Check out @AmyMek’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/465146894541672449

http://www.governamerica.com/news/2506-biotech-industry-slips-pro-gmo-propaganda-into-children-s-school-textbooks

http://rt.com/news/158136-renewable-energy-protest-berlin/#.U28JknoEXtw.twitter

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/136219-top-trey-gowdy-quotes/

‘Impeach Obama’ campaign moves mainstream.
 

‘IMPEACH OBAMA’ CAMPAIGN MOVES MAINSTREAM

‘Now we have the Benghazi select committee’

Published: 2 hours ago

 BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

Talk of impeaching Barack Obama has been broached by members of Congress, media, community activists, truckers and others from both left and right over the past several years.

And now Washington Post commentator Paul Waldman says it’s going mainstream.
“Now we have the Benghazi select committee, and a select committee is what you form when there may be crimes and misdemeanors to uncover,” he points out.
“It has no other business to distract it, and it will be led by Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor who excels at channeling conservatives’ outrage,” Waldman wrote. “To be clear, this doesn’t mean that [House Speaker John] Boehner or the party establishment he represents want impeachment, not by any means. They realize what a political disaster it was when they did it in 1998, and they understand that the effects would likely be similar if it happened again.”
But Waldman writes that “there are multiple Republican members of Congress who have at least toyed with the idea, and the committee’s hearings could build pressure in the Republican base for it.”
Among the people who have raised the prospect are Watergate reporter Bob Woodard, actor Steven Seagal, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Code Pink Co-founder Medea Benjamin and Oliver North, the former Marine Corps lieutenant colonel first known for his testimony as a National Security Council staff member under President Reagan.
“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for,” North said. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”
Waldman noted that National Review writer Andrew McCarthy is coming out with a book titled “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.”
The select committee hearings, said Waldman, will “provide an institutional pathway and the requisite media attention necessary to air all sorts of dramatic allegations about the administration (supported by evidence or not).”
Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
Non-stop coverage would follow, and talk radio hosts would stir up the Republican base, he said.
“All that would make many in the House conclude that coming out in favor of impeachment is the safest political play to make. And isn’t it the logical extension of everything they’ve been saying for the last five years about this socialist anti-American liberty-destroying president?” Waldman wrote.
“In all seriousness, an impeachment drive would be, in many ways, another iteration of the central conflict of this period of our political history, the one between a tea party pushing the GOP to ever more radical tactics and a party establishment warning of political catastrophe if they go too far.”
Among those raising the issue has been Seagal, whose dozens of films feature action and violence but also have an underlying theme of seeking justice. He said Obama would be impeached if the truth about the Benghazi attack was revealed.
His charge came Feb. 22 in an appearance at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix
“Never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people like the people who are running it this day,” said Seagal.
“I think that when we have a leadership that thinks the Constitution of the United States of America is a joke, when we have a president who has almost 1,000 executive orders now, when we have a Department of Justice that thinks that any kind of a judicial system that they make up as they are going along can get by with whatever they decide that they want to do – like Ted Nugent said the Fast and the Furious, what’s happening with the Fast and the Furious? What’s happened with the truth about any of the greatest scandals of American history that have happened right before our eyes?” Seagal said.
“If the truth about Benghazi were to come out now, I don’t think that this man would make it through his term. I think he would be impeached,” he said.
Seagal has company in his worries.
Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!
One group is calling on Americans to converge on Washington on May 16 to protest Obama’s presence. They plan to stay until he and other Washington officials are gone.
The event, organized by U.S. retired Col. Harry Riley, is called Operation American Spring.
Riley said the goal is to remove “corrupt” leaders who violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Attorney General Eric Holder.
“The out-of-control government leadership must be stopped,” Riley wrote on his Patriots for America website, where he launched the campaign for the rally.
Riley’s plans seems to align mostly with what another retired military leader, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, has advocated.
As WND reported, Vallely said it’s time for millions of Americans to “stand up” to a federal government that is “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws.”
He’s calling for marches, a legislative vote of “no confidence” in President Obama and congressional leaders, even citizen arrests, drawing inspiration from the 33 million Egyptians who stood up to their government and removed Muslim Brotherhood officials from office.
Riley explains his inspiration comes at least partly from Georgetown professor Jonathan Turley’s congressional testimony.
The liberal professor has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.
Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”
Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”
Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.
WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.”

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.
His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.
Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”
“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.
A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.
“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”
WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”
“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”
Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.
See the Hannity segment:

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh says Obama won’t be impeached. But Limbaugh also is making the case that the Constitution is in crisis, an emergency for which the founders probably created the impeachment process.
“You can’t impeach the first black president,” he said on his radio show recently. “No matter how corrupt or lawless.”
But he said the danger is very high, citing Boehner’s recent comments that the House wouldn’t adopt amnesty legislation this year because the president probably wouldn’t follow it.
“This is the president of the United States effectively nullifying the legislative branch of government,” an outraged Limbaugh said. “He’s basically saying … and he has in practically these words, said this, ‘I got a pen and I got a phone and if they don’t do what I want I’m going to it anyway.’
“That’s not a ho-hummer to me. That is major. If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don’t think it’ll matter, because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that’s a breach of serious proportion,” he said.
“That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about because of the president’s race,” he said.
Ambassador Alan Keyes, however, wrote in a WND column that Limbaugh isn’t right about impeachment.
“When Rush Limbaugh says that ‘efforts to try to have Obama impeached or held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,’ he is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters. With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ. The judgment about ‘wasted effort’ depends on what we’re trying to achieve. If politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted effort. After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow Obama to be removed from office. Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? ”
He continued: “Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist No. 65) that ‘… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’”
But Keyes said: “The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr. Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan factions. But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e., individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests. From Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is therefore a test of their concern for the common good. If they act, or refuse to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold, whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.”
Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
Polls have revealed American support for impeachment is growing, and rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached.
Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”
He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”
“It’s so diabolical,” he said.
Nugent made his comments in an interview with radio host Alex Jones.

Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.
On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.
Among members of Congress, the idea has been getting more attention.

A recent comment was from Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican who is seeking to replace the retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
A video from a forum featuring candidates for Chambliss’ seat shows Broun and two others, Derrick Grayson, an engineer, and Eugene Yu, a businessman, raising their hands when asked whether they would support impeachment.
A forum moderator asked the candidates: “Obama has perjured himself on multiple occasions. Would you support impeachment if presented for a vote?”
Broun, Grayson and Yu raised their hands.
Others who have commented on impeachment:
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
Stockman even handed out in Congress copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations and possibly prosecutions are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.

He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.

WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.

Earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”

In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
And Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro launched a scathing, on-air indictment of Obama, calling for his impeachment.
On Saturday night’s broadcast of “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” Pirro uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal onslaught of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up.
“Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty,” Pirro said. “You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have NOT protected us. This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment.”
Watch a 90-second clip of Judge Jeanine Pirro calling for Obama’s impeachment:

Woodward said: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaida. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.
See Dennis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:
 

 
Sign the petition right away!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/impeach-obama-campaign-moves-mainstream/#fTzGScCIOJ9RqvPj.99

Tony Cartalucci
New Eastern Outlook
After the brutal massacre of over 40 anti-regime protesters in the southern port city of Odessa – most of whom were burned to death after being trapped within the city’s Trade Unions House – the Western narrative of “Russian aggression” driving the current unrest in Ukraine is ringing particularly hollow.
Unable to spin the massacre carried out by the very ultra-right Neo-Nazi mobs that propelled the current unelected regime into power, both the West’s media machine and its politicians have attempted to remain as ambiguous as possible regarding the recent brutality resulting from what Kiev calls “anti-terror” operations.
The US condemned the violence in Odessa, but failed to identify the provocateurs or assign blame and instead called for an “investigation” into the deaths – the diplomatic equivalent of shrugging one’s shoulders. This response comes in sharp contrast to the West’s politically motivated responses to alleged government-sanctioned violence elsewhere in the world, most notably in Libya in 2011, and currently in Syria.
Additionally, as evidence emerges regarding the details of the Odessa massacre, only Russian news sources are covering it, while the West neither confirms nor denies reports, but rather misinforms its audiences through lies of omission. A particularly damning RT report titled, “Radicals shooting at people in Odessa’s burning building caught on tape,” stated:

New video has emerged online which shows a man shooting at the windows of Odessa’s burning House of Trade Unions. At least 39 anti-government activists died in the flames on May 2 in the building besieged and set ablaze by radicals.
A man in the video is wearing a bulletproof vest and is shooting several times in the direction of the burning House of Trade Unions.

The article would also report that:

Another video of the same man shows him speaking on the phone passionately arguing that he and his people are unarmed, while having to confront armed anti-government protesters. The man introduces himself as sotnik Mykola (“sotnik” is what Maidan group leaders in Kiev call themselves).

The report, complete with multiple videos and photographs, portrays a massacre of horrific and intentional brutality, trapping anti-regime protesters inside a building, torching it, and firing at the victims as they attempted to escape from being burned to death. The US’ calls to “investigate” the deaths and its refusal to acknowledge that the regime it has elected to back was responsible for the massacre, only further weakens its hand as the crisis continues to unfold.
Unelected Regime Blames Security Forces
In response to the violence in Odessa, Ukraine’s unelected prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, has blamed his own security forces for the violence. The BBC reported in its article, “Ukraine unrest: PM blames security service over Odessa,” that:

Some 42 people died in Odessa on Friday, most of them in the fire at the Trade Unions House, where separatist protesters had barricaded themselves in following running street battles with pro-Kiev activists.
Mr Yatsenyuk said the security service and law enforcement office had done “nothing to stop this crackdown”, saying they were “inefficient and they violated the law”.
The police chief of the Odessa region had been removed, he said, and the prosecutor’s office had started an investigation into “every single police officer”.

However, the new police chief appointed for Odessa only further confirmed the identity of the attackers that left over 40 dead while revealing the regime’s complicity in both the massacre and a wider agenda of coordinating with ultra-nationalists like the Neo-Nazi Right Sector faction.
In RT’s article, “Newly appointed Odessa police chief vows to revise release of anti-Kiev activists,” it states:

Addressing a pro-Kiev rally, Odessa’s new head of police spoke against ‘separatism’ and vowed to revise the earlier release of pro-autonomy activists.
Ivan Katerinchuk was appointed following deadly clashes and a fire on Friday that killed dozens in the southeastern port city.
Local media reported that a few hundred people attended the rally near the Odessa interior ministry on Sunday. Some of them were heavily armed with wooden and metal bats, chains, shields, and helmets.

It also states (emphasis added):

When speaking about the 67 released anti-government activists, he said that all will be investigated and it will be determined if they broke any laws.
He called on the Right Sector to exercise restraint and select individuals who will represent the group in order to easily communicate with it about further actions from police.

Clearly Right Sector, the Neo-Nazi militant front that spearheaded the so-called “Euromaidan” protests and the resulting putsch, are present in Odessa and working in coordination with Ukrainian security forces loyal to the regime in Kiev. This includes both the outgoing and the newly appointed police chief of Odessa. The Western media has not attempted to refute RT’s reports, and instead has elected to avoid mentioning altogether any relevant developments related to the Odessa massacre.
Wave of Fury Sweeps Ukraine
Over 60 anti-regime protesters who escaped the Trade Unions House blaze were arrested in addition to the 40 plus killed by Right Sector and other pro-regime factions in Odessa. After the massacre, anti-regime sentiment reached a fevered pitch. Protesters stormed the Odessa police station holding the survivors arrested earlier, prompting security forces to release them. While the newly appointed police chief of Odessa vows to “revise” the releases, it appears the city he resides over is divided and that further attempts to reassert Kiev’s control there will only result in more violence.
Meanwhile, the positions of anti-regime protesters elsewhere across the country have only hardened. Eastern cities like Slavyansk are standing firm against full-scale military operations launched by the regime in Kiev to consolidate their power across the rest of the country. Heavily armed gunships, armored vehicles, and special forces have been operating around the edges of towns and cities in the east of Ukraine, but have thus far been unable to enter them. The Western media, eager to report on progress made by Kiev, can only report on outer checkpoints and remote positions being taken by security forces.
The BBC’s report titled, “Ukraine unrest: PM blames security service over Odessa,” claims:

The BBC’s Sarah Rainsford, in the regional capital, Donetsk, says that while it appears the Ukrainian forces have sealed off the roads in and out of the town, they are moving around it and concentrating on smaller towns nearby.

Neo-Nazi Militants Rebranded as “Football Hooligans”
Lacking a cohesive military, Kiev has heavily depended on militant groups like Right Sector. Reeling from negative headlines since the height of the “Euromadain,” the regime is now attempting to portray Neo-Nazi militant groups as “football hooligans” operating beyond their control – even as officials like Odessa’s new police chief openly calls for closer coordination with them.
This is a familiar formula used across much of Europe’s racist, bigoted, nationalist movements, many of which are closely affiliated with Neo-Nazi groups active in Ukraine. The English Defense League (EDL), for example, draws direct parallels with Neo-Nazism, so much so that its own founder abandoned the movement after claiming it was in fact co-opted by Neo-Nazis. In the The Times article, “EDL chief Tommy Robinson quits after ‘neo-Nazi hijack of group’,” it states:

Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League, unexpectedly quit the organisation yesterday after claiming that it had been hijacked by extremists, including neo-Nazis.

The EDL’s composition of football hooligans and Neo-Nazis is repeated elsewhere. In a January 2014 Spiegel Online article titled, “‘Prepared to Die’: The Right Wing’s Role in Ukrainian Protests,” it described Ukraine’s Svoboda Party in relation to other Neo-Nazi groups across Europe:

The Svoboda party also has excellent ties to Europe, but they are different from the ones that Klischko might prefer. It is allied with France’s right-wing Front National and with the Italian neo-fascist group Fiamma Tricolore. But when it comes to the oppression of homosexuality, representative [Igor] Myroshnychenko is very close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, even if he does all he can to counter Moscow’s influence in his country.

In the coming days and weeks, Right Sector and Svoboda’s militant street front will continue coordinating with Kiev’s more heavily armed security forces in an attempt to consolidate its power across much of Ukraine. Already, the unelected government has declared its intention to deploy “special forces” to Odessa to rectify what it calls an “outrageous failure” to stop anti-regime protesters. This indicates that the “failure” was not the loss of life during clashes, but the failure to crush anti-regime sentiment across Odessa.
The regime and its Western sponsors will attempt to cover up, spin, and otherwise disassociate themselves from the inevitable atrocities that will be carried out as they attempt to do so. Portraying Neo-Nazi militants as “football hooligans” that are spontaneously taking to the streets and “coincidentally” helping Kiev eliminate its political opponents appears to be the narrative of choice and will almost certainly lead to both more incidents like the massacre in Odessa, and a greater backlash against the unpopular, struggling regime in Kiev.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”, where this first appeared.

Spinning the Odessa Massacre
TFAdmin
Wed, 07 May 2014 13:05:50 GMT

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/136959-new-york-senator-take-parenting-classes-well-fail-kid-school/

http://benswann.com/baers-daughter-addresses-school-board-after-her-fathers-arrest-for-violating-meeting-rule/

BUSTED: Harry Reid Owns 93 Acres Next to Bundy Ranch | Truth And Action.

SEE IT: Online video claims UFO attacked Taliban camp in Afghanistan   – NY Daily News.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQWqiI0jlQc]

Activist Post: False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency.

False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency

Brandon Smith
Activist PostDespite popular belief, very few things in our world are exactly what they seem. That which is painted as righteous is often evil. That which is painted as kind is often malicious. That which is painted as simple is often complex. That which is painted as complex often ends up being disturbingly two dimensional. Regardless, if a person is willing to look only at the immediate surface of a thing, he will never understand the content of the thing.
This fact is nowhere more evident than in the growing “tensions” between the elites of the West and the elites of the East over the crisis in Ukraine.
I am continually astonished at the refusal of many otherwise intelligent people to consider the evidence or even the possibility that there is, in reality, no fundamental political or philosophical conflict between the power brokers of the East and the West. As I outlined in great detail in Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too, the truth is they are both working toward the same goal; and both ultimately benefit from an engineered and theatrical display of international brinksmanship.
Russia, like the United States, is utterly beholden to globalist financiers through organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. Russia’s global economic adviser in matters ranging from investment image to privatization is none other thanGoldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs has also worked closely with the Ukrainian government since 2011, and it started its advisory work with Ukraine for free. (Whenever Goldman Sachs does something for free, one should take special note.)  Banking elites have been working both sides of the fence during the Russia versus Ukraine charade.

Russia has continued to borrow billions of dollars from Western banks, including Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, year after year, proving that they are not averse in the slightest to working closely with “evil Western robber barons”.
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Mr. New-World-Order himself, Henry Kissinger, on a regular basis; and according to Putin’s press secretary, they are “old friends.” Putin’s meetings with Kissinger began almost immediately after he first took power in 2000.
Putin’s relationship with Kissinger has been so pronounced that the Russian Foreign Ministry gave Kissinger an honorary doctorate in diplomacy, and Putin placed Kissinger at the head of a bilateral “working group” — along with former KGB head and multilateralist (globalist) Gen. Yevgeny Primakov — dealing with foreign policy.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMVrxgvR_Xw?feature=player_embedded] In more recent news, I would also remind pro-Putin cheerleaders that Putin and the Kremlin first pushed for the IMF to take control of the Ukrainian economy, and the IMF is now demanding that Ukraine fight Russia in exchange for financial support. This might seem like irony to more foolhardy observers; but to those who are aware of the false East/West paradigm, it is all the part of a greater plan for consolidation of power.
Clearly, Putin and Russia are just two more puppet pieces on the globalist chessboard, pitted against other puppets in the West in a grand theater designed to distract and divide the masses through chaos. As Kissinger points out, in crisis there is opportunity.
What is the goal? They’ve already told us, openly, on numerous occasions.
The first great prizes of the New World Order are a global currency and centralized economic control.  The elites are not satisfied with quiet dominance of individual economies.  They want complete political homogenization and the end of all sovereignty.  Period.  With a global currency in place, the steps towards global government become quick and small.
Heads of state from around the world, including Putin, as well as international bankers and IMF representatives have all publicly called for the IMF to take charge of the global economic system through its Special Drawing Rights currency program.
However, for the SDR to become a dominant currency, certain issues must be resolved. Here’s a short list.
The U.S. Dollar Must Fall 
The dollar must lose its world reserve status, and most likely collapse in relative value, before the SDR can be elevated. This is where mainstream pundits lose track of the facts. For them, the dollar is an invincible monetary element, a currency product as infinite as time. Their normalcy bias prevents them from ever acknowledging the many weaknesses of the Federal Reserve note, including our country’s inability to ever service its more than $200 trillion debt. Others believe the dollar is the NWO currency, and that the globalists are somehow U.S.-centric. The evidence posted above suggests otherwise. Globalists have no loyalty to any nation or culture. Their only loyalty is to the progression of their own power. If sacrificing the dollar or the U.S. as a whole furthers that power, then they will have no problem cutting us loose like a rotting appendage.
A Liquidity Replacement Must Be Introduced
As my regular readers know, I have been covering China’s progression toward a decoupling from the U.S. economy for years. China, in my view, has always been the key to the elitist shift into a truly global currency mechanism. The primary argument in the mainstream against the idea of a dollar collapse is that there is no other currency with ample liquidity to take the dollar’s place. Well, in the past couple of years, this has changed.
China and the banks it controls have issued approximately $25 trillion in debt instruments and monetization. This is often referred to as a “debt bubble” created through panic and a weakness in China’s economy and a response to slowed quantitative easing in the United States.  I would take a slightly different position.  China began issuing Yuan denominated debt instruments in 2005, years before the mainstream had any inkling of the impending derivatives collapse.  From then up to today, there has been no practical purpose for China to produce these Yuan denominated equities and securities, unless their target has always been to expand the Yuan market in a covert way.
I would say that China’s monetization has been carefully and deliberately engineered in order to lay the foundation for a massive liquidity spike in the Yuan. The argument that China’s incredible debt generation is a sign of impending collapse may be misguided. U.S. debt, including unfunded liabilities, absolutely dwarfs China’s $25 trillion. China’s Yuan debt has barely had time to accrue concrete interest.  The U.S., on the other hand, is caught in an endless cycle of interest paymentsthat are slowly but surely eating away the skeleton of our fiscal structure.  If any economy is on the verge of implosion, it is that of the United States, not of China.
The Chinese need exponential Yuan circulation. They do not want the Yuan to replace the dollar; instead, they are preparing it for induction into the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket.  WithChina set to become the world largest economy this year according to World Bank, their inclusion is assured.
But, when might this occur?
The IMF holds an international conference and policy meeting on the SDR every five years. During these meetings, the IMF decides if it will absorb a new currency into the basket and if it will expand the creation or circulation of SDRs around the world. Interestingly, the next IMF conference on the SDR just happens to be scheduled for the end of 2014 to the beginning of 2015.
Another strange coincidence: The U.S. Congress was supposed to vote on legislation for further capital allocations to the IMF by April. The vote never came. The new allocations were to fund an expansion of IMF programs and help with the greater inclusion of BRIC nations in governing decisions. If the U.S. government does not pass this legislation, Russia and other nations have demanded that the IMF move forward without the United States on reforms. At the very least, the U.S. would lose its veto power over IMF decisions. I believe that the timing of this is deliberate, that the U.S. is meant to lose its veto power and that the simultaneous SDR conference will announce the inclusion of the Chinese Yuan, setting the stage for the replacement of the dollar as world reserve.
The SDR will not immediately be issued as a commonly traded currency itself. Rather, the IMF will take over management of included currencies and denominate those currencies using SDR valuations. For example, $1 U.S. is worth only .64 SDR today. In the near future, I expect that the dollar will plummet in relation to the SDR’s value. We will still have our greenbacks when the IMF begins administrating our currency system, but the international and domestic worth of those greenbacks will fall to pennies. In turn, other currencies with stronger economic positions will rise in worth relative to the SDR.
I believe one of the primary determinations in a currency’s value compared to the SDR will be a country’s stockpile of gold. This is why Russia and China in particular have been purchasing precious metals at an unheard-of rate (and why U.S. gold reserves have never been audited). The IMF itself is one of the world’s largest holders of physical gold, with nearly 3,000 metric tons (officially). With the crash of the dollar system and investors clamoring for a reliable hedge to protect whatever savings they have left, gold could conceivably skyrocket into the $5,000 to $10,000 per-ounce range. Governments holding the metal will be favorably placed during an implementation of the SDR as the new reserve standard.
A Cover Event Must Be Created
The centralization of power is best achieved during moments of bewildering calamity. The conjuring of crises is one of the oldest methods of elitist dominance. Not only can they confuse and frighten the masses into malleability, but they can also ride to the public’s rescue as heroes and saviors later on. The Hegelian dialectic is the mainstay of tyrants.
The destruction of the dollar and the institution of a global economic bureaucracy are not actions that can be executed openly by international financiers. These events will coincide with extreme catastrophe, likely worse than the Great Depression era, with millions upon millions of people losing the ability to financially support themselves and their families. Crime, death and public discontent will surely follow. People will be looking for someone to blame. This is where the false East/West paradigm comes in.
It is widely expected that as sanctions snowball between Russia and the U.S. that the dollar will end up on the chopping block.  China has asserted its support for Russia in opposition to NATO interference in Ukraine.  The stage has been set.  I have warned for quite some time that the development of East/West tensions would be used as a cover for a collapse of the dollar system. I have warned that among the American media this collapse would be blamed on an Eastern dump of foreign exchange reserves and treasuries, resulting in a global domino-effect ending U.S. world reserve status. In turn, the international community would be conditioned to see this as the mere bumbling of a spoiled America gone power-mad, rather than the result of a covert program of economic destabilization. This might lead to all-out war or a fiscal firestorm that leaves much of the world crippled and desperate for aid.
In either case, the elitist plan is to use scapegoats and false enemies to draw our attention away from the real culprits: the international banks themselves. Make no mistake: This fight is not about President Barack Obama, it is not about Putin and it is not even about the Federal Reserve. These men are tools, errand boys, public mascots. Do not be fooled by the global stage play being perpetrated. Whatever happens in Ukraine and whatever happens between Russia, China and the West, there are only two real sides to this battle: the elitist establishment, and those who are smart enough to recognize their poison.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com.  Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.

Today, Campaign for Liberty announced that H.R. 24, Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill, which was reintroduced this Congress by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), is now cosponsored by a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives for the third Congress in a row.  Audit the Fed calls for a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
“I am pleased to see such wide support for Audit the Fed, and I hope the House moves quickly to pass this important piece of legislation,” said Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul.
Audit the Fed not only has broad support with members of Congress, but it has gained majority support with the American people.  Nearly 75 percent of the American people support a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
About Audit the Fed
Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill, H.R. 459, gained 274 cosponsors and passed the House of Representatives in the 112^th Congress on July 25, 2012, by an overwhelming three-fourths majority of 327-98, after a nationwide grassroots mobilization effort led by Campaign for Liberty.  The legislation calls for a “full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States.”
Last Congress, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced companion legislation, S.202, which gained 37 cosponsors.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow Audit the Fed to be brought to the floor for a vote despite repeatedly calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve throughout his career.
Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) reintroduced Dr. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill in January of 2013 as H.R 24, “The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013,” in the 113^th Congress.  The bill currently has 223 cosponsors.  Senator Rand Paul has again introduced companion legislation, S. 209, which currently has 29 cosponsors.
The post Audit the Fed Surpasses 218 Cosponsors appeared first on Campaign for Liberty.

Audit the Fed Surpasses 218 Cosponsors
Megan Stiles
Wed, 07 May 2014 21:47:30 GMT

May 7th, 2014

We have already given out over $4,000.00 in gas money over the past two weeks, but we are now going to give out additional gas money to any volunteers still out at the Bundy Ranch who need gas money to get home.
Oath Keepers will be sending our store manager, Jim, out to the ranch tomorrow, Thursday, May 8, from noon to 1pm.   He will be at the spot where the main stage was, near the tall flag poles, on the side of Hwy 170, which is on the left, before the bridge, when driving in from I-15.    This is the main stage area where most of the action took place, such as Cliven Bundy bringing the Sheriff onstage to announce that the BLM was calling off the Roundup.   Those who need gas money are asked to please email Jim in advance, if at all possible, at:
merchandise@oathkeepersgear.com
Please email him and let him know what state you are from and how much you are requesting.  He has to cut it off at $360.00 maximum per request to make sure there is enough for others, but if there is money left over after he has given gas money to others, he may consider giving you more if you can prove you are driving that far until he is out of money.
If for any reason Bundy Ranch volunteers can’t email him in advance, just show up at the stage area near the flag poles on the side of the highway, from 1pm -2pm, and it will be first come, first served till he runs out of money.   You will have to show your license so he can see what state you are from to support how much money you are requesting, and he will need to verify in some way that you are actually out at the ranch (that he will do on the spot by talking to you).   He will ask you to fill out a hand receipt so he can show our treasurer how much he gave out.  Fist name is fine on the receipt.  You will also have to promise to mail us the gas receipts from your trip home, for our Treasurer to use.   We will be relying on your word that you will do so.  Send gas receipts to:
Oath Keepers
Attn: Treasurer
5130 S. Ft. Apache Rd.
Suite 215
Las Vegas, NV 89148
This is the last of our funds we have for this effort.   We just want to help prevent anyone from being stranded.   All who wish to donate to the Bundy’s from here forward are encouraged to donate directly to them at:
Cliven and Carol Bundy * 7175 Gold Butte Rd * Bunkerville, NV 89007
Or you can donate online at  their paypal, here:
http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/
We still fully support the Bundy family and their cause, but it is best if you donate directly to them if you so choose.
Oath Keepers

Presented by Kevin Bull & James Kelly, author of the Sibyl Reborn, former White House spokesman on Stem Cells. James and Kevin will be discussing Social Darwinism, Totalitarianism and the NWO.
******************************************* Dementia care ‘costs business £1.6 billion a year’
WORKERS who have to care for loved ones with dementia are costing businesses up to £1.6billion a year, a charity warned yesterday.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/474417/Dementia-care-costs-business-1-6-billion-a-year
12 million Americans are misdiagnosed by their doctors every year
http://www.naturalnews.com/045018_American_medical_system_misdiagnoses_doctors.html#ixzz312v4jW78
Gagged by the secret courts: Spinster, 94, banned from speaking publicly about her legal battle with social workers after judge rules she’s not mentally well enough
• 94-year-old spinster wants to live in her own home against the advice of social workers
• Council say couple she lives with are ‘controlling her life’
• Has been banned from speaking to the press about her plight
• Gagging order was made by secretive Court of Protection
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619263/Gagged-secret-courts-Spinster-94-banned-speaking-publicly-legal-battle-social-workers-judge-rules-shes-not-mentally-enough.html#ixzz312eqomjQ
From the psychiatrist who’d never take anti-depressants, to the heart doctor who steers clear of statins, we reveal the medical treatments the experts REFUSE to have themselves
• Leading doctors and researchers reveal what they would personally avoid
• Many surprising comments go against the established view
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2620866/From-psychiatrist-whod-never-anti-depressants-heart-doctor-steers-clear-statins-reveal-medical-treatments-experts-refuse-themselves.html#ixzz30wb57Jgc
website: www.freethinkingvoice.org/

The ‘SECRET NEWS’ ACROSS the POND SPECIAL,
theearthneedsrebelsshow
Wed, 07 May 2014 19:00:00 GMT

Protesters demand arrest of police chief over spate of shootings
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 7, 2014
Albuquerque, NM residents have vowed to storm another city council meeting set for tomorrow just days after they forced councilors to flee following a raucous protest against police brutality.

Demonstrators crowded Albuquerque city council chambers on Monday before serving a “people’s arrest warrant” against Albuquerque police chief Gorden Eden, causing him to make a hasty dash for the exit. Protesters also called for the removal of Mayor Richard Berry.
Residents are irate about rampant police brutality and corruption, with Albuquerque law enforcement officers having been responsible for 40 shootings since 2010, of which 25 were fatalities. The U.S. Justice Department also released a report last month which called for institutional reform to stem “patterns of excessive force” that have dogged the police department.
Residents have promised to keep up the pressure, starting with the rescheduled meeting on Thursday.
“Nora Tachias-Anaya, a local activist, says protesters are planning to attend a rescheduled council meeting Thursday and will not stop criticizing the Albuquerque Police Department,” reports the Associated Press.
If tomorrow’s meeting is anything like what unfolded on Monday, expect councilors to be heading for the exit doors once again.
University Professor David Correia, who led the takeover the of the council meeting, said that some of the demonstrators were prepared to be arrested as they engaged in a conscious act of civil disobedience, risking a fine and 3 months in jail.
Video footage of the incident shows protesters yelling and waving banners as City Council President Ken Sanchez attempts to address them. When the councilors left for a five minute break, the protesters took over their seats.
“While it may have been nonviolent, it was loud and rowdy. At one point, a person threw a stack of papers into the air. When protesters ignored Sanchez’s attempts to restore order, he called a five-minute recess. When he tried to reconvene the meeting, protesters were still loud and jeering, and he ended the meeting,” reports the Albuquerque Journal.
The recent SWAT team shooting of 50-year-old Air Force veteran Armand Martin was just the latest in a string of incidents that have caused outrage amongst residents.
The most egregious example involved the killing of 38-year-old homeless man James M. Boyd, who was summarily executed by APD officers for “illegally camping” and arguing with police. Officers used flash bang grenades, dogs and beanbag rounds against Boyd as he begged for his life before gunning him down.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 11:20 am
Tags: police state

Wednesday, 07 May 2014 09:46

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

 

A “rogue” group within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is run out of the White House is operating outside the law and for years has “blocked independent investigations by the EPA’s inspector general,” according to an Associated Press account of an EPA investigator’s prepared congressional testimony.
In testimony at a hearing of a House oversight committee scheduled for Wednesday, May 7, Patrick Sullivan, an assistant EPA inspector general for investigations, is expected to provide compelling evidence of an extraordinary abuse of power — even for Barack Obama — by the all but unknown EPA Office of Homeland Security.
The Associated Press reports:
The office of about 10 employees is overseen by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s office, and the inspector general’s office is accusing it of impeding its independent investigations into employee misconduct, computer security and external threats, including compelling employees involved in cases to sign non-disclosure agreements.
“Under the heavy cloak of ‘national security,’ the Office of Homeland Security has repeatedly rebuffed and refused to cooperate with the OIG’s ongoing requests for information or cooperation,” Sullivan wrote in prepared testimony obtained by The Associated Press. “This block unquestionably has hamstrung the Office of Inspector General’s ability to carry out its statutory mandate to investigate wrongdoing of EPA employees.”
In other words, a unit within the EPA that is under the direct control of the White House and its political associates is using the “national security” trope to actively prevent investigations into EPA violations of the law. Given the high profile of their benefactor, this group fears no repercussions.
According to the Associated Press, it seems a similar situation exists, or until recently existed, inside the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. The article outlines the following problems with political influence over the supposedly independent inspectors general:
Two weeks ago, the Homeland Security Department secretary put the agency’s former inspector general on administrative leave after senators said he was too cozy with senior agency officials and improperly rewrote, delayed or classified some critical reports to accommodate Obama’s political appointees.
Last year, the Defense Department’s inspector general removed material from a draft report that concluded then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had improperly disclosed classified information about the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden to a producer for the movie “Zero Dark Thirty.”
Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a frequent foe of the Obama administration, is advantageously positioned to put the screws to the president in this scandal, as well. As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa will be heading the investigation in the White House’s secret EPA squelch squad. “It’s disturbing that even investigations by this administration’s own nonpartisan watchdogs are being blocked by political appointees,” Issa said, as quoted by the AP.
Given the EPA’s egregious disregard for the Constitution and the formerly unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, it is little wonder that the president’s political team has spiked any investigation that might expose to the light of public notice the truth of the agency’s reign of terror. The evidence is overwhelming.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court handed the EPA (and the Obama administration) an unfavorable ruling in the case of Sackett v. U.S., but it’s the events leading up to that high court hearing that boil the blood of constitutionalists and property owners. Asreported by William Jasper, senior editor of The New American:
How long would your bank account hold out if an agency of the federal government were fining you $75,000 per day? A couple of hours, maybe — or a few minutes? Not many homeowners could handle that kind of crushing financial blow. Even a Bill Gates, a Warren Buffett, or a George Soros might blanch at such astronomical fines.
But that was the potential cost facing Idaho couple Mike and Chantelle Sackett … who ran into the iron fist of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when they began building their home in 2007 on a two-thirds acre parcel in a residential neighborhood of Priest Lake. Like their neighbors who had already built homes next door, the Sacketts got their permits from the county and began laying gravel and preparing the ground for building. That’s when the EPA came in and, without hearings or notice, declared that the property is “wetlands” and ordered the Sacketts to restore it to the EPA bureaucracy’s satisfaction.
The Sacketts, having good reasons to believe their property is not a wetlands, were determined to contest the EPA order. However, the EPA denied their request for a hearing. They sought judicial relief, but the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the EPA, ruling that the Sacketts had no right to immediate judicial review of the matter. The Ninth Circuit held that the couple would first have to go through the EPA’s years-long wetlands permit process, which would end up costing the property owners many times the value of their land!
Basically, a group of unelected and unaccountable federal officials has shattered the dreams of the Sackett family, robbed them of the due process of law guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution, and charged them $75,000 a day for the privilege.
The Sacketts understood the enormity of the issue raised by their pouring of a little gravel on less than an acre of land. Said Mrs. Sackett in the days leading up to the Supreme Court decision, “The EPA can come in and turn your life upside down. They can make you feel really small and insignificant. And they take away from you your sense of America.”
The EPA is not content to obliterate property rights, however. Recent actions taken against the country’s last lead smelting facility will affect the right to keep and bear arms, as well, by substantially impacting the production of ammunition. On December 31, 2013, the lead refining plant closed for good.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported just before the shuttering of the plant:
About 145 employees of the Doe Run lead smelter [in Herculaneum, Missouri] learned they will lose their jobs at the end of December because of the plant’s closure, the Doe Run Co. said Wednesday. An additional 73 contractor jobs also will be eliminated.
By forcibly closing this plant, the Obama administration took yet another unconstitutional step — one that will severely impinge on the nation’s ammunition-manufacturing capability.
Why would the Doe Run Company, the owners of the Missouri lead smelting facility, agree to being run out of business by the EPA? One word: extortion.
In a document published on its website, the EPA explains that in order for Doe Run to continue its operations, the company would have to agree to pay “$65 million to correct violations of several environmental laws at 10 of its lead mining, milling and smelting facilities in southeast Missouri. The settlement also requires the company to pay a $7 million civil penalty.”
In a statement to the press, Doe Run said the fine and the required upgrades to its facilities were “too financially risky.”
In cases such as those of the Sacketts, the Doe Run smelting facility, and scores of others nationwide, the EPA’s heavy handed, unconstitutional tactics should have been investigated and the nearly unbounded power should have been reined in.
They carried on without oversight, however, and perhaps now we know why.
Many who have felt the wrath of the president’s shadowy EPA division are hopeful that the House’s committee hearings will finally expose the group’s many misdeeds.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

With the Cliven Bundy storystill fresh on the minds of many Americans, it’s a shock to see a state government turn the tides on the federal government by passing legislation that demands it hand over control of 30 million acres of land.
It’s become commonplace to see news stories of the opposite phenomenon, as the federal government, working through the Bureau of Land Management, has time and again trampled on the private property rights of its citizens and claimed lands for itself. This is not the case in Utah.
Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill earlier this year that strips massive acreage of land from the overreaching hands of the federal government to help build the state’s economy and resources. Of course, not everyone seems to be happy about the land going back into the hands of its rightful owners.
A non-profit organization known as the Utah Dine Bikeyah have been asking Congress to take a specific 1.9 million acre piece of land and make it a conservation area, since it has cultural significance to the Navajo Nation. Apparently, the government has been shuffling its feet and moving a little too slowly for the group, who is now trying to bypass Congress and appeal to President Obama directly.
According to the Salt Lake City Tribune, Willie Grayeyes, a member of the non-profit, is frustrated by the lack of action being taken by Utah and Congress:

“The Utah delegates are only fumbling the ball. They aren’t really tackling it,” Grayeyes said.

The Navajo Nation are not the only ones who are discussing options for how the land should be used. Meetings have been held by public officials discussing plans and initiatives for different projects the land could be used for.
Many local residents are calling the acquiring of the land a great opportunity as it can be used to develop resources like oil and gas. Local citizens seem to largely support taking the land back and removing the influence of the BLM altogether.
Breitbart reports:

In a public meeting held in Grand County, Curtis Wells, a local resident spoke up about the possibility of using federal lands for resource development such as oil, gas, potash and uranium. “That land is opportunity,” Wells said. Another resident, Darrell Dalton urged the council to scal back the Grand County Council committee’s plans for additional wilderness areas. He urged Gov. Herbert and the state’s lawmakers to take back “our” lands and get rid of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service altogether.

In states where land has been used for the development of natural resources, revenue and job creation has went up, producing a healthier local economy. History has shown time and again that the best management of  resources is done at the local and state level, not with the federal government.
It’s a nice change of pace to see a state asserting its property rights in order to consider how land might be used to make its citizens more prosperous.

In a bid to ease the confirmation of an appellate court judge, the White House on Tuesday said that it would release to senators the controversial memo that justified the 2011 targeted drone killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

read more

Obama Judge Nominee Who Penned Drone Killing Memo Gets Pushback From Left, Right
andrea
Wed, 07 May 2014 18:00:27 GMT

Report: White House Openly Committing Crimes Covering Up Benghazi [VIDEO] White House officials are sweating bullets as more and more information comes to light indicating the Obama administration has been committing crimes in their attempt to cover up involvement in the Benghazi scandal.
The criminal behavior the White House is being accused of is tied to recent emails obtained by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
While over 100 pages of material has been released, there is one particular email that many are calling the “smoking gun” that proves Obama’s administration lied about the cause of Benghazi in order to protect the president’s image during his presidential campaign. The email was sent by White House aide Ben Rhodes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
The purpose of the message was to prepare Rice for appearances on Sunday morning talk shows and underscored the importance of stressing that the protests, which they claim as the cause of the attack, resulted from anger over an Internet video, not a “failure of policy.”
According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, the timing and intentions of this email could be a violation of federal law. During an appearance on Fox and Friends, Napolitano explained:
“If that email was intended for and sent to the [Obama] campaign by Mr. Rhodes, that’s a felony. That’s a violation of the Hatch Act, which is a federal statute that prohibits all federal employees except two from engaging in politics on the job. And those two are the president and vice president, not anyone that works for them.”
He said that type of information will never be uncovered unless there is a special prosecutor, but that would have to be appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder. The judge called the new emails “a turning point” in the scandal, adding he was “disappointed” in Carney’s statements yesterday.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the email was not released to Congress, even though a subpoena was issued requesting this kind of information, because it was not specifically about Benghazi, but the “general dynamic in the Muslim world at the time.”
Of course, that begs the question as to why the White House tried so hard to keep the email from being released, forcing an FOIA lawsuit to have it declassified.
As each day passes it is become clear that Obama and his cronies are breaking the law in order to save their skins and bury the truth about what happened in Benghazi. Those who are involved in this cover up need to be prosecuted and brought to justice, and the president should be impeached for either condoning, or refusing to hold accountable, those responsible for this tragedy.
via Report: White House Openly Committing Crimes Covering Up Benghazi [VIDEO].