Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: Ironic Surrealism
By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings
If Rip Van Winkle woke up in America today, he’d wonder what happened to private property rights. Imagine finding out other folks can dictate what you can use your property for; this must be some kind of bad dream, go back to sleep and maybe the next time you open your eyes things will return to how it should be.
Take for example the Pebble Partnership which invested over “107 million monitoring the soil, water and air in order to assure the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) it can mine without causing ecological damage” prior to mining precious metals. They can’t turn a shovel without getting permission from every environmental whack job in the State of Alaska because it might change the way things have looked since before time was measured.
According to an article by Joshua Rhett Miller on the Fox News website, environmental groups along with the EPA have halted the development of the Pebble Mine, perhaps indefinitely because there might be damage done to the fishing industry if anything goes wrong.
“If you read the watershed assessment, the conclusion that the EPA came to is that even without a catastrophic dam failure, there would be cumulative effects over time that would have an adverse effect on fish and other animals in the region,” said Lindsey Bloom, an organizer with Trout Unlimited and operator of a commercial fishing boat. “For us, if you look at the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf, consumers just balk at the idea of potential pollution in their seafood.”
Pebble Partnership bought the land, not Lindsey Bloom, not Trout Unlimited and certainly not the EPA who supposedly represent the interests of the American people. They’ve invested considerable money towards developing a profitable venture to extract what could potentially come to billions of dollars in gold, copper and other valuable metals; why should they consider the demands of anyone not invested in that particular private property?
“Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.” Ayn Rand
The argument proposed by Trout Unlimited isn’t much different than saying it’s too dangerous to fly because airplanes fall out of the sky every now and then. We can’t have any new dams because now and again they break; property and lives are lost. We might get hit with a huge honking meteor and an entire species of animals are gone in a flash. It’s too dangerous to let anyone mine in Alaska or coal in Tennessee and you can forget about drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico; go back to bed.
“The mine has backing from some state officials. In June, state Attorney General Michael Geraghty wrote the EPA to complain of what he called an “unnecessary rush to judgment.” He sought to have the deadline for public comment extended to Nov. 20. Geraghty believes that if the EPA invokes the federal Clean Water Act in addressing the mining proposal, it could potentially “extinguish” the state’s mineral rights.”
The EPA has become so powerful it works outside constraints placed on government by our constitutional framework and has for quite some time. Our nation has progressively moved towards socialism, ignoring property rights of individuals and corporations with impunity. The courts have been used by self-appointed social watchdog groups to impede lawful rights of property owners to such an extent that many corporations have abandoned the United States in favor of doing business in other countries where they are welcomed with open arms.
“So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” William Blackstone
Property rights in America are evaporating like distilled dew which for a moment rests upon the morning grass and is gone. Individuals and corporations no longer determine the use of their own property without first having to please everyone around them. I’m afraid if old Rip Van Winkle were to fall asleep again, as many in America have failed in protecting their rights, there won’t be anything left to recognize; much as Washington Irving’s children’s story ended.
Then, worn and weary, at last laid down,
For his locks were white and his limbs were sore–
And RIP VAN WINKLE will wake no more.
This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”
By: Fern Sidman
In his new English language memoir entitled, “Unbroken Spirit: A Heroic Story of Faith, Courage and Survival” (Gefen Publishing), internationally renowned former Soviet refusenik, Rabbi Yosef Mendelevitch takes his readers on a compelling trajectory of his life in this deeply poignant narrative. As a young boy growing up as an atheist in the Stalinist era, Rabbi Mendelevitch soon embarked on a journey to his Jewish heritage and emerged as a dynamic leader in the Jewish underground movement in the former Soviet Union. After 11 grueling years in the Gulag of Siberian forced labor camps, his dream was realized when he immigrated to Israel in 1981. Today, he is a noted Orthodox educator in the religious Zionist movement. Rabbi Mendelevitch was recently on a book tour in the United States and took time out of his schedule for this interview.
Q: You had already published your memoir in Hebrew many years ago. Why did you decide to come out with an English version at this particular juncture in time?
RYM: A group of American Jews who were formerly involved in the struggle to free Soviet Jewry, came up with this idea about a year ago. Pamela Cohen, the President of the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews from 1986 through 1996, called me from Chicago and asked me why I never published my book in English. She and others like her saw my life as way more than a simple story. It is the story of a young boy struggling to find his Jewish identity in a spiritual wasteland and of a young man challenging the draconian dictates of the Communist monolith in a struggle for freedom. She came to the conclusion that my story published in English would inspire young and often alienated Jews who are searching for their own identity. The Jewish Book Council is representing this English version and it is our hope that the lessons learned here will assist others in their own personal growth as Jews.
Q: You were born in 1947. Can you describe your life as a young child in Stalinist Russia?
RYM: I grew up as an atheist. My parents were not interested in me having a Jewish education. My father was involved in the Communist underground in Riga, but both my parents spoke Yiddish and my parents taught me about Jewish history. Back then, in the Soviet Union, Jewish tradition did not exist but Riga was the center of the renaissance of the Jewish movement. Before World War II, books were published in Russian about the great Revisionist Zionist leader, Ze’ev Jabotinsky.
We had no idea that there were underground minyanim, however in the 1960s an underground movement of Jews supporting Israel began to take hold. One could tell the difference between life under Stalin and life under Nikita Khrushchev. You could sit in jail forever under the Stalin government for learning about Jewish culture, language and thought. In 1963, the first book on Jewish vocabulary was printed and many books on Hebrew poetry served as a catalyst for Jews to become closer to their identity. It was like a miracle.
Q: When did you gain an interest in activism for Israel and freedom for your people?
RYM: In 1964, while still a teenager I gravitated towards activism. I attended a technical college for four years and studied electronics and computers. I worked as an engineer in a big plant in Riga and in terms of technology it was advanced. At the time, I felt my studies would prevent me from going to Israel. The moment I became an engineer, I wanted to leave the Soviet Union and go to Israel. I had a big decision to make. If I obtained my degree I would have to stay in the Soviet Union forever, so I sacrificed my career by not getting the degree. It boiled down to either staying in the Soviet Union or living as a free man whose destiny is in his hands.
Q: Where was your life heading after you finished your studies?
RYM: In 1968, I was fired from my job as an engineer for inquiring about emigrating to Israel. At that juncture, I was also heavily involved in various Zionist organizations and in 1969 I assumed the position of editor of a national journal on Jewish issues. Everything had to be top secret so we met clandestinely in forests or perhaps in someone’s apartment. I was in charge of deciding what to write; what articles to publicize and it was sent all over the Soviet Union. Because it was a specific Jewish underground journal, we published materials smuggled into Russia. At this pivotal moment, there grew a self-consciousness in our community. We knew what our task was, we knew what we had to do to maintain our identities as Jews and for the battle for our freedom. Before my arrest, we had only published two issues.
Q: Can you tell us what your motivation was for hijacking of a plane to the West in 1970?
RYM: In the years following the 1967 war in Israel, the hostilities that the Soviets felt for Israel only increased. The IDF were called hooligans in the Soviet press but we in the Jewish underground only yearned for the freedom to go to Israel, study in yeshiva and be part of the Zionist dream. We decided to hijack a plane to the Western world to spotlight our plight, even though we knew how risky it was. While undertaking this action, we dreamed about being in the Golani brigade in Israel. We also wanted to counter the incessant Soviet propaganda that told the world that there was no Jewish issue in Russia and that Jews were very happy to be proud Soviet citizens. We wanted the world to know that there were a growing number of Jews who wanted to connect to their Jewish heritage; to study the Hebrew language and to dedicate themselves to studying Torah.
Q: Who was involved in this operation and what were the events leading up to it?
RYM: In June of 1970, Mark Dymshits who was a former military pilot and a major in the Russian air force, along with Eduard Kuznetsov who was a recognized dissident who had already served a seven-year prison term in the Soviet Union led us in this mission. Originally, we had thought that our goal would be to show the world that this movement was not just composed of a group of young Jewish men but of all Jews, so we were going to try and hijack a big airliner and fill it with Jewish families.
We bought up all the tickets on a small plane under the guise of a trip to a wedding and were going to fly it from Leningrad to Sweden where we had intended on holding a press conference asking world Jewry to help us in our quest for freedom. There were twelve of us aboard. With us was Sylva Zalmanson, who was Kuznetzov’s wife and two non-Jews, Yuri Federov and Aleksey Murzhenko. We had planned to pick up four more people in the forests. We were then arrested and charged with high treason. It was clear that the KGB knew of our plan as they arrested us as we got close to the airplane. After our arrest the Soviets initiated a crackdown on the Jewish and dissident movement and any centers for studying Hebrew and Torah were closed.
Q: What did the KGB do to you subsequent to your arrest?
RYM: They tried to break our resolve by threatening us with the death penalty and by doing so, they thought we would condemn Zionism and urge other Jews in the Soviet Union not to be involved with Jewish causes and Israel. We were interrogated for six months until our trial and the goal of the KGB was to have us perform like puppets in the courtroom. We saw a stunning victory at our trial which happened on Chanukah. Rather than being manipulated by the Soviets and used as a propaganda tool, we did not rail against Zionism but rather we declared in no uncertain terms that we are loyal to the Jewish nation, to Am Yisroel and we demanded free Jewish emigration to Israel. As we began chanting “Let My People Go” in the courtroom it is as if we experienced our own Chanukah miracle.
Q: Do you think your actions served as an impetus for the Soviets to relax their emigration policy as it pertained to Jews?
RYM: They were very worried about the tidal wave of international pressure and knew that they could not withstand an economic boycott. Eventually they started to allow more Jews to emigrate to Israel and within a year of our trial 17,000 Jews left. I think the Soviets never thought that all these Jews would actually leave if given the opportunity. The year after that 35,000 Jews emigrated and I think the Soviets were totally shocked.
Q: You were sentenced to 15 years in Soviet prisons. What was life like for you and the others?
RYM: I was in eight different labor camps and prisons in Siberia and Mordavia in the European mountain region. It was always a struggle as a Soviet prison is tantamount to a work camp. Before my arrest, I was becoming a religious Jew and I did not give up on my commitment to being a believing Jew while in prison. Even though it was illegal to do so, I exhorted other Jewish inmates to observe Shabbos, to daven, and to learn Torah. I knew that my time in prison could be well spent and have an impact on my people. As a result, I was punished severely by the authorities and for three years of my sentence I was imprisoned in brutal conditions. I was transferred from the labor camp to a closed prison called Vladimir and I was essentially closed up in my cell. I eventually concluded my term back in the labor camp and was with other nationalist groups such as Ukrainians and Lithuanians who were fighting for freedom.
When Natan Sharansky was arrested in 1977, I spent time with him in the Gulag and came up with original ways of communicating which I speak about in my book. Even though we had very little news from the outside world, in 1978, Sharansky told me that things were being done for us by American Jews. We were only allowed to read the government-run newspapers such as Pravda and Izvestia and Russian newsletters. It was not easy being a “Prisoner of Zion” in Soviet camps and news of those helping us in America and other places bolstered our spirits in immeasurable ways. I speak about the interrogations and hardship we endured in my book as well.
Q: Did you know when you would be released?
RYM: Not at all. I was taken from the labor camp in Moscow and no one told me why. I had thought it was yet another attempt to break my spirit and resolve. After two weeks, they told me that my Soviet citizenship had been permanently revoked and that I never deserved to be a citizen of the USSR. They told me that I was being deported and then I boarded a plane for Israel. I can’t even begin to tell you how the tears of joy streamed from my eyes.
Q: Since your release from prison in 1981, what kinds of activities have you pursued in Israel?
RYM: I spent much time learning Torah as my commitment to an Orthodox life grew exponentially and I eventually received my rabbinical ordination. I was involved in the Russian department of Arutz Sheva and went on to teach Russian students at the Machon Meir Yeshiva in Jerusalem. In my early days in Israel, I founded an organization called the Soviet Jewry Information Center. In 1988, Sharansky founded the Zionist Forum, which worked towards a successful absorption of those immigrating to Israel from the Soviet Union and its activity was based on the database that I formed. I have constantly been involved in the Israeli political scene and have spoken out for the freedom of Jonathan Pollard on numerous occasions and have been vocal about my opinions on the role of Russia in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Educating young Jews about the beauty and majesty of Judaism is at the core of my being. Just being a Jew living in an independent Jewish state affords us so many opportunities to reach the highest heights, and I share my knowledge and narrative with others in the hopes that they too will feel the bond between themselves and their G-d and fulfill their destiny as Torah Jews.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Arizona’s Joe Arpaio, known as “America’s Toughest Sheriff” for his treatment of criminals, has been sued by the Obama Administration but is running for re-election this year. He may already have had the last laugh, as his investigators probing President Obama’s birth certificate have come up with sure-fire proof that the document has been tampered with. The evidence shows that the identification of Obama’s father as “African” was not on the original document.
Arpaio says the tampering may represent a “national security threat,” a reference to the fact that, if Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent, foreigners seeking entry into or citizenship in the United States could similarly obtain phony documents. He is asking Congress to investigate.
The reason for the cover-up in Obama’s case, contends filmmaker Joel Gilbert, is that his real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist under FBI surveillance who was Obama’s mentor while he was growing up in Hawaii. The Gilbert film, “Dreams from My Real Father,” makes this case, based on a series of striking photo comparisons between Obama and Davis, and informed speculation that Davis, a sex “swinger” and pornographer, had an intimate affair with Obama’s mother. The film includes nude photos that Davis took of her in Davis’s home.
Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily, which has been working with and covering the Arpaio inquiry, now seems focused on the critical issue of not where Obama was born but whether the identity of the father has been concealed. Gilbert argues that the “birthers” were on the wrong track all along and that the work of Arpaio’s team “confirms both the evidence and thesis” presented in his film that the father was left as “unknown” on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
Davis, perhaps the central figure in Obama’s early life, was referred to merely as “Frank” in Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. That cover-up was blown four years ago, when the identity of “Frank” was revealed and his 600-page FBI file was disclosed. Still, such figures as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post continue to refer to Davis as just a non-controversial “author.” Like many in the liberal media, Milbank has been determined to sanitize Obama’s relations with a Communist Party USA operative who was called before Congress to explain his involvement in “Soviet activities” in Hawaii.
These pro-Obama “journalists” understand that while the threat of communism does not pack the same kind of punch it did years ago, it would be extremely damaging for Obama to have it known that he was raised and trained by a Communist operative with loyalties to the old Soviet Union. Indeed, Obama’s loyalty to the U.S. might be questioned as a result.
Despite the failure to explain Davis’s Communist background and strong influence over Obama in his youth, the new Obama biography by David Maraniss, Barack Obama, the Story, confirms an Obama poem about “Pop” was about Davis, not the Kenyan or Obama’s grandfather. The poem talks about Davis and whiskey, and stains and smells on their “shorts.”
Without setting out to ascertain true paternity, Arpaio investigator Mike Zullo’s analysis takes the problem to a deeper level—the mentor may have been the actual father. He analyzed the numbers or codes on certain parts of Obama’s so-called “long-form birth certificate,” as released by the White House.
While most media, including conservative talk radio, have shied away from the blockbuster revelations, Zullo appeared on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio to talk about the “faded set of puzzling, handwritten codes,” saying that “…they looked like pencil markings to us. Nobody really knew what they were.” Zullo told Klein they were able track down the “local registrar” who signed the document, a now 95-year-old woman named Verna Lee, who explained what the codes meant.
As noted by WorldNetDaily, Lee confirmed to investigators that the “9” meant the information is not stated, meaning there should not have been any information in the box in which the number is written and that it was left “unknown.” On the “official” document released by the White House, however, the “9” was next to “Race of Father,” under which “African,” a reference to Barack Hussein Obama, the “Kenyan goat herder” claimed by Obama as his father when he ran for office, was entered.
What all of this means is that the word “African” was inserted by persons unknown who apparently wanted the identity of the true father concealed.
The reason for the fraud is what takes the scandal to another more dangerous level. The evidence suggests that Obama’s birth document was altered not just to conceal a family scandal but to conceal Obama’s relationship with a Communist who was considered by the FBI to be a top Soviet operative in the state of Hawaii and eligible for arrest in the case of a national emergency.
But the alteration of the document did not go far enough. The “9” was left on by the forgers because they did not understand what it meant or whether it was relevant. They had to have figured that the “9” would have been ignored as mere scribbling on a birth certificate, having nothing to do with the “African” designation for the father.
This omission on their part has now come back to haunt them and constitutes proof, as noted by Arpaio and his investigators, that the document has been altered. But by whom? The culprits would have to include Obama and/or his top associates.
Not surprisingly, the media either ignored the revelation or distorted its significance. The Associated Press wire service covered the Arpaio news conference and noted, “The Obama campaign declined to comment on Arpaio’s allegations.” But the story went on to question the claims of the “birthers” without saying that the critical issue has now become the identity of the father.
Gilbert was the first to assemble evidence that the “African,” Barack Hussein Obama, was not Obama’s real father, and to offer a coherent explanation as to why the cover-up occurred.
Once it was decided that Davis could not be listed as the father, after the birth, the Kenyan Obama, who had a wife and children in Kenya, agreed to a “sham marriage” in exchange for certain benefits, Gilbert says.
He explains, “The Kenyan Obama applied only to extend his visa and for a work permit, instead of citizenship which he would have done if it were a real marriage and if the child was his. Frank Marshall Davis, a married man with five children, wanted the paternity covered up, while ‘Gramps,’ Stanley Dunham, needed a cover (Davis being under FBI surveillance) due to his government employment. Stanley Dunham knew the Kenyan Obama from his work with Operation Airlift Africa, as evidenced in the photo in the film. No father was named on Barack Obama’s birth certificate because it was not acceptable for Davis to be named as the father, while the Kenyan was not accepting responsibility for the child, only to assist in the cover up for short term benefit.”
Gilbert tells AIM that, in addition to all of this, “I corresponded and spoke several times with an elderly friend of Frank Marshall Davis named Stephen T. Murin, who was 93 years old. When I asked him about the Obama birth certificate, he told me, ‘as far as I know they didn’t put any father on it.’ Unfortunately, Murin passed away suddenly and I never got a chance to interview him on camera.”
“Barack Obama built his political career on the goat herding Kenyan father, by which he meant that he would bring people together and was above politics. So the story went,” Gilbert said. “In fact, it is more likely Obama has a deeply disturbing family background, from which he acquired a Marxist political foundation. Frank Marshall Davis was a member of CPUSA, and a Communist propagandist and organizer, charged with bringing black people into the movement. Some CPUSA members became Soviet spies, stealing America’s atomic weapons plans and helping to ignite the Cold War. Davis was suspected of espionage in the FBI files.”
Gilbert concluded, “While voters will overlook some fudging by politicians, promoting a false family background to hide a Marxist agenda irreconcilable with American values is a totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate.”
As Gilbert makes his case to the media, he finds resistance, even from conservative media organizations such as Newsmax.com. “On May 2 of this year, I paid Newsmax $4,350, in advance, for an advertising campaign,” he said at my Washington conference last week. “They pulled it at the last second. ‘Why?’ They said it was because they wanted ‘to move to the Center.’”
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
By: Arlen Williams
Our federal government used to investigate matters of national security.
Now it is what such investigation must be about.
July 24, 2012 | By Trevor Timm
Congress Must Act After US Government Admits To Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping For the First Time
As Congress and the President rush to re-authorize the dangerous FISA Amendments Act (FAA)—the law shamefully passed after pressure to legalize certain portions of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program—EFF has been sounding the alarm that Americans’ communications are still being unconstitutionally collected by the government without a warrant. On Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, (DNI) begrudgingly agreed, acknowledging that, “on at least one occasion” the secret FISA court “held that some collection…used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
In a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the DNI declassified three statements at the request of the Senator, one of which indicated that the FISA Court agreed with Wyden that the government had “circumvented the spirit of the law.” Wired called it a “federal sidestep of a major section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” and the Wall Street Journal confirmed it “represented the first time the government has acknowledged U.S. spy activities violated the constitution since the passage of” the FAA in 2008.
This is vital information, as Congress is in the midst of debate over extending Section 702 of the FAA before it expires at the end of the year. Section 702 severely weakened privacy protections for Americans communicating overseas, and may have swallowed protections against surveillance of our domestic communications as well.
As it does, this is one of the instances of knee-jerk denial cited:
Sen. Wyden, on the other hand, has been alleging that “section 702 [of the Act] currently contains a loophole that could be used to circumvent traditional warrant protections and search for the communications of a potentially large number of American citizens.” But Wyden’s amendment that would have required a warrant to search the communications of a specific American was voted down 13-2 after Intelligence committee chairman Dianne Feinstein insisted there was no such loophole. Sen. Feinstein’s assurances seem to conflict with the DNI’s statement.
Congress may be able to ignore reports in the media that the NSA is still collecting Americans’ emails, but it should not ignore the admission from the DNI itself. Congress must now drastically overhaul this law to prevent further abuses of the Constitution or vote down entirely.
Pesky constitution, such an uncomfortable impediment to the globally controlled, population reduced, “civil society.”
Reuters: Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, left, Representative Michele Bachmann, centre, and Senator John McCain, right.
When did we start using Senator John McCain’s “friend” list instead of FBI background investigations to determine whether an individual should receive access to sensitive and classified government information?
John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Boehner (R-OH) need to step down. They are unfit to serve and they pose a threat to the safety and security of the American people.
We Americans want to know what the hell is going on in Washington D. C.?!
Yesterday Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the White House was behind recent national security leaks. She stated, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.”
While Republicans have been blaming the White House for playing politics with national security, John McCain and his good-old-boy network in Congress are doing just that – playing politics at the expense of national security. They are “in” with the White House now; they are against the security of our nation. That’s the bottom line when the spin and propaganda are set aside.
FBI background investigations have been done for decades; it is standard operating procedure for all individuals who will have access to sensitive and classified government information. Familial and organizational associations are a critical component of background investigations to ensure that individuals cannot be blackmailed or easily compromised into divulging classified information to America’s enemies.
Other components of these standard background investigations include polygraphs and even investigation into countries that the individual has traveled to. From drug use to lifestyle and everything in between, the FBI is required to investigate the individual as far back as their place of birth in order to determine whether they, their family members and their close friends could have connections to anyone who could present a risk to national security.
The investigation being requested by Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and four other members of Congress is fully justified and is not asking for anything that isn’t already standard operating procedure.
John McCain’s vehement opposition to that investigation is an outrage and what he and others should be asking is why the investigation was not conducted years ago. His gross negligence and dereliction of duty as a U.S. Senator must not be tolerated.
Did John McCain read the 16 page letter with 59 footnotes sent to Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN)?
If John McCain failed to read it, his lack of due diligence is on full display and he needs to step down.
If he read it and remains unable to comprehend the gravity of the situation and the criticality of proceeding with the request for an investigation, he is either incompetent or he holds a blatant disregard for the security of our nation.
There are no shades of gray in this matter when the facts are already laid out for all to see. Even a 5th grader can see that the investigation being requested by Michele Bachmann and others is fully warranted and necessary.
John McCain’s own actions and words have placed him at a fork in the road with only two paths to choose from. One path supports the need for an investigation; the other is the path of resignation… it’s time to decide Mr. McCain.
Having served our country with honor, distinction and sacrifice as a member of our military decades ago, one must ask Mr. McCain if the corrupting forces in Washington D.C. are so potent that he cannot resist turning a blind eye to national security and instead chooses to fight against those who care about the security of our nation.
Where was John McCain when members of Seal Team Six and Special Ops forces were murdered? Egregious ‘leaks’ announced publicly by President Obama and serious unanswered questions surround that massacre and we want to know where John McCain and his good-old-boys stand in terms of calling for an investigation? Their otherwise loud voices are silent on this matter and Mr. McCain needs to know that we’ve noticed.
And where was John McCain over a year ago when a Canadian Diplomat who is a liberal Democrat and self-described Marxist-leaning moderate Muslim, Tarek Fatah, sounded the warning bell that Canada has evidence of infiltration right up to our White House by the fascist forces of the Muslim Brotherhood? McCain was silent again – and we noticed.
We know where Mr. McCain was when he fought to grant Presidential power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trail. In fact, he fought loudly for passage of the S. 1867 NDAA legislation. Either he was too incompetent to understand the language of the bill and what Senator Levin (D-MI) articulated on the Senate floor, or he intentionally condoned this legislation in violation of the Constitutional rights of the American people. We, the American people noticed.
Caption: “Senator Carl Levin admits that there is language in the version of NDAA that did pass, which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without proof, trial, judge, or jury…”
John McCain’s recent actions against Michele Bachmann are unacceptable and intolerable. His opposition to a critically important and fully justified investigation is an outrage. It is time that he and his good-old-boys step down. John McCain’s actions represent a clear threat to our national security.