and we all agree it is tragic. But it is utterly irrelevant to this debate because restrictions and/or bans on firearms—or any weapon of criminal choice for that matter—don’t affect criminal behavior in any material way. Virtually no crime is committed with legally owned firearms. Last week, Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker told Bill Maher:

“In the analysis of gun murders and shootings in my city, I could only find one in the entire time I’ve been mayor—and unfortunately there have been hundreds and hundreds—where a person who was involved in a shooting where they had their gun legally, where they legally acquired their gun. The guns that are causing carnage in our cities, my city and our country, every single year are acquired illegally.”

Both statistics and common sense tell us this must be so. Law-abiding citizens abide by the law. Criminals obtain guns illegally and have many methods to do so. American street gangs are a major source of inner city gun violence. Does anyone seriously believe another gun law will disarm them?

In Maryland, regulated firearms are currently subject to both the federal NICS instant check required of all firearms purchases and a state check with a seven-day waiting period. The new proposals would ban many guns and effectively create massive new regulatory burdens for legal firearms purchasers and owners, under the threat of incarceration, who will also have to be fingerprinted. This new bill will check the check. New handgun owners will also have to pay a $100 license fee every five years and take a 16-hour course in firearms safety at their own expense. Will the criminals enroll too?

O’Malley’s only justification for these new, punitive restrictions is that they may discourage “straw purchases,” i.e., legal purchases made on behalf of a prohibited person. Is the seven-day waiting period not enough of a discouragement? Apparently not. And what happens when O’Malley and Co. discover, as they will, that these new onerous restrictions have no impact on illegal gun crime? When the next mass shooting occurs—and it will, precisely because the gun ban crowd is taking exactly the wrong approach to this problem—there will be calls for a complete ban, because, they will say, we didn’t do enough.

That is what they really want anyway, so let’s indulge them in a thought experiment. What if we completely banned all firearms? Let’s assume it actually worked and Adam Lanza had no recourse to firearms. Could he not jump in a car and attack kids at a crowded bus stop, perhaps killing more? How about firebombs?

For the 1999 Columbine, Colorado High School attack, the two perpetrators, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, manufactured a total of 99 explosive devices. This included two diversionary bombs set elsewhere in town that exploded before the attack, 30 bombs that exploded at the school, 46 more that did not explode, 13 in their cars and eight more at their residences. Police determined that the two unexploded propane bombs left in the cafeteria could have killed up to 488 students, all who were at the cafeteria when the bombs were set to detonate.

Great Britain, which has had a complete ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons since 1998, is held up as the consummate example of gun control. Yes, Britain does have lower firearms homicide rates than the U.S., but the trend in Britain is up. Since the ban, British gun crime of all types has skyrocketed. Handgun crime increased 123 percent between 1998 and 2002 and has remained well above its pre-ban levels. Despite increasingly draconian gun laws, gun crime in Britain has increased almost 600 percent since 1978.

One cannot argue that even complete gun bans would prevent criminals and terrorists in the U.S. from obtaining guns. There is a robust international trade in small arms, much of it illegal. The world market is awash in weapons from past wars and defunct governments. Many of these are genuine assault weapons, i.e., capable of fully automatic fire. Most weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels are of this type, and did not come from U.S. dealers as alleged by the gun control crowd, because they are much more difficult and expensive to obtain in the U.S.

In 1996, U.S. Customs seized a shipment of 2,000 AK-47 genuine, fully automatic assault rifles from the China Overseas Shipping Co. (COSCO), the merchant marine fleet of Communist China’s Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). It was the largest seizure of its kind in U.S. history. The intended recipients were allegedly Los Angeles-based illegal Chinese immigrant gangs.

New Americans! Who knew?

COSCO delivers thousands of containers to the U.S. each day. Do you think this was the only shipment? More recently China has been implicated in a scheme to sell surface-to-air missiles to purchasers inside the U.S. Governor O’Malley has enthusiastically cultivated business with these “friends.”

More New Americans!

Gun banners argue, wouldn’t all this be worth it if we could even just save one life? They never consider the other side of the argument, i.e., what are we losing by restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms? A Justice Department study found that firearms are used about 82,000 times per year to defend against violent assault and property crimes. How many of those 82,000 have to lose their lives to save the one?

This is a minimum estimate. The actual number is likely much larger as many crimes go unreported and many defensive uses of firearms prevent a crime from occurring at all, so there is nothing to report. In an illustrative case familiar to this writer, an elderly man with a concealed-carry permit was approached in a Philadelphia parking lot by a group of young men who obviously were targeting him. While they were still a good distance off, he lifted his jacket to reveal his holstered weapon. The men fled. He got in his car and drove off.

During the Rodney King riots in 1992, many Korean business owners stood guard over their property with their firearms prominently displayed. Korean businesses suffered a large proportion of the losses during the riots, and those firearms proved critical to their survival when police abandoned the area and left them to face the rioters alone. They were exceedingly grateful for high-capacity magazines.

The issue of “gun free” zones was mentioned but not seriously discussed. Allow me. In 1983, the city of Takoma Park, Maryland declared itself a “Nuclear Free Zone” in a silly nod to the nuclear disarmament movement. Of course, Takoma Park, proud of its lunatic-left heritage, has doubled down with a 20 year “nuclear free” anniversary announcement in 2003.

Does any serious person believe this sentiment will deter any nation intent on obtaining and/or using nuclear weapons? Does any serious person believe that Iran would be dissuaded from attacking Washington, DC because Takoma Park declared itself “nuclear free?” Do they think that the nuclear blast and fallout would somehow circumvent the enlightened Takoma Park?

The same kind of mindless logic animates proponents of “gun free zones.” Once again, it makes the absurd assumption that people of violent intent will be deterred by some idiotic pronouncement. The opposite is true. The Virginia Tech massacre occurred in a “gun free” zone. The Aurora, Colorado killer chose the one movie theater with an advertised “gun free” policy. Sandy Hook was “gun free.” These kinds of mass killers choose locations where they will face no armed opposition. The minute anyone with a gun appears, they commit suicide or flee.

Gun free zones should properly be called “free fire” zones, because they assure the shooter will be unimpeded in his efforts. Advocates of “gun free” insanity can claim at least partial responsibility for these mass murders.

Disgraceful.

The one positive aspect of these hearings was the focus on mental illness. Mass killers are mentally ill. Psychiatric medications may play a role as well. According to polls by both Rasmussen and Gallup taken shortly after Newtown, most Americans believe treating mental illness is the most important factor in preventing these mass crimes.

But if every Adam Lanza in the U.S. was institutionalized, schools would remain vulnerable. Because while the Department of Homeland Security turns against its own patriotic, law-abiding citizens, calling us potential domestic terrorists, it blatantly ignores the many terrorist cells in this country here, now.

There are at least 35 Jamaat-ul Fuqra terrorist training camps in operation within the United States today. These are privately-owned compounds, complete with gun ranges and underground bunkers. They have been implicated in multiple murders, bombings and other crime. There are Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist cells operating throughout the U.S. Many of their members entered illegally through our porous southern border.

Even more New Americans!

Schools are natural targets precisely because school shootings have become such a focal point of national angst. They threaten our nearest and dearest. Also, because foolish politicians like this governor will double down on gun ban efforts and if another attack occurs, the terrorists will gain freedom from the one thing they do fear in this country: an armed populace. When we are disarmed, they will have complete reign. This is a likely strategic consideration of terrorists.

This ill-conceived legislation will not stop school shootings. Even Joe Biden says so!

Is there any doubt that the Sandy Hook teachers who sacrificed their lives in a vain attempt to save their children wished they had been armed that fateful day? Is there any doubt that a few armed citizens can provide immediate, on-the-ground security in the event of future such attacks? Is there any doubt that firearms can be an effective deterrent to would-be killers?

There is a reason we have the Second Amendment, and it is needed now more than ever. Loosen Maryland’s onerous restrictions on concealed carry—recently found unconstitutional. Train teachers. Do extensive background checks on them if you want. Stop putting our lives at risk with further bureaucratic restrictions. Trust your law-abiding citizens. Let us defend ourselves and our children. There are no more dedicated servants.

James Simpson is a former Office of Management and Budget (White House budget office) economist and budget analyst. He is currently a businessman and freelance writer. Best known for his exposé on the Cloward Piven Strategy of manufactured crisis, his writings have been published in American Thinker, The New Media Journal, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, Whistleblower, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences. Email James.

02/9/13

Carl Sciortino: Marxist Musical Chairs in Massachusetts

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Democratic Socialists of America aligned President Barack Obama, has appointed DSA supported Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, as US Secretary of State.

Carl Sciortino

Carl Sciortino

Leftist Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey is standing for Kerry’s old job, while Democratic Socialists of America supported Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino has put his hand up for Markey’s Congressional seat.

Sciortino said in a statement to a local newspaper:

“I am running to continue the strong progressive leadership that the families of the Fifth District have always counted on. I look forward to bringing my record of accomplishment to Washington to fight for our progressive values…I am proud to call Ed Markey my Congressman and I am dedicated to helping elect him as our next U.S. Senator. His record on behalf of Massachusetts families – fighting for jobs, consumers’ rights and a healthier environment— is the kind of leadership Massachusetts needs in the Senate and it is a record I look forward to continuing in Congress.”

Serving in the Massachusetts State Legislature since 2004, Sciortino has been backed by Boston Democratic Socialists of America his entire term of office. If he makes it to Congress, Sciortino will join a long list of Reps. who owe their careers, at least partially, to the US’ largest Marxist organization.

According to to the Boston DSA newsletter, The Yankee Radical, September 2004, page 6:

Although supporting all of the CC” (Commonwealth Coalition) ”endorsements, Boston DSA has prioritized the campaign of Carl Sciortino for State Representative in Somerville. And in addition to our’ work with the Coalition, DSA is urging a vote for Andrea Cabral for Suffolk County Sheriff and John Kerry for President.

According to The Yankee Radical November 2004, the DSA influenced Commonwealth Coalition played a major part in Sciortino’s primary victory:

Most notable of the Coalition s winning candidates was Carl Sciortino, who defeated powerful conservative Rep. Vincent Ciampa in the 24th Middlesex district. With the support of many of the member groups of the Coalition, including DSA, Sciortino s campaign was able to overcome a last minute effort to save Ciampa by conservative House Speaker Tom Finneran.”

‘The September 14th State Primaries brought a welcome victory to Boston DSA and Massachusetts progressives. Carl Sciortino , a 26-year-old progressive activist and LGBT-rights advocate, edged out 16-year leadership incumbent Vinnie Ciampa in the Somerville-Medford 34th Middlesex District by 117 votes…Together, we were able to bring down one of Finneran’s staunchest lieutenants.

Carl Sciortino made a perfect champion for this broad progressive alliance. As Research Manager for Fenway Community Health Center, Carl saw the devastating effects of budget cuts on AIDS-prevention work. He became active in the Stop the Cuts Campaign, advocating for progressive tax reforms as the best way to prevent cuts to public health programs, public schools, and local aid. At the same time, he was active with OutSomerville and the Freedom to Marry Coalition.”

DSA led Neighbor to Neighbor came on board to help design, and later manage, the field plan.

According to DSA leader and Neighbor to Neighbor Director Harris Gruman:

In July and August, volunteers streamed in from the Stop the Cuts coalition, the Progressive Democrats of Somerville, Freedom to Marry and other groups.This gave Carl an impressive grassroots army of highly motivated door to- door canvassers and phone callers who contacted voters three to five times each.

”This surprise victory for progressives shows what can be done with clear issues and a strong grassroots campaign. Even more important, it shows the Legislature that progressive taxes and equal marriage rights are not the issues Republicans use against Democrats they re issues the left uses to defeat conservatives! Moral of the story: PINKOS UNITE!

On June 13, 2006, almost 50 supporters attended a fundraiser at the Somerville Massachusetts home of DSA member Dick Bauer to help DSA aligned Congressman Bernie Sanders in his successful quest to become the next U.S. Senator from Vermont.

The reception, organized by local volunteers as part of a national project of the Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee, raised almost $5,700 for the Sanders Campaign. Sponsors of the event included Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo, State Senator Patricia Jehlen, and State Representatives Anne Paulsen, Alice Wolf, Denise Provost and Carl Sciortino.

The Yankee Radical, Aug. 2006, p7

The Yankee Radical, Aug. 2006, p7

Carl Sciortino was also endorsed by Boston DSA in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

No doubt, if Ed Markey becomes a US Senator, Boston DSA will back Carl Sciortino in the Democratic primary for Markey’s vacant Congressional seat.

DSA influence is rampant in the Massachusetts State Legislature, as it in the US House of Representatives.

If Carl Sciortino becomes a US Congressman, he will be simply moving from one Marxist infiltrated body to another.

02/9/13

Did you know that John Brennan, nominee for CIA Director, is a Muslim convert who was turned to Islam by the Muslim Brotherhood?

Hat Tip: BB

Read more at Bare Naked Islam…

On Tom Trento’s radio show today, former FBI agent, John Guandolo, who wrote the first Muslim Brotherhood training manual for the FBI, outs John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA Director, as having converted to Islam while working in Saudi Arabia.

02/9/13

FULL INTERVIEW: Dr. Ben Carson on Hannity

Hat Tip: BB

Read more at The Right Scoop…

02/9/13

Dr. Benjamin Carson: “I Would Be Willing to Debate Anyone on the President’s Team on Healthcare”

Hat Tip: BB

Read more at Gateway Pundit…

02/9/13

Canada’s organic free-for-all

By: Mischa Popoff

You’re reaching for a bag of apples at the grocery store and you notice a smaller bag at more than double the price labeled “Canada Organic.” Should you pay more for less in the interests of feeding your family purer, more nutritious food?

Try to imagine being the only team at the Olympics that doesn’t have to have its athletes tested for performance-enhancing drugs. Sound absurd? Welcome to the Canadian organic sector.

Canada is the only G20 nation that fails to include testing in its organic regulations. Testing is only mentioned once, in passing, in the preamble, where it is stipulated that Canada’s organic standard “does not purport to address all the safety aspects associated with its use.” This thereby absolves the CFIA of any culpability should someone try to test organic product only to have a test tube blow up in his face.

Not that anyone will ever bother doing so mind you, given that the rest of this regulation relies completely on record-keeping and record-checking. You know, the same system that failed to keep Bernie Madoff in check.

The American standard is clear on organic testing. If pesticide residues are found, the certifying agent “must promptly report such data.” And if levels “are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s tolerance for the specific residue detected,” then the product in question is rejected. In other words, American organic food must be at least 95 percent more pure than conventional food.

And still, Canadian officials are managing to sign agreements with American officials to have Canadian organic product accepted into the American market based only on paperwork. Same with Europe.

The most recent of these agreements is with Switzerland. It throws the gates of organic free-trade wide open in spite of the fact that the Swiss require field testing and we don’t. How could the antiseptically efficient Swiss have missed the fact that our authorities rely only on paperwork?

What’s more, the Swiss stipulate that “There should be no detectable residues of [chemically-synthesized crop protection products] on the organic produce,” while the Canadian standard goes out of its way to avoid making any such declaration, averring that “this standard cannot assure that organic products are entirely free of residues of prohibited substances and other contaminants.”

Still wondering if you should by the smaller bag of apples?

Certainly we can accept that organic products can never be “entirely free of residues.” But why doesn’t the CFIA mirror the American standard which guarantees a sizable and quantifiable reduction in prohibited substances of 95 percent or more?

Our trading partners all take steps to prevent fraud in their organic sectors. Canada by contrast invites it. And since we allow any farmer, processor, broker-trader, or certifying agency located anywhere in the world to become certified under our organic standard, we now stand poised to act as the back-door to the world’s most lucrative markets for organic food.

Foreign businesses already provide the lion’s share of the product being certified by the CFIA as “Canada Organic.” With these trade agreements in place, businesses that supply the Swiss, EU and American markets can now become certified under Canada’s standard and thereby avoid being subjected to a test to prove their organic integrity. And for some strange reason no one sees a problem with this.

Surely someone should ask Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz about this. Whatever his response, watch as “organic” businesses the world over win gold by using and abusing Canada’s bureaucratic organic standard.

So please, put down that small bag and buy the regular apples. They’re not only cheaper and every bit as pure and nutritious, but there’s actually a better chance they’re Canadian!

Mischa Popoff is a former organic farmer and Advanced Organic Farm and Process Inspector. He’s a Policy Advisor for The Heartland Institute, a Research Associate for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and is the author of Is it Organic? which you can preview at www.isitorganic.ca.

02/9/13

OIC Member State Breaks Its Own Flagship UNHRC Resolution 16/18

By: Aeneas Lavinium
ICLA

Buried in the sand – Egypt’s credibility as an advocate of religious freedom.

Egypt has broken the OIC’s (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s) flagship human rights document UNHRC Resolution 16/18 that the OIC wants the whole world to embrace. In an act of supreme hypocrisy Egypt’s Government seems to be deliberately creating a discriminatory Constitution. Egypt’s Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II recently labelled the country’s new constitution “discriminatory” (1).

Egypt is a member of the OIC, an organisation which has been trying for many years to bully and cajole the world into adopting a global blasphemy law. Its latest manoeuvre to achieve this is UNHRC Resolution 16/18, the text of which can be found on the website of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (2).

When one reads the text of Resolution 16/18 it seems like a document that any reasonable person may be inclined to support. After all, its stated purpose is:

“Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief” (2) (emphasis added)

Who could really object to a document with such intentions? However, the document’s real purpose is not to prevent religious discrimination but to facilitate it. This can be seen clearly in the policies and practices of the very group of countries, the OIC, that have been promoting it. The OIC’s record with regard to religious tolerance is in a word – shameful! Nowhere on Earth is religious freedom so inadequately protected.

The motive of those who came up with the resolution is therefore clear – to extend Islamic blasphemy laws to the non-Islamic world. Resolution 16/18 will allow the same sort of religious bullying and outright persecution that goes on in OIC member states. Western tyrants of course will go along with this so then can augment their own secularised blasphemy laws that are intended to stifle free speech effectively criminalise critics of Government policy.

The new Egyptian constitution is effectively an attack on the non-Muslim people of Egypt. The discrimination that it legitimises therefore demonstrates clearly that OIC member states are not interested in religious freedom as it is understood in the West. Rather the OIC only wants legal protection for what it regards as the one and only true religion – Islam. By adopting Resolution 16/18 a country is adopting sharia law. Since the OIC has not censured Egypt for its blatantly discriminatory constitution demonstrates clearly that the OIC as an organisation is not really committed to true religious freedom.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) calls upon His Excellency Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, OIC Secretary General, to publically censure Egypt for its violation of UNHRC Resolution 16/18. Furthermore, we call upon him to mount an investigation into the whether other members of his organisation are also in violation of Resolution 16/18. The credibility of the OIC as an advocate of religious freedom is at stake. We call upon Western Government to suspend negotiations with the OIC until that organisation’s actual commitment to religious freedom can be ascertained beyond all reasonable doubt.

______________________________

(1) Egypt’s Coptic Christian pope says country’s constitution is discriminatory (Fox News)

(2) Resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council 16/18 (International Humanist and Ethical Union)