Showing posts with label must. Show all posts
Showing posts with label must. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!

At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on The Daily News Source.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

If GCHQ wants to improve national security it must fix our technology

If GCHQ wants to improve national security it must fix our technology
http://feeds.theguardian.com/c/34708/f/663871/s/380d80a0/sc/46/mf.gif

Our security is better served by protecting us against online threats than it is by giving cops and spies an easier time attacking ‘bad guys’. By Cory Doctorow












Technology news, comment and analysis | theguardian.com


Read more about If GCHQ wants to improve national security it must fix our technology and other interesting subjects concerning Internet Spying and Secrecy at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Rubio & Cotton: U.S. Must Make Putin Pay for His Actions


Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, both Republicans, have a new op-ed at CNN calling on the United States to punish Russia economically and to aid Ukraine militarily if Russia does not back down:  


The Weekly Standard



Rubio & Cotton: U.S. Must Make Putin Pay for His Actions

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Israel: MUST READ Open Letter to John Kerry

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Israel: MUST READ Open Letter to John Kerry

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers


Townhall.com:

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.


Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.


“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.


The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.


The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:


“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”


Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.


Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.


“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”


Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.


RELATED:  ‘Bachelor’ Juan Pablo Galavis-GLAAD Release New Apology for Anti-Gay Statements
Politik Ditto



Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers

Monday, January 13, 2014

Rashid Khalidi & Noam Chomsky: For Peace Today, US Must End Support for Sharon"s Expansionist Legacy



Transcript



This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.



AMY GOODMAN: Why does—Professor Avi Shlaim, why does Ariel Sharon hold the special place he does in the annals of Israeli history?


AVI SHLAIM: Noam Chomsky reminded us that one shouldn’t speak ill of the recently dead, so I would like to say something positive about Ariel Sharon, which explains both his popularity with one segment of the Israeli population and the reviling of Sharon by another segment of the Israeli population. And the point is that towards the end of his active life, Sharon finally understood the limits of military power. He had always been a proponent of greater Israel, but he understood that the facts of democracy worked against Israel, so he didn’t—he did not jettison the dream of greater Israel, but he scaled it down to what he thought was realistic for Israel to maintain in the long run.


So he had a strategy of redrawing the borders of greater Israel unilaterally. Stage one was building the wall on the West Bank, and stage two was the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005. Now, the withdrawal from Gaza was not part of any negotiations or overall peace deal with the Palestinian Authority. It was a unilateral move undertaken in Israel’s interests. So, Sharon withdrew from Gaza, but he wanted to consolidate Israel’s presence on the West Bank. And this got him into trouble with the right wing of his own party, the Likud Party, and with the settler community, so he quit the Likud, and he set up a new center party, Kadima. But Kadima did not survive Sharon’s political demise. Today, Kadima has two seats in the 120-member Knesset. So Sharon’s last-minute effort to realign Israeli politics ended in total failure.


His enduring legacy in Israel’s history is that he empowered and emboldened some of the most xenophobic, aggressive, racist, expansionist and intransigent elements in Israel’s dysfunctional political system.


AMY GOODMAN: Professor Khalidi?


RASHID KHALIDI: Another thing that might be mentioned about Gaza is that there’s a huge debate in Israel about whether the withdrawal was a good thing or a bad thing. The withdrawal did not change the situation of Gaza as being completely under Israeli control, which it is to this day. So Israel withdrew its settlers and withdrew its troops from within the Gaza Strip, but it completely controls the Strip from without. It is the largest open-air prison in the world. Sharon also had a notorious period as commander of the Southern Command in which he participated in the savage repression of resistance inside Gaza, killing thousands of—hundreds—well, many hundreds of Palestinian militants, destroying thousands of homes, as part of a huge repression of the resistance.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, Dov Weissglass, a top aide to Ariel Sharon, described the withdrawal from Gaza by saying, quote, “The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with Palestinians.” Explain what he meant and how that translates today to the so-called peace process that’s going on.


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, Dov Weissglass understood the situation very well. The Oslo Accords in 1993 determined that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are a single territorial entity which cannot be divided. Immediately, the United States and Israel set about separating the two and making sure that they would not be united. And this is extremely significant, not only for the people of Gaza, but for the prospect of any viable Palestinian entity. The West Bank is essentially imprisoned. Its one access to the outside world would be through Gaza—access through the sea, through the air, if there was an airport, and so on. By breaking Gaza from—separating Gaza from the West Bank, that undercuts whatever limited possibility there might be for a meaningful Palestinian self-determination.


Dov Weissglas pointed out that—what he meant is—in fact, as he said, Israel will keep the people in Gaza on a diet. We won’t let them starve to death; that won’t look good in the international world. We’ll just give them just enough to stay barely alive in this open-air prison, as Rashid Khalidi correctly described it, and they’ll be separated from the West Bank. Meanwhile, both the wall, the separation wall—actually an annexation wall—that Sharon initiated and other development and settlement projects, including in the Jordan Valley, will effectively cantonize whatever is left of—to Palestinian administration and surround it so that it has—so that it is another kind of prison, surrounded completely by Israel and its Jordanian ally.


Actually, Professor Shlaim said something very important in his last—his first comment at the very end. All of this can happen because of what he called Israel—ironically, Israel’s little friend, because the United States authorizes—it supports it, provides the requisite diplomatic, economic, military support, and also ideological support—namely, by a false—by the process of reshaping and falsifying what is underway. This is quite reminiscent; this is not novel, unfortunately. If you look at the history of South Africa, it was pretty similar. By 1960, the South Africans knew that they were becoming a pariah state. The South African foreign minister called in the American ambassador and told him, “Look, we know everyone is going to vote against us in the United Nations. We’re going to have all kinds of problems. But as long as you support us, it doesn’t make any difference.” And that’s the principle that they had here, too, right to the end of the Reagan years, 1988, the U.S., along with Britain, was still vetoing and blocking resolutions which would call for any kind of sanctions, and supporting South African atrocities and crimes. This is a kind of a replay of it. As long as the United States, the most powerful state in the world, continues to play its crucially supportive role, unfortunately, these developments will continue.


And this is of prime significance for people like us, for American citizens. It’s our responsibility. I mean, Sharon may have had indirect—as the Kahan Commission in its whitewash claimed, indirect responsibility for Sabra-Shatila—actually direct responsibility. And we have direct responsibility for the fact that our own government is crucially facilitating all of this.


AMY GOODMAN: What could Kerry do right now?


NOAM CHOMSKY: What should we do?


AMY GOODMAN: And what should—what do you feel John Kerry should do?


NOAM CHOMSKY: What John Kerry should do is insist on implementing a very broad international consensus, virtually universal, calling for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border, which is, as was said before, the 1949 ceasefire line, possibly with minor and mutual adjustments, which was a U.S. policy—


AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.


NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. And this is supported by the entire world. It’s been blocked by the United States for 35 years. We should shift that policy, join the world, and carry out the measures which might conceivably bring a semi-decent peace.


AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I want to thank Professor Noam Chomsky in Massachusetts; Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian at Oxford; and Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian professor, the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University.




Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | RFID | Amazon Affiliate

Democracy Now!

Rashid Khalidi & Noam Chomsky: For Peace Today, US Must End Support for Sharon"s Expansionist Legacy

Sunday, December 29, 2013

The UN Says the Ukrainian People Must Decide their Fate, NATO wants something else


eu-ukraine


On December 8, 2013, United Nations Secretary General Ban-Ki moon telephoned Ukrainian President Yanukovich to discuss the deteriorating and destabilizing situation in Kiev, as Ukrainian demonstrators, in an action some described as vandalism, smashed and beheaded a public statue, a symbolic action foreboding violent civil conflict, ostensibly protesting Yanukovich’s government’s refusal to sign, according to the New York Times, “sweeping political and free-trade agreements with the European Union.”


The NYT’s statement was a gross misrepresentation of the reality of the agreement which the US and NATO countries were virtually coercing Ukraine to sign.  But to its credit, on December 12, the NYT acknowledged, “For months, the International Monetary Fund has refused to sign off on a nearly $ 15 billion dollar bailout loan that Ukraine needs by March to refinance its external debt.  The IMF wants Ukraine to accept harsh conditions including raising domestic gas prices,  and imposing strict budgetary austerity.  These conditions could also lead to more political upheaval.”


 


In an act of supreme hypocrisy and cynicism, the former US Ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland attempted to bully the Ukrainian government into signing the EU agreement which would have dragged Ukraine into the economic crisis plaguing Western European countries, and transformed Ukraine into a puppet state, completing NATO’s military encirclement of Russia.  Like the wolf disguised in granny’s clothes, luring gullible Ukrainians to their doom, Ms. Nuland arrogantly hectored the Ukrainian President:  “I made it absolutely clear to him that what happened  last night, what has been happening in security terms here, is absolutely impermissible in a European state, in a democratic state. We also made clear that we believe there is a way out for Ukraine , that it is still possible to save Ukraine’s European future,”’  Ms. Nuland said. The European accords were expected to be accompanied by a rescue package from the IMF, but Mr. Yanukovich had already rejected that because of the conditions attached.”


Granny Nuland also presumed to lecture the infinitely more sophisticated Russian President Putin, “urging Russia to use its influence to press for peace, human dignity and a political solution, and emphasized Ukraine’s need for ‘a return to economic health with the support of the International Monetary Fund.’” This gross insult to the Russian President’s intelligence suggests that the former US ambassador to NATO is dangerously out of contact with reality, or dangerously cynical, or both, and in a photograph published December 12, Ms. Nuland is  presented offering a bag of food to Ukrainians, who are unaware that the food she is proffering is laced with the arsenic of economic austerity measures that will plunge their already ailing economy into the catastrophic abyss of economic and social injustice caused by those  austerity measures, imposed by the IMF, which have devastated the societies in the European Union, including Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and the United Kingdom.


The Association Agreement is a Doorway to NATO Expansion


But this is the “prettier” side of the US and EU seduction which will culminate in merely ravaging the Ukrainian economy and society. In reality, the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement is part of a military arrangement which will enable NATO to completely split Ukraine from Russia, and place it in the perilous position of being in the middle of any east-west confrontation. Eastern Ukrainians are fiercely opposed to Ukraine’s signing this inherently military document of incorporation into the EU, and the West’s provocative encouragement of Kiev’s demonstrations against Yanukevich risked inciting a civil war.


The proposed “Association Agreement” between the Ukraine and the European Union is in fact a dangerous NATO military agreement disguised as a customs and economic agreement.  Even if the treaty does not pass, it reveals the truly continuing aggressive goals of the NATO leadership and their willingness to use all means of deceit to achieve their ends.  Clearly in order for the military elements of this proposal to have reached this stage of development, Ukraine-NATO military discussions and commitments must already be intensive and advanced.  This explains the extraordinary anger on the part of the NATO countries when Ukraine withdrew from this agenda.


The treaty was surrounded by a propaganda campaign which fraudulently tried to convince the Ukrainian people and the world that it was an economic agreement bringing prosperity and no visa requirements for travel within the EU.  The military component of this ‘economic agreement’ is actually the first substantive part of the document (see Title II Articles 4-16).


 


NATO’s plan under the Agreement is accomplished by integrating Ukraine into the EU’s military structure (the European Common Security and Defense Policy-ESDP or CSDP – which is dominated by powerful NATO states, and the text makes it clear that association with the EU military structure includes its coordination with the US military and NATO.


The goal is to incorporate Ukraine into NATO’s continuing drive east against Russia and Belarus, the targeted regions to the east and south of the Black Sea, and even “global” challenges (see Article 4, Sec.2(c)).


 


The Treaty calls for a “political dialogue” to promote “convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever deeper involvement into the European security area (and) strengthen cooperation and dialogue between the Parties on international security and crisis management, notably in order to address global (!) and regional challenges and key threats” (Article 4, Sec. 1, Sec. 2(c))


 


This political military dialogue is coordinated at various levels in several structures:


 



  • The EU’s Political and Security Committee (which coordinates both (1) the EU Military Committee, where the Defense Ministers coordinate operations, as well as (2) the Political Military Group) (Article 5 Sec. 3 (a))



  • “all diplomatic and military channels between the Parties, including appropriate contacts in third countries (United States) and within the United Nations, the OSCE, and other international fora (ie, NATO)” (Article 5 Sec. 3 (b).  “Cooperation…shall aim at increasing policy convergence and effectiveness, and promoting joint policy planning.  To this end, the Parties shall make use of bilateral (ie, including US-Ukrainian), international (ie NATO) and regional fora” (Article 7, Sec. 1)

  •  And “regular meetings both at the level of high officials and of experts of the military institutions of the Parties,” (Article 5, Sec. 3(c));

  •  And the European Defense Agency (Article 10 Sec. 3) which reports to the European Commission.


 


 The Treaty calls for “increased participation of Ukraine in EU-led “civilian and military crisis management operations as well as relevant exercises and training” (Article 10, Sec. 1).


 


Article 10 Sec. 3 specifically mandates the kind of military technological cooperation necessary for the degree of interoperability critical for unified command and control and combat efficiency;  anticipating that Ukraine would sign onto this agreement, on June 24, 2013 the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council which was established to implement the agreement published the “EU-Ukraine Association Agenda to prepare and facilitate the implementation of the Association Agreement” including: “increase interoperability where appropriate between Ukrainian peacekeeping units and EU Member States forces through lessons learned from relevant EU crisis management operations to which Ukraine participated, and through involvement of the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine into the formation of EU Multinational Tactical Battle groups.”


 


This issue has been framed between the 2008 Bucharest summit where NATO declared that Ukraine will become a member of NATO whenever it wants and when it meets the criteria for accession and June 3, 2010 when the Ukrainian parliament rejected, with 226 votes, the goal of “integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership” from the country’s national security strategy.


The European Union and US are Inciting a Revolt in Ukraine to Expand NATO 


 


The US and NATO “support” – in reality, incitement – of the protesters in Kiev who violently smashed and decapitated the statue of Lenin bears an alarming similarity to the US NATO approach to civil disorder in Syria .  One can only wonder how many of the “demonstrators” in Kiev were spontaneously and authentically opposed to Yanukevich’s government. Certainly, IMF imposed austerity measures have nothing to do with the “dignity” and democratic rights of Ukrainian citizens, who would be degraded by the imposition of IMF austerity measures which would further demolish their sparse living conditions.


 


Of course, the separation of Ukraine from Russia was a paramount goal of “The Grand Chessboard.”  It is also imperative to question the motives of US-NATO support for the Ukrainian Svoboda party, whose Nazi sympathies and affiliation are notorious – and well documented.


This attempt to incorporate Ukraine into NATO garishly highlights the violation of the promise given by James Baker to Gorbachev, that “NATO will not expand one inch east of Berlin.”


 


The United Nations daily press briefing of 13 December, 2013 affirmed:  “It’s for the people of Ukraine to decide their own future.  Everybody’s watching very closely what is happening on the streets and through dialogue, which is the most important aspect of all this;  it remains to be seen what the outcome will be.  But it is for the people of Ukraine to decide and, of course, many countries are concerned about the tensions there are.  The Secretary-General has expressed his own concerns about those tensions and has spoken to President Viktor Yanukevich about the need for dialogue and the need for restraint on all sides.  But, ultimately, it’s for the people of Ukraine to decide.”




Global Research


Reprinted with permission from the source



The UN Says the Ukrainian People Must Decide their Fate, NATO wants something else

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

NFL wives must carry load after brain injuries



By Stephanie Gosk and Monica Alba
NBC News


The wife of an ex-football player who is suing the NFL for allegedly concealing the danger of concussions said that during games, even way up in the stands, she could hear the sound of helmet-clad heads slamming into each other.


“You would hear the clapping of the helmets,” said Garland Radloff, whose husband Wayne played five seasons at center for the Atlanta Falcons. “But then you’d hear cheering. … You know, you didn’t think about any head injury.” She says she wasn’t thinking about long-term effects even after the time her husband was knocked out cold for five minutes.


More than 20 years later, Wayne Radloff, at age 52, has been diagnosed with a form of early onset dementia brought on by repeated concussions. He is unable to work and the bank has started foreclosure proceedings on his South Carolina home. And Garland Radloff has become one of the football wives who are left to carry the ball — to earn a living, take care of the kids, and fight for what they believe the NFL owes their families.


“The woman has to pick the pieces up,” said Garland.


Last August the lawsuit, filed on behalf of 4,500 former players, was settled for $ 765 million, though the NFL has not admitted any liability or that the injuries were caused by football. The final details are still being determined, and the settlement must still be approved by a federal judge, but the league has agreed to split the money between compensation for players, research, and medical monitoring for players who have yet been diagnosed. The settlement applies to all retired NFL players and their spouses — more than 20,000 people.



When the settlement was announced earlier this year, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell called it “a significant amount of money” and said it was good for both sides. ”We were able to find common ground to be able to get relief to the players and their families now rather than spending years litigating,” he said at a September press conference.


Read terms of the settlement here.


A group of wives of players who retired in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s told NBC they hope the settlement will relieve some of their financial burden. But they’re also concerned that the settlement, in which they played a crucial role, won’t be enough. Players who played five years or less or were diagnosed after the age of 45 may not receive much money, according to a letter written by one of the law firms involved in the suit that was recently obtained by NBC.



Three wives of former professional football players sit down to discuss their husband’s conditions and involvement in a lawsuit against the NFL for allegedly covering up the dangers of concussions. NBC’s Stephanie Gosk reports.



The wives have had to handle much of the paperwork, the discussions with doctors and lawyers, and the fight for benefits, while also holding their households together, because their husbands have been left with short term memory loss, depression, and other ills that make it difficult to hold a job or pay mounting medical bills.


Courtesy of Tia McNeill



Tia McNeill, whose husband Fred played defense for the Minnesota Vikings from 1974 to 1985, said Fred struggles to recognize old friends. “People we run into that he should know,” said Tia. “People that were in our wedding.” Fred, who thought he’d prepared for life after football by earning a law degree, tries to hide his mental difficulties.  “He will act as if he knows them,” said his wife. “Then he will pull me aside and say, ‘Now, who is that again?’”


Trisha Bell’s husband Nick starred for the Iowa Hawkeyes in college and then played three seasons for the NFL’s Raiders.  At 45, he suffers from depression, and Trisha does all the shopping and driving and pays all the bills, responsibilities she had to “wrestle” away from him. Said Trisha, “When he is in really deep depression — I can’t leave him at all, because I’m so afraid that he’s going to hurt himself.”


Courtesy of Trisha Bell



Tanya Bradley says her husband Henry, who was a nose tackle for the Cleveland Browns, now stammers, shakes and loses his temper. “I’m concerned about my husband all day, every day,” said Tanya.


The physical toll of football is often easy to see in the veterans. Tanya Bradley says her husband had the body of a 65-year-old at age 30. Now, at age 60, he struggles to walk down stairs or sit on the couch. While a player he broke both hands, injured both feet, both knees, his neck and his shoulder, and had a muscle removed from his back.


But brain injuries are less visible. The condition most often associated with repeated concussions, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), is hard to diagnose until after death, during an autopsy. In 2010, Bradley’s doctor diagnosed “post traumatic head syndrome,” and wrote, “100 percent of impairment/disability is felt to be due to cumulative trauma while playing professional football.”


George Rose / Getty Images



LOS ANGELES – DECEMBER 8: Defensive end Leon Seals #96 and linebacker Ray Bentley #50 of the Buffalo Bills take down running back Nick Bell #38 of the Los Angeles Raiders during a game at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum on December 8, 1991 in Los Angeles, California. The Bills won 30-27 in overtime. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)




Tanya says “the most scary part” is “to think that there may be a point where my husband can’t think for himself, can’t control his behavior [or] has to be in a facility.”


The women all worry about a lack of financial help for their husbands as conditions worsen. They want to dispel the impression that playing pro ball is always a lucrative proposition. Most of their husbands played five years or less, none of them earned more than $ 300,000 a year, and agents and other representatives could take 40 percent and more of their paychecks.


“I mean, we can’t afford our medical bills right now,“ said Trisha Bell. She said she can’t keep up with prescriptions and copays, despite Medicare coverage and NFL disability payments, and her husband had two ambulance visits within the past month.


Jason Luckasevic, the attorney who filed the first concussion lawsuit against the NFL two years ago, said “the saddest calls” come from the players’ wives.


Courtesy of Tanya Bradley



“I almost dread that call,” said Luckasevic, a Pittsburgh-based attorney with the firm Goldberg, Persky & White, “because I know that there’s nothing that I can offer them with any certainty right now.  That all I can offer them is, ‘Hang in there.  You’re doing the right thing.  You are their hero now.’”


But the wives say that their pursuit of money, and publicity about the risks of the game, is not just for their families, but for future NFL families – and future wives.


 “I want the young wives to have this information,” said Tanya Bradley.


She said her goal was not to warn women away from football players. “[This is] not to say, ‘Don’t get married to him,’” explained Bradley, “but to say, ‘You need to be prepared, now, because gradually you will have to take control over your whole life and his whole life.’”


More from NBC News Investigations:


Follow NBC News Investigations on Twitter and Facebook 



Investigate this!


Read and vote on readers’ story tips and suggested topics for investigation or submit your own.







NFL wives must carry load after brain injuries

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Anunnaki and Ancient Hidden Technology (MUST WATCH)


Join in the fight for Humanity’s freedom, by becoming a Ascension Warrior to drive out the dark energy with the synergy of our Light energy! Your contact information will not be shared, sold, or used to advertise anything to you under any circumstance.




Unite Under Freedom



Anunnaki and Ancient Hidden Technology (MUST WATCH)

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

FEMA COFFINS!!! MUST WATCH!!!

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



FEMA COFFINS!!! MUST WATCH!!!

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Gohmert: Republicans Must Unite, Reshape Better Healthcare Alternative

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert called on his fellow Republicans to eschew political fallout and come together to reshape the existing Obama healthcare law, noting that they must show leadership and unite to alleviate “suffering” for the American people.

“Obamacare is causing the suffering and we have got to keep pushing on this because this isn’t about politics. If people are trying to make it about politics, it’s going to hurt them in the end. It’s about helping alleviate the suffering that Obamacare is and will cause,” Gohmert, a Texas Republican, told Newsmax at the annual Restoration Weekend event in Palm Beach, Fla., a day after the House voted on a fix to the divisive health plan with 39 Democrats breaking ranks in support.


Gohmert urged Republicans to be firm as the healthcare law continues to unravel and Democrat fears over 2014 midterm elections mount. He believes they have the power to reshape something better if they are thoughtful.


“What I keep wanting people to understand in our party is when you stand up for what’s right instead of arguing about what’s politically best, if you just stand up for what’s right, in the end, it may hurt you here or there, but, in the end, it ends up being the best thing politically,” he said. “And not getting cute and trying to twist this, just stand up for what we believe in, show the people what our plan is… Let’s come together. Let’s have these discussions.”


Story continues below the video.



Despite the unification message, Gohmert mixed no words when defining the Obama administration’s plan to force healthcare into a single-payer system. He said he read the Obamacare bill completely and said it amounted to a plan that would eventually bankrupt insurers by forcing them to provide a large set of coverage, keep premiums low and then have the government eventually rush in to rescue a system it set up to fail as it called out doctors and providers as “greedy.”


He acknowledged that the House resolution is unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate or a certain presidential veto, but said it sends a crucial message to the insurance industry because it changes the way Obamacare moved ahead.


“Obamacare says the insurance companies are going to get hammered if they don’t provide the policies exactly like they were supposed to. Our bill says if you got a policy in place before Obamacare now, it’s OK. Keep it going for another year,” Gohmert said. “So it would allow insurance companies to do that.”


Gohmert said he and some House colleagues are working on an alternative interim plan that would not allow a bridge for consumers to keep their policies, at least for a year, removed from sweeping government control, noting “we do have alternatives. We can make this work to get back to sanity.”


He explained their rationale: “What some of us want to see is an interim, only a bridge, not a permanent solution, but every state has insurance policies that are approved for the state workers, the federal government has policies that were approved for people that worked for the federal government in the different states that are OK in those states. (This is) just a one-year bridge to get us through this tough time when people have lost their insurance and can’t afford what’s there,” he said.


“Let them buy from the private insurance companies that are approved by the federal government or the state government or the local government. Let them buy those policies for the next year and not those governed by the federal government, not controlled by the OPM in Washington but just controlled by the states.”


Gohmert called on lawmakers to reshape a stronger dialogue with the public over what is good and bad within the framework of a federal healthcare law, much like the debates that occurred in 2008 as Obama began discussion on such a plan. By walking it back, listening to feedback, holding thoughtful hearings and not rushing it through, better alternatives are likely to emerge, he said.


“What appealed to the American public in 2008 was the United States president now, candidate then, saying I am going to have debates, we’ll even have them on C-SPAN, we will discuss this, and we will get all of this information and we’ll pull together a bill. That’s what should be done. Our leadership is not ready to have that open debate. It’s time not to just say here’s the bill; we’re going to ram ours through like the Democrats. No, but let’s have the open debate,” he said.


“It’s time to move forward with our plan but let’s don’t ram one down,” Gohmert cautioned of Republicans in shaping a better law. He noted that Congress is full of medical expertise.


“Let’s let Mike Burgess, Louie Gohmert, Tom Price, Phil Roe, all of these doctors, John Fleming, let all of these doctors that have good ideas, let’s get all of this input.”


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Gohmert: Republicans Must Unite, Reshape Better Healthcare Alternative

Must Good Presidents Be Ex-Governors?


Yesterday at the end of an interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, House Majority Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy threw in an interesting kicker to his criticism of President Obama’s handling of budget issues and his refusal to negotiate with the GOP.


This is why this system is not working. I’m a firm believer that I don’t think anybody should become president if they haven’t been a governor first. A governor picks a cabinet, has to work with both sides, can’t print more money, has to have a balanced budget. The challenge in Washington is the ability to work together.



Is he right? We’ll leave aside the question of whether he was expressing tacit support for the GOP governors in the conversation for 2016 like Chris Christie, Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal and opposition to senators like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and limit our discussion to one about the past.


Democrats will dispute McCarthy’s characterization of President Obama as a dysfunctional leader unused to the business of running a government but an objective look at this administration (especially in the wake of the president’s confession that he didn’t know what was happening with ObamaCare before the rollout fiasco began just as he claimed to first learn of the IRS Scandal from the newspapers and about Benghazi after it was all over) gives weight to McCarthy’s point of view. Government is now more complicated than ever and keeping the moving parts from pulling apart while also managing the political system is essential to an effective president. But it’s not clear that history proves McCarthy’s point. While administrative experience is important, not all good presidents have had it. And not all former governors to serve in the White House have been great presidents.


If the 43 men who have served as president, 21 of them have been governors though if we limit that to governors of states (Andrew Jackson was military governor of Florida before it became a state and William Howard Taft ruled the Philippines and Cuba as governor when they were possessions of the United States) that number goes down to 19. That list includes some that many historians consider great or near great. Among those consensus picks are Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt (though his time as governor of New York was brief) and Thomas Jefferson (whose service as governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War is chief remembered for his famous skedaddle on horseback when the British invaded the state).


But if we expand our list to more recent presidents — about whom opinion is still influenced by partisan loyalties — you must include Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I believe Reagan ranks among the unquestionably great. However, I think Clinton a skilled politician who benefited from the good luck of serving during a period of peace and prosperity that had little to do with his efforts. But let’s include him among the positives for argument’s sake. Other former governors whose service adds strength to McCarthy’s argument are Calvin Coolidge (whose stock has justifiably gone up in recent years as the hangover from the New Deal’s condemnation of the 1920s wore off), William McKinley, James Polk and James Monroe.


But some former governors undermine McCarthy’s point. The most prominent example of a terrible president with executive experience on the state level is, of course, Jimmy Carter. But Andrew Johnson (a former governor of Tennessee who may well have merited his impeachment at the hands of his Radical Republican foes in Congress) gives the peanut farmer a run for his money in that category.


Opinion may be split about two other former governors.


George W. Bush left office among the most reviled presidents in memory but I would contend that history will be kinder to him than his contemporaries even if no one will ever consider him great.


Many students of history consider Woodrow Wilson great or near great but I dissent from that view. Indeed, the collapse of his second term (even before his illness rendered him helpless and left his wife more or less in charge of the country), illustrates how a former governor failed to demonstrate exactly those skills that McCarthy claims are essential: the ability to work with members of the opposition.


But the list of non-governors to serve as president is just as instructive.


Our two greatest presidents never ran a state before taking office: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps leading the Continental Army constitutes executive experience for Washington but Lincoln never was charge of anything bigger than his law office before assuming the presidency at the most crucial point in our history.


Other non-governors to add luster to their side of their ledger are Dwight Eisenhower (though his post as military leader of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War Two was probably more a test of his political and diplomatic talent than his military acumen) and Harry Truman.


That said the roster of really bad presidents is thick with non-governors. That includes 19th century duds like Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and perhaps the worst of all, James Buchanan along with U.S. Grant, who must be considered one of the runners-up in that category. But we must also include 20th century disasters such as Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover (unjustly blamed for the Depression but still a failure) and Richard Nixon. I would add Barack Obama to this list but as bad as his conduct of policy at home and abroad has been, he does have three more years to change my opinion … or make it worse.


Others who never ran a state fall somewhere in the middle: George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam cancels out his domestic achievements), John Kennedy (I know we’re commemorating the 50th anniversary of this death this month but despite the attempt of some conservatives to claim him as one of their own and the efforts of liberals to keep him as one of their patron saints, nothing he did in his less than three years in office makes him great or damns him as one of the worst unless you’re counting personal conduct).


Thus, the verdict here must be considered inconclusive.


I’ll concede that perhaps in the 21st century as government has grown to a size our Founders could not have imagined so perhaps that means executive experience means more today than it has in the past. But what this exercise should teach us is that presidential greatness depends more on leadership skills and moral authority than it does on a resume. As I look at the list of potential contenders in 2016, perhaps the current and former governors there look more credible to me than the Senate loudmouths. But none of them are guaranteed to be able to duplicate their success in statehouses once they sit in the Oval Office. Nor can we know for sure that a senator is not qualified to do so though if I had to bet on it, I’d guess Cruz and Paul wouldn’t be any more successful in the unlikely event of their being elected than Obama has been.


What we need is a leader, whether he comes from a statehouse, Congress or private life. We can only hope that Divine Providence and the will of the voters provide us with one.




Commentary Magazine



Must Good Presidents Be Ex-Governors?

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Homeland Security must disclose ‘Internet Kill Switch,’ court rules


CJ Ciaramella
Washington Times
November 14, 2013


A literal kill switch, which is what DHS practically wants for the Internet. Credit: wlodi via Flickr

A literal kill switch, which is what DHS practically wants for the Internet. Credit: wlodi via Flickr




The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must disclose its plans for a so-called Internet “kill switch,” a federal court ruled on Tuesday.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the agency’s arguments that its protocols surrounding an Internet kill switch were exempt from public disclosure and ordered the agency to release the records in 30 days. However, the court left the door open for the agency to appeal the ruling.


The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is seeking “Standard Operating Procedure 303,” also known as the “Internet kill switch” from Homeland Security. The protocols govern shutting down wireless networks to prevent the remote detonation of bombs.


Read more


This article was posted: Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 11:39 am


Tags: big brother, domestic news, government corruption, internet, technology










Infowars



Homeland Security must disclose ‘Internet Kill Switch,’ court rules

Monday, October 14, 2013

"Luxury bishop" must take responsibility for crisis: German church head




VATICAN CITY | Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:07am EDT




VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – A Roman Catholic bishop under fire for spending some 31 million euros ($ 42 million) on an ultra-luxurious residence should examine his conscience over the crisis he has caused, the head of Germany’s bishops said on Monday.



Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg in western Germany has stirred anger and calls for his resignation among German Catholics and media over huge cost overruns on his residence at a time when Pope Francis is stressing humility and serving the poor.


“I am convinced that the bishop of Limburg… will confront this situation in a spirit of self-criticism,” Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, head of the German bishops’ conference, told a news conference at the Vatican.


Zollitsch, one of the highest ranking figures in the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, will discuss the crisis this week with Pope Francis, who early in his pontificate renounced the papal apartments for a simple residence.


Tebartz-van Elst flew to Rome at the weekend but his whereabouts are unknown. It was not clear whether he would also meet the pope, who has called for a more austere Church and has told bishops not to live like princes.


Speaking at a previously scheduled news conference not related to events in Germany, Zollitsch said he viewed the Limburg situation “with great attention and great concern”.


Zollitsch said the German Church would “have to draw the consequences” of the scandal that is shaking it, adding that he had sent the pope a dossier.


The German media has dubbed Tebartz-van Elst “the luxury bishop” after an initial audit of his spending, ordered after a Vatican monitor visited Limburg last month, revealed the project cost at least 31 million euros, six times more than planned.


Tebartz-van Elst, whose baroque style was more in line with the conservative model of Roman Catholicism projected by retired German-born Pope Benedict, has also been accused by German magistrates of lying under oath about a first-class flight to visit poverty programs in India.


The “luxury bishop” story has become front-page news in Germany, deeply embarrassing a Church enjoying an upswing thanks to Pope Francis’s popularity after years of criticism for hiding sexual abuse cases among clergy.


German media, citing official documents, said the residence had been fitted with a free-standing bath that cost 15,000 euros, a conference table that cost 25,000 euros and a private chapel that cost 2.9 million euros. ($ 1 = 0.7373 euros)


(Additional reporting by Alexandra Hudson and Stephen Brown in Germany and Tom Heneghan in Paris; Editing by Gareth Jones)



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | RFID | Amazon Affiliate

Reuters: Oddly Enough

"Luxury bishop" must take responsibility for crisis: German church head

Sunday, October 13, 2013

China: World must be "de-Americanised"

President Obama meets with House officials including, left to right, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Speaker John Boehner.



China’s official news agency on Sunday said the world should consider ‘de-Americanizing’ the international financial system, amid the continuing threat of a US default.


As a political stalemate persists over the US government’s budget and debt ceiling debate, experts warn of terrible consequences for the world economy if the US defaults.


China has previously issued repeated warnings about the danger of a US default because of the threat to Chinese investments in the US.


“As US politicians of both political parties (fail to find a) viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanised world,” the commentary on Xinhua said.


“Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated,” the news agency added.


“A new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing.”


The comments in Xinhua were part of a lengthy commentary against American hegemony since World War II.


“The cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations’ tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonized,” said the commentary.


China is the largest foreign holder of US government debt and has roughly 60 percent of its $ 3.5 trillion foreign currency reserves invested in US assets.


“Instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas,” but equally stoked “regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies” the commentary said, referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


AHT/DB




PRESS TV RSS News



China: World must be "de-Americanised"

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Newtown shooting 911 tapes must be released, Connecticut panel says


Becky Bratu
NBC News
September 26, 2013


The Newtown Police Department must release 911 tapes from the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission ruled Wednesday.


Investigators had refused to release the Dec. 14 recordings under a new state law that prohibits the release of certain documents pertinent to an ongoing investigation — a decision The Associated Press challenged.


According to NBC Connecticut station WVIT, the hearing officer noted the new law, adopted in response to the massacre, does not shield 911 calls.


Read More


This article was posted: Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 9:25 am


Tags: ,









Infowars



Newtown shooting 911 tapes must be released, Connecticut panel says

Newtown shooting 911 tapes must be released, Connecticut panel says


Becky Bratu
NBC News
September 26, 2013


The Newtown Police Department must release 911 tapes from the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission ruled Wednesday.


Investigators had refused to release the Dec. 14 recordings under a new state law that prohibits the release of certain documents pertinent to an ongoing investigation — a decision The Associated Press challenged.


According to NBC Connecticut station WVIT, the hearing officer noted the new law, adopted in response to the massacre, does not shield 911 calls.


Read More


This article was posted: Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 9:25 am


Tags: domestic news, government corruption









Infowars



Newtown shooting 911 tapes must be released, Connecticut panel says

Newtown shooting 911 tapes must be released, Connecticut panel says


Becky Bratu
NBC News
September 26, 2013


The Newtown Police Department must release 911 tapes from the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission ruled Wednesday.


Investigators had refused to release the Dec. 14 recordings under a new state law that prohibits the release of certain documents pertinent to an ongoing investigation — a decision The Associated Press challenged.


According to NBC Connecticut station WVIT, the hearing officer noted the new law, adopted in response to the massacre, does not shield 911 calls.


Read More


This article was posted: Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 9:25 am


Tags: ,









Infowars



Newtown shooting 911 tapes must be released, Connecticut panel says

Saturday, September 21, 2013

The Theatre of Barack Obama: The Show Must Go On


Though his list of offenses against American liberty is lengthy, Barack Obama will not be held accountable.  The American press will never become critical of his words or deeds in a substantive and sustained manner.  And, short of an epiphany, Congress will not muster the courage to judge him with normative standards.


We all know why, but we are not allowed to say it: he is immune to substantive criticism because of skin color.


And Mr. Obama is absolved of more than criticism; he is immune to reality itself.


Attempting to remedy the former institutional injustices that black people suffered in America, the press overcompensates to alleviate the ongoing white guilt phenomenon of postmodern liberalism.  Racial narratives are sometimes manufactured when racism is nonexistent in the actual story — and in the case of Barack Obama, storylines were created out of whole cloth.


The unimpeachable sainthood afforded to Obama because of the new nobility has taken the unreal to the surreal.  American journalists are the proud producers and directors of the Obama as president production.


One of the requirements of movie-going is the ability to suspend disbelief.  The willing suspension of disbelief is a 19th-century concept attributable to the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.  The term is used today when moviegoers ignore the implausible and impossible in order to enjoy the production on the big screen.


Imagine a moviegoer shouting, “That’s fake!” during a moment when the good guy is doing something that would be ridiculous in the real world.  That’s effectively what Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) did when President Obama was pushing his health care bill before the full Congress in 2009.  During his presentation, Mr. Obama was arrogant, and accusatory of those who disagreed with his grand vision of central control of our health care system.  Even worse, the lecture was filled with untruths and misrepresentations.  Joe Wilson could suspend disbelief for only so long, and finally he shouted out those two words which will live forever in idiosyncrasy:


“You lie!”


Congressman Wilson broke decorum, but not because of the forum alone.  The public, liberals and conservatives alike, have been conditioned to suspend disbelief and exercise good manners and enjoy (or at least accept) the performance of Obama as a post-partisan, post-racial, all-American president of the United States.


Though, remarkably, almost everything about the Obama production is built on pretending one thing or another.


The very candidacy of Obama was make-believe.  It was Obama himself who, when asked by a reporter if he would run for the presidency in 2008, said:


You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.



Well, once the liberal press selected him for the job, Obama became comfortable “doing that” overnight.  Mr. Obama himself acknowledged that, if plunged into the White House, he would not know what he was doing.  Nevertheless, once he realized that he had been ordained, indispensable experience took a backseat to clever slogans, like “hope and change” and big-voice speeches (with a little help from his teleprompters).


By running anyway, Obama revealed a complete lack of character.  Nevertheless, the elitists who form public opinion pretended that Obama was ready for the White House.  After, all, they were making history.


At the core was a man with no entrepreneurial, business, executive, or military experience.  Yet layer upon layer of made-up persona was wrapped around the empty center until fiction somehow became non-fiction.  With each layer of pretension came a new occasion to suspend disbelief.  At some point, the line between the unreal and real became blurred.


For many, what otherwise would have been normal and reasonable vetting of a candidate became unreasonable persecution of a black man.


During the Democrat primary, Hillary’s campaign was set to elaborate on Obama’s “lack of American roots.”  But once the racist label began to attach to anyone who raised the truth about Obama, Hillary backed off — and ultimately lost the nomination.


John McCain became so fearful that he actually instructed his supporters to cease from uttering the middle name of Barack Hussein Obama II.  Saying his full name, you see, was unfair — and racist.  Running from reality didn’t fare well for McCain, either.


Mr. Obama further revealed his lack of character and his utter contempt for the citizenry by refusing to deal openly with the question of whether he was even constitutionally eligible for the presidency.


Regardless of venue, Obama does not deny that he was born with dual allegiances because of his father’s foreign citizenship.


The question of whether one could be born with conflicting national allegiances and still be a “natural born” citizen per our Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause has never been answered by our Supreme Court.


But instead of welcoming an authoritative legal ruling, Team Obama became contentious, secretive, and evasive.


The possible red herring or bait-and-switch was the birth certificate debacle.  As Obama was creating a sideshow with his arrogance, evasiveness, and secrecy, he and his media were accusing others of creating a sideshow for asking questions about his unreasonable secrecy.


Yet, based on peer pressure and fear of name-calling, many willingly suspended disbelief.  Regardless of the seemingly endless oddities of Obama’s background, including the fact that Obama portrayed himself for a decade and a half as having been “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii,” those who wanted full disclosure were the bad guys — the racist haters.  It was beneath Mr. Obama to provide basic records to remove the doubt and mistrust of a large percentage of the citizenry.


Prior to Obama’s re-election, Mitt Romney had the perfect occasion to call for the end of Obama’s stanch secrecy.  When Obama was demanding that Mitt produce old tax records, the governor could have made that request contingent upon Obama actually producing his birth certificate — and, for good measure, his college records.


Of course, Mr. Romney followed the conventional wisdom, stuck with the “real issues,” and ignored Obama’s unique background and bizarre secrecy.  And we saw how that turned out for Mitt and the establishment Republicans thereafter (they had their derrieres handed to them by Obama).


In our Orwellian environment, it would have been crazy-land talk for Mitt to have made such a request.  But take away the skin color immunity and the D after his name, and the press would have demanded that Obama produce his records at the onset.


If we were to consider, without emotion, the matter of Obama “releasing” his birth certificate, we would weigh Obama’s level of inconvenience in producing against the benefit Obama would get from transparency.


It’s a no-brainer.  The inconvenience to Obama would be slight compared to the immeasurable reward of establishing trust with the people.


The president would earn respect from his skeptics by taking the next logical step to signing the release for his birth certificate: making certified copies available for interested state election officials.  Then Mr. Obama could sign another release form for his birth hospital to admit he was born there.  And if he really wanted to get caught up in the confidence-building moment, he could sign a release allowing Occidental to provide his college application.


If Obama has nothing to hide, his minimal effort would provide a soothing balm for a divided country.


I dare to bring up the eligibility issue to show that once the country broke from reality and suspended disbelief, common sense was lost along the way.


Mr. Obama was shielded from his lack of experience, his own middle name, and the facts of his training in Indonesia (third-world Islam), Hawaii (Marxism via Frank Marshall Davis), and Chicago (black grievance via Jeremiah Wright).  Since Obama was and is above the


inconvenience of submitting to a controlling legal opinion on the question of natural-born citizen status or even producing a requested legal document, what else might he be shielded from?


The answer, in short, is everything.


That is why we have a president who adds to the national debt like no other, but insists he is reducing it; wastes tax dollars by the trillions, but preaches about fiscal responsibility; condemns Bush for illegal torture of terrorists, but summarily drone-kills suspects (and even an American citizen); stirs up racial divide with his impetuous remarks, yet is portrayed as a post-racial healer; ignores laws and Congress when he wants to (see the bombing of Libya without congressional authorization) but seeks congressional authorization to bomb Syria because democracy makes us stronger (not because he couldn’t gather a coalition and again surrender U.S. military power to the UN); and on and on the list goes.


It’s surreal.  It’s pure madness.


What other U.S. president ever had a different foreign identity, two first relatives in the country illegally, a brother with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and unresolved problems with a host of records relating to his eligibility?


In order to get to the core of Obama, an army of brave statesmen would need to rise up and deal with the real issues.  Until then, come hell or high water, the show must go on — until that blessed day when the curtains finally close on the theatre of the absurd.




American Thinker



The Theatre of Barack Obama: The Show Must Go On