Sunday, October 18, 2015

Obama Plans Takedown Of Another U.S. Ally

Obama Plans Takedown Of Another U.S. Ally

Submitted by on October 16, 2015 – 7:21 pm EST2 Comments
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

President Obama failed to take out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but now he’s going after Canada’s Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a big supporter of Israel and opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It’s a story the U.S. media won’t cover. But Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press has been documenting how Obama is planning the “fundamental transformation” of Canada by taking down Harper’s government and bringing to power a progressive majority assembled from Canada’s Liberal Party and New Democratic Party (NDP), an affiliate of the Socialist International.
In a dispatch earlier this year, McLeod provided the facts about the interference of Obama campaign operatives in the Canadian elections scheduled for October 19. “In Canada, Obama’s campaign team is guiding the election campaigns of both the Liberals and the NDP,” she wrote. She urged the Harper government to investigate.
She explained why Obama is targeting Canada: “To the U.S., Canada is the country next door, to Obama it’s home of the architects of the maligned Keystone XL Pipeline and home to the world’s Number One elected defender of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Indeed, for the last seven years Harper has not only been supporting Israel but functioning as the leader of the Free World, in the face of Obama’s deal-making with America’s enemies and adversaries. In 2014, at the summit of G20 nations, Harper famously told Russian President Putin that he needs “to get out of Ukraine.” Putin replied with a lie, saying the Russians weren’t in Ukraine.
Harper has declared, “Israel is the front line of free democratic nations, and any who turn their back on Israel or turn a blind eye to the nature of Israel’s enemies do so in the long run at their own peril.”
In a recent speech to the Jewish Community Council of Montreal, he said, “Those who hate democracy and freedom, tolerance and openness, having been plotting attacks against Western nations, beginning with Israel, for decades, seeking to destroy our rare and precious way of life. We were told for years to just ignore the erosion of freedoms and the growing aggression of Putin’s Russia. Look where that has taken the world.”
Canada used to have a conservative cable channel, Sun News Network. But it went out of business earlier this year when the channel failed to get enough distribution to pay for expenses. Cable companies in Canada were carrying foreign channels such as Al Jazeera and Putin’s Russia Today, but wouldn’t carry Sun News. Brian Lilley, a former host on the network, said that the cable companies “didn’t like the message.” He explained, “They didn’t like that we were brash, we were very conservative.  We were pro-business, pro-family, pro-oil, pro-Israel. We were pro-America…They decided to shut us down.”
Lilley and his former colleagues have formed as a replacement, with special news coverage of national and international news. The group’sYouTube channel, with 1,500 videos, is the place to go for conservative coverage of the Canadian elections and other news. Their videos have already attracted millions of views. A report by Ezra Levant on the election describes reporters at Canada’s state broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC), as “liberals with press credentials.” Lilley has been leading a campaign to have the government, which provides about $1 billion to the CBC, sell the broadcasting entity to the private sector. Visitors can also get access to podcasts, columns and blogs, and contribute financially to maintain and expand this important site for news and information.
While the Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau campaigns for legal dope and injection centers for drug addicts, and the New Democratic Party proposes Bernie Sanders-style socialism for Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada has been on the side of individual freedom, traditional values and free enterprise. Harper has taken on the jihadists who want to destroy Western civilization and has spoken eloquently about the stakes for the Free World, such as in a 2014 speech to the Tribute to Liberty Dinner in Toronto. The topic on this occasion was the need to establish a Memorial to Victims of Communism in Canada.
“During the 20th century, communism’s poisonous ideology and ruthless practice slowly bled into countries all around the world, on almost every continent,”Harper said. “The result was nothing short of catastrophic. More than one hundred million souls were lost, an almost incomprehensible number. We must never forget that these are not numbers, they are not statistics. They were mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. Their futures, their potential, their hopes and dreams, were stolen from them. Our hearts break for those who suffered and we mourn for those who were crushed.”
After affirming Canada’s solidarity with Ukraine, in the face of Russian aggression, Harper described another current threat, international Islamic terrorism, and said, “…whatever it calls itself—Nazism, Marxist-Leninism, today, terrorism—they all have one thing in common: the destruction, the end of human liberty. My fear is this: as we move further into the 21st century, Canadians, especially new generations, will forget or will not be taught the lessons hard learned and the victories hard earned over the last 100 years. That they will fall even further in love with ease and convenience. And that they will not understand that their rights and their advantages, their peace and their security, were won by people willing to live and die for what is good and right.”
Harper, in power since 2006, has truly been the leader of the Free World over the last seven years. He is a reminder of what an American president should be standing for in the world. No wonder Obama wants to finish him off.

How Jews distort the nations they live in

How Jews distort the nations they live in

Published by carolyn on Fri, 2015-06-19 16:06

The following news article is an example of how Jews distort a nation's meaning and historical lntegrity. Martin Luther is one of Germany's greatest sons, of whom all Germans are rightfully proud, but some Jew, speaking on behalf of some council they formed in Germany, calling themselves German Jews, puts himself into a superior position to Luther by demanding that today's Protestant church officials censure and condemn their founder because of his 'anti-Semitic' text On the Jews and Their Lies (shown below left as the original publication in 1543).

From this example we can see that, contrary to Jewish propaganda, Jews do NOT enrich other nations with their presence. Instead, they behave as a foreign element which seeks to alter the native beliefs and ideals of a people for the purpose of getting this people to make a special place in their nation for these Jews and their progeny. It is exactly the same practice as that of the cuckoo bird (right, disgustingly voracious baby cuckoo being fed by a brown warbler after taking over its nest).

* * *

German Jewish leader asks Protestants to condemn Luther’s anti-Semitism

BERLIN (JTA) — Germany’s top Jewish leader urged Protestants to confront and condemn anti-Jewish teachings of Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation.

Speaking at a conference in Berlin last week, Josef Schuster, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said he hopes for a clear sign from the Protestant Church condemning Luther’s anti-Jewish writings, ahead of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017.

Luther’s statements on Jews were “not at all acceptable,” the Juedische Allgemeine weekly quoted Schuster as saying at the June 10 conference titled “Reformer, heretic, enemy of the Jews – Jewish perspectives on Martin Luther,” which was organized by the Central Council and the Evangelical Academy.

In his voluminous 1543 text “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther called Jews a “base” people and urged faithful Protestants to burn down synagogues and drive Jews from their homes. Luther was responsible for regulations barring Jews from working or living in his region.

Nikolaus Schneider, former council president of the Protestant Church in Germany, told Schuster during a public discussion at the June 10 conference that the church has begun to confront Luther’s anti-Jewish sentiments, adding he was fairly sure the council would issue a declaration on the matter in time for the anniversary, the Juedische Allgemeine weekly reported.

In 1517, Luther disseminated his Ninety-Five Theses condemning various church practices. According to some, he posted the theses on the door of the All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

But while Luther took church leaders to task on their abuses, it has taken too long for Protestants to take Luther himself to task, critics have said.

For Jews, there is “no good or bad Luther… just the Luther whose encouragement to burn synagogues and drive out the Jews” they cannot forget, Doron Kiesel, the German-Jewish council’s director of educational programs, said at the conference, according to the Juedische Allgemeine.

* * *

Further comment: Oh boo hoo, the poor Jews, they cannot forget. How about the 'Protestant Church in Germany' telling the Jewish councils that they must censure and condemn the Talmud for its hateful statements concerning Jesus, Mary and everything to do with Christianity. Why are they able to overlook that while they agree the Jews are not expected to overlook what Luther said? Probably because Church people are not patriots; they are more than willing to "love their enemy" even more than themselves. They are willing to sell out their nation's heroes for the pacification of Jewry. A distorted state of mind.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

How Eric Holder Facilitated the Most Unjust Presidential Pardon in American History

How Eric Holder Facilitated the Most Unjust Presidential Pardon in American History

Marc Rich
Photo by Guido Roeoesli/AFP/Getty Images
Crime is Slate’s crime blog. Like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter @slatecrime.
Marc Rich, the man who got away with it, died last week, and I would be remiss if I let his death pass without comment. Rich became internationally notorious in 2001, when, as a fugitive from justice, he was pardoned by Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration. What many don’t recall is that Attorney General Eric Holder, who was then a deputy attorney general, was instrumental in securing Rich’s pardon.
Rich was a pioneering commodities trader who made billions dealing in oil and other goods. He had a habit of dealing with nations with which trade was embargoed, like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and apartheid South Africa. Rich also had a habit of not paying his taxes, to the point where one observer said that “Marc Rich is to asset concealment what Babe Ruth was to baseball.” The United States indicted Rich in 1983, hitting him with charges—tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, trading with the enemy—that could’ve brought life in prison. Rich fled the country.
He remained at large for almost 20 years. (Rich’s obituaries have said that, for much of that time, he was on the FBI 10 Most Wanted List, a claim that I have not been able to independently verify. A Lexis-Nexis database search reveals nothing; a call to the FBI’s press office was not fruitful.) Rich lived in a big house in Switzerland and spent lots of money trying to make the charges against him go away, giving money to American politicians and to various Israeli causes, motivated at least partly in the latter case by the hope that officials in Israel might petition the United States on his behalf.
Finally, in 2000, he saw some return on his efforts. Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.
Rich was an active fugitive, a man who had used his money to evade the law, and presidents do not generally pardon people like that. What’s more, the Justice Department opposed the pardon—or would’ve, if it had known about it. But Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input. As the House Government Reform Committee report later put it, “Holder failed to inform the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.”
On Jan. 19, 2001, Holder advised the White House that he was “neutral leaning favorable” on pardoning Rich. But the U.S. pardon attorney, Roger Adams, needed to sign the pardon, too, and a background check needed to be done. The White House waited to contact Adams until slightly after midnight on Jan. 20, hours before Clinton would leave office. Here’s how a recent American Thinker piece described the scene:
Adams would be required to sign the pardons, and when he was informed by White House staff that night, a perfunctory check was done. Adams was stunned to learn that Rich and [Rich’s partner Pincus] Green were both fugitives. He tracked down Holder and called him at his home at 1 a.m. that morning.
Adams informed Holder that Clinton was giving serious consideration to pardoning the two fugitives. Holder told Adams that he was aware of that fact, and the conversation abruptly ended. 
Later that day, Rich’s pardon went through.
Since then, Bill Clinton hasn’t stopped apologizing for the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. “It was terrible politics. It wasn't worth the damage to my reputation,” he told Newsweek in 2002—and, indeed, speculation was rampant that Rich (and his ex-wife) had bought the pardon by, in part, donating $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Clinton denied that the donations had anything to do with the pardon, instead claiming that he took Holder’s advice on the matter. Holder, for his part, has distanced himself from the pardons as well. As the House Government Reform Committee report put it, he claimed that his support for the pardon “was the result of poor judgment, initially not recognizing the seriousness of the Rich case, and then, by the time that he recognized that the pardon was being considered, being distracted by other matters.”
The excuses are weak. In the words of the committee report, “it is difficult to believe that Holder’s judgment would be so monumentally poor that he could not understand how he was being manipulated by Jack Quinn.” And presidential pardons don’t just slip through like this, especially not pardons of wanted fugitives. If Holder had followed protocols and made sure the Justice Department was looped in, there’s no way that Rich would have been pardoned. Hundreds of thousands of men sit in American prisons doing unconscionably long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. DNA tests routinely turn up cases of unjust convictions. But Marc Rich bought his pardon with money and access, and the committee’s response to that purchase is worth quoting in full:
The President abused one his most important powers, meant to free the unjustly convicted or provide forgiveness to those who have served their time and changed their lives. Instead, he offered it up to wealthy fugitives whose money had already enabled them to permanently escape American justice. Few other abuses could so thoroughly undermine public trust in government.
But there was no real lasting damage to trust in government, or to anyone’s reputation, really. Bill Clinton retired to wealth and adulation. Eric Holder got his wish and eventually became attorney general. And Marc Rich died a wealthy man in Switzerland. He never came back to the United States—if he had returned, he would have been subject to civil suits, which would have ended up costing him money—but he was able to live out the rest of his life without having to worry about being arrested, having bought his freedom from craven politicians who were only too willing to sell.

Justin Peters is a writer for Slate. He is working on a book about Aaron Swartz, copyright, and the rise of “free culture.” Email him at

Saturday, January 3, 2015

BOMBSHELL: Obama Doesn’t Want You to See This Horrifying Revelation About His Past

BOMBSHELL: Obama Doesn’t Want You to See This Horrifying Revelation About His Past

Saturday, December 6th, 2014

It’s no secret that Barack Obama has left-leaning views — but a new report has documented just how socialist many of his mentors and connections really are.
If it is true that you can judge a person by who they choose as friends, then Obama is clearly a radical.

According to Western Journalism, the President has so many connections to known socialists and communists that he most likely would be unable to receive a government security clearance.
Of course, the President of the United States does not need to pass a formal background check. The question remains: Why didn’t the media report this radical background during two elections, when it mattered?
The most likely answer is that a large number of journalists have socialist leanings themselves. Reporters were so excited about the idea of Obama in the White House that they forgot to do their job — report.
Story continues below.
“Even though socialism /communism has caused at least 60 million deaths worldwide, our media has decided that it is more acceptable than racism,” wrote Western Journalism columnist Steve Baldwin.
“This is because many reporters are leftists who still believe in the socialist utopia dream. It should be clear by now that our media is treacherous and cannot be trusted to do what’s best for the country,” he continued.
Baldwin stated that Barack Obama quickly placed socialist-leaning people in key positions, with the knowledge that the media would ignore their radical positions.
“Once elected and knowing full well the media would dutifully refuse to report on the background of his own appointees,” stated Baldwin, “Obama appointed a slew of communists and socialists to key positions throughout his administration, who then proceeded to destroy our economy and our culture.”
Baldwin went on to chronicle all of Barack Obama’s known communist and socialist connections. The list is over a page long.
Here are just several of Barack Obama’s alarming connections, as reported by Western Journalism:
-Throughout his life, Obama worked with and for a variety of prominent communists and socialists.  He served on numerous boards – such as the Woods Fund — with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who calls himself a “small c communist.”
-Obama’s father was a socialist economist for the Kenyan Government. His white mother was raised by socialists.
-His African grandparents were socialists.
-In Obama’s own biography, he says his main mentor from age 8 to 18 was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist Party leader (Party #47544) who hated everything America stood for. Davis practically raised Obama.
-Once out of college, Obama worked for and with a number of groups associated or founded by Saul Alinsky, a nationally renowned socialist community organizer.
-The Young Communist League USA (youth wing of the Communist Party) also endorsed Obama and worked hard for Obama’s 2008 campaign.
-Obama’s pastor of 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is also a well known socialist who hates everything America stands for; that is why he screamed “God Damn America” in that famous tape Fox News uncovered during the 2008 campaign.
-Obama was an actual member of a Chicago-based socialist party called the New Party.  He attended their meetings and received their endorsement.  In 1996, its newsletter stated “New Party members won three other primaries in Chicago:  Barack Obama….”
-Obama was also a member of a socialist organization called “Progressive Chicago,” whose leadership  was dominated by DSA and Communist Party activists.
After surrounding himself with so many extremists, is it really so hard to believe that Obama himself is a left-wing radical?

RWW News: Larry Klayman: Obama 'Dismantled' US As 'Payback' For Racial D...

Top Attorney: Obama Is Destroying America as “Payback” For… [VIDEO]

Top Attorney: Obama Is Destroying America as “Payback” For… [VIDEO]

Thursday, January 1st, 2015

President Barack Obama, due to his socialist upbringing, believes that America is a racially unjust nation, one that must be “fundamentally transformed” for the better.
Obama’s views are disputed and quite contrary to that held by most Americans though, and many people are beginning to look past Obama’s rhetoric to see his true intentions.

During a recent interview with Newsmax, attorney Larry Klayman said that Obama’s constant focus on correcting the perceived racial and income inequality in America is because he is searching for “payback” for years of discrimination against black Americans in the past.
“If you’re talking about income equality all the time, that’s what he’s talking about, he believes in his heart, he sees everything in terms of race and religion,” he said. “And in my view, and this may sound harsh, but I think people are starting to believe it, is that he believes that this country had to pay back for years of invidious discrimination to African Americans — and it was terrible discrimination, I agree — and he has dismantled this country in many ways as a payback. And also with the Muslim world, he doesn’t like Israel, he’s done everything he can to harm them.”
“I don’t mean this in a racial way, but all of us are equal, we’re all the same, and he favors what he considers to be his people over everybody else,” he added. “It wasn’t right when white people did it to African Americans, it’s not right that he’s now doing it to others in this country.”
Story continues below.
Klayman is right.  Obama thinks that America is a bad country, full of racism and classism.  In his efforts to combat these though, Obama really just makes it all worse.  In essence, Obama has declared war on the American people, in order to right what he sees as wrong.
What happened in the past is just that…in the past.  There is no reason to now try and punish people for what their great-grandparents may or may not have done.  To do so now is to simply be a vindictive and small person, one ruled by emotion, instead of facts, logic, and reason.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that Obama is trying to get “payback” for all of the perceived injustices that have occurred throughout American history.