World News Korner

Pastor James David Manning claims the woman gunned down by authorities in DC, Miriam Carey, was the mama of Obama's love child. Carey's family have demanded an investigation into her death. Pastor Manning and Miriam’s sister, Valarie Carey, a retired NYPD police sergeant, are also demanding Obama submit to a paternity test.


Excerpt via Dr. Eowyn @ DC Clothesline:

In the video below, Rev./Dr. James David Manning refers to a phone interview he had with Miriam’s sister, Valarie Carey, who is a retired New York City police sergeant, and points out many oddities about Miriam’s death:

• Why did Capitol Hill police, who are trained to be temperate, instead shot to kill an unarmed woman who had a baby in the back seat of her car? No guns or bombs or threatening letters were found in her car. (To that I’ll add this: If police thought Miriam’s careening car was a public hazard, why didn’t they shoot out the car’s tires?)
• Why did police not follow the usual procedure of notifying the next of kin first? Instead, according to Valerie Carey, police released Miriam’s identification to the public before notifying her family. Valerie found out about her sister from a reporter’s phone call.
• When the Carey family traveled to Washington, DC, they were told they couldn’t see Miriam’s body but were just shown a photo of her body.
• To this day, the Carey family has not been given an official notification of Miriam’s death, or of the autopsy report, or how many times she was shot.
• Why are black race-agitators like Al Sharpton and Charles Rangel silent about Miriam’s shooting death when they normally raise a hue-and-cry about any alleged police mistreatment of blacks? Sharpton’s silence is especially noteworthy because Miriam’s sister, Valerie Carey, is on the executive board of his National Action Network. Did somebody get to Sharpton?
• Why did the police intimidate and silence Carey family attorney Eric Sanders?
• Why is Miriam being discredited and portrayed as a mentally-ill, deranged woman when there is no evidence as such? On the contrary, Miriam was highly functional, being a dental hygienist. The only medication she was taking was prescription med for post-partum depression.
• And the biggest question of all: Why did Miriam Carey drive to Washington, DC that day, and specifically to the White House?

That last question is what prompted Valarie Carey to wonder if her sister’s 18-month-old daughter is Barack Obama’s “love child.”

To answer that question, Valarie Carey and Rev. Manning are demanding a paternity test of Miriam’s daughter, and that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder conduct an investigation into the death of Miriam Carey.
Click here for Valarie’s petition. [...] Continued @ The D.C. Clothesline.



Haven't followed this issue but Manning raises some legitimate concerns and he's definitely right about the media. A DNA test would clear up the love child claim and it wouldn't be the first time it's been done. President Clinton was forced to give DNA during the Lewinsky scandal. Too bad Obama isn't held to the same standards.




Response to The Raw Story piece about Birther Preacher James David Manning's claims about President Obama, Miriam Carey, her minor child and the wishes of the Carey family:

There is no suggestion, nor has there ever been any suggestion by the Carey family that President Obama is the child's father. Please in the future, contact me directly if there are any questions about anything related to Miriam I. Carey's untimely death or the Carey family.

In the meantime, the Carey family has called for the DOJ to investigate the Shooting Death of Miriam Carey (Note: The DOJ letter and police affidavit are included for your review):
http://www.thesandersfirmpc.com/request-doj-investigation-for-the-shooting-death-of-miriam-carey

Source

Courtesy of Chuck Heath's Facebook page.

Here was the description under the photo:

Sarah and my son Teko carving the turkey. We had a wonderful family get together at the Palin house. We've all had our ups and downs this year but we have so much to be thankful for.

Now some of you may remember that Palin claimed too have watched an instructional video on how to carve a turkey correctly, even though she has been saying for years that SHE is the official turkey carver in the family.

Well here is that video, I have watched it, and I cannot figure out for the life of me why she is carving that bird upside down. That was NOT in the video, and I personally have never seen anybody approach the job in that fashion.

I carved the turkey at my Mom's house yesterday, as I do every year, and I did not require a video, nor did I feel the need to flip the bird over and stab it in the back. But now that I think about it how ELSE would we expect Sarah Palin to wield a knife?




Source

Courtesy of CNN:

First Lady Michelle Obama, along with daughters Sasha and Malia and dogs Bo and Sunny, welcomed the official White House Christmas tree Friday.

The 18.5-foot-tall Douglas fir will go in the White House Blue Room. Chris Botek, the third-generation Christmas tree grower from Crystal Spring Tree Farm in Lehighton, Pennsylvania, and his family, were at the White House when the tree from his farm arrived. Last year's tree was from a farm in North Carolina.

A White House tradition, the tree was delivered by carriage to the North Portico.

"We're honored to have it. This is the best part of the holiday season is when our tree comes," the First Lady said.

To be honest I usually avoid posts about these silly fluff stories about the President and First Lady, you know the whole pardoning the turkey, Easter egg hunt, and Christmas tree decorating thing.

However this year with the Right Wing ramping up the War on Christmas, and the book by "She Who Must Not be Named" falling like a flaming turd down the Amazon best sellers list (Right now at #438 as of this posting), I think of this kind of thing as a giant FU to the forces of darkness who attack this President and his wife at every opportunity.

So yeah, the Obama's got themselves a big ass Christmas tree, just like most other American families.

And I am sure that once decorated it will be spectacular. Just like the family in whose home it will now reside.



Source

It is like watching a road show version of the Jerry Springer Show.

Look if you find yourself in handcuffs after fighting with a woman over a 25 inch flat screen TV you may want to reevaluate your damn life.The cost of the TV may be dramatically reduced but your dignity should have a higher price tag.

The other day at my Mom's house I had a couple of female relatives tell me they were heading over to stand in line and take advantage of the Black Friday sales.

I told them they did not have to bother, and that I would gladly hold up a flaming hoop for them to jump through right there in the living room. I also filled them in on why they should avoid shopping at Wal-Mart.

But it did no good, these are my relatives who get all of their information from Facebook, and refuse to read my posts because there are "too many words." (Yeah there's simply no helping some people.)

Let me just say that I have three flat screen televisions in my home, of varying sizes, and that I did NOT ONCE stand outside in the cold for six hours, nor bitchslap a fellow consumer, in order to get my hands on any of them. Perhaps I am simply not a good example of the American capitalist, but I think I would feel some sense of shame if I had injured another human being or froze my testicles off in order to watch reruns of "How I Met Your Mother" on a slightly larger screen.

Source

Courtesy of Truthout: In 1980 Carter thought he had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr over the release of the fifty-two hostages held by radical students at the American Embassy in Tehran.

Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor earlier this year, had successfully run for President on the popular position of releasing the hostages:

"I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign.... I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote.... Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking]."

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.

But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.

Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.

This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."

Not surprisingly, Iran released the hostages on January 20, 1981, at the exact moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

The "October Surprise" emboldened the radical forces inside Iran. A politically weakened Bani-Sadr was overthrown in June of 1981 and replaced with Mohammed Ali Rajai - a favorite of Khomeini's. These radical forces today are represented by people like former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hard-liners who oppose any deal with the United States and, like Khomeini in the 1980s, will jump at any chance to discredit the current moderate presidency of Hassan Rouhani.

The October Surprise also led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people around the world, and in Central America in particular. Reagan took money from the Iranians and used that money to kill nuns in Nicaragua.

But those are just the most obvious results of the October Surprise. Again, if Carter were able to free the hostages like he and Bani-Sadr had planned, Carter would have won re-election. After all, he was leading in most polls in the months leading up to the election. And if Reagan were never elected, America would be a much more progressive nation.

I am sure that many of you are old enough to remember when all of this went down, however with the President's new deal with Iran on their nuclear program taking such heat from the Right Wing it is important to remember that they have a history of sabotaging deals with Iran, and that we should keep a wary on them at all times.

Could you just imagine how different the world would have been if Carter's deal had been implemented? How much better our relationship would have been with Iran, as well as Iraq and Pakistan?

How many American lives could have been saved if Iran had not been manipulated by the Republicans into becoming the bogeyman to replace the newly democratized Russia?

And while we are on the topic it should be remembered that not only were the Republicans instrumental in getting the Shah of Iran into power in the first place, their were also instrumental in laying the groundwork for his overthrow and the eventual fundamentalist Islamic uprising that saw those American hostages taken in 1979.

Remember "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." We are close to creating a new deal with Iran which might go a long way toward quelling violence in the Middle East, and laying the groundwork for a future where terrorism is a thing of the past, and none of that works in the Republican's favor.

Source

Courtesy of the Obama Diary:

President Obama listens to hunger striker Eliseo Medina as he and the First Lady visit with immigration protesters in their tent on the Washingon Mall November 29. Since November 12, immigration advocates comprising “Fast for Families” have abstained from food as they call on congress to take up action on the immigration issue.

I'm sorry, but how cool is it to see the President kicking it in a tent, with protestors who came there to convince Congress to do something for the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country, by starving themselves during Thanksgiving weekend?

Could you imagine George Bush doing that? Hell no!

Update: And this really ought to blow the minds of the religious right.





Source

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are starting to sour on the new pope.

In response to Pope Francis’ first Apostolic Exhortation, in which the pontiff denounced “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” these two paragons of the far right – both of whom regularly invoke the teachings of Jesus to bolster their own political views – have suddenly turned their backs on the man whose actual job description is to speak for Jesus.

Sarah Palin complained that Pope Francis sounded “kind of liberal” in his statements decrying the growing global income equality between the rich and the poor (she has since apologized).

Rush Limbaugh went one step further. “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope,” he harrumphed into his giant microphone.

Limbaugh, in his trademarked conspiratorial style, speculated that the pope’s tirade against “widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion” must have been forced upon him by somebody else. “Somebody has either written this for [the pope] or gotten to him,” he said.

Limbaugh is right. Somebody did get to Pope Francis. It was Jesus.

Self-styled “defenders of Christianity,” like Palin and Limbaugh, peddle a profoundly unhistorical view of Jesus. Indeed, if you listened to those on the far right you would think that all Jesus ever spoke about was guns and gays.

Aslan then goes onto point out just how different the Jesus of the Bible is from the conservative version that is bandied about by the Right Wing.

While modern Christianity has tried to spiritualize this message of Jesus, transforming his revolutionary social teachings into abstract ethical principles, it is impossible to overlook the unflinching condemnation of the wealthy and powerful that permeate Jesus’ teachings.

“How hard it will be for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mark 10:23).

As one can imagine, such a radical vision of the world would have been both profoundly appealing for those at the bottom rungs of Jesus’ society, and incredibly threatening for those at the top. The fact is not much has changed in two thousand years, as Palin and Limbaugh have proven.

Yet if these “culture warriors” who so often claim to speak for Jesus actually understood what Jesus stood for, they would not be so eager to claim his ideas for their own. In fact, they’d probably call him a Marxist.

I do not always agree with Reza Aslan, but on this topic he is quite correct. And the truly pitiful thing is how Christianity, on its face a religion of acceptance and social justice, was so easily hijacked by those who used it as an excuse to amass great wealth and power and then use it to subjugate those who they considered dangerous to their ambitions or unworthy of their charity.

And who does THAT remind you of?

Source

I really think that THIS has much to do with the rise of Atheism and the increase in secular education these days.

Information has never been more readily available, and the excuses for being unaware of other cultures, other religions, and other philosophies are simply no longer viable.

And that is also why we are seeing such extremism among those whose way of life is directly threatened by education and increased intelligence.




Source

Source

(Source.)

Source

This is from the series "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?"

I always love how Palin-bots ask us why we make things up about Palin, when what we actually do is point out the truth about the moron. It is totally not our fault that they cannot accept the facts about their idol.

Source

Okay well I might not be THAT stuffed but I am pretty close.

Source

Ahh Thanksgiving, the recriminations, the insults, the threats of bodily harm. And that's just on the car ride over to my Mom's house.

Today I will celebrate this holiday of excess with the loving family that I ignore the other 363 days of the year. (I go over for Christmas as well, after all I am in my Mom's will. I get all of her debt once she dies.)

If events unfold as usual there will be plenty of hugging, laughing, and joyful reminiscing, right before the alcohol kicks in.

Then it will be time to bring up embarrassing stories about each other until somebody stomps out of the room sobbing uncontrollably. (My bet is on my brother this year.)

And who doesn't love those stories? Like the time I slept with the big boned girl (She had a pretty face.), or the time my brother peed into the radiator thinking he was in the bathroom (He was ten.), or the time my sister knocked a guy off of his barstool for calling her a bitch. (I taught her that.)

Ahh good times.

My mother will of course announce that we will NOT talk about politics this year, and that will last for just about two glasses of wine, at which time she will turn to me and say "What the fuck is up with that Obama guy you keep voting for?"

It will be a short discussion because I am well equipped with facts and figures while my mother will simply rattle off Right Wing talking points that she read in e-mails. (I really wish she would quit treating spam as if it is actual correspondence.)

Once my mom realizes that she is not doing well, she will do that thing that she does where she switches the conversation to personal attacks on what she perceives as my weak spots. (Gryphen's don't have weak spots.)

"Are you growing a beard, or do you think so little of the family that you could not even bother to shower and shave before leaving the house?"

"When are you going to find another woman to disappoint?"

"I remember when you were a baby and I still had such high hopes for you."

Now it should be mentioned that my mother, and of course my daughter who will be assisting her, are the only ones that can do this without fear of retribution. Everybody else at the table will just quietly giggle to themselves and try to avoid eye constant with me for fear that I will verbally eviscerate them.

But fear not, this will be about the time that my brother and I start discussing our childhood. We will reminisce about how dirt poor we were, the number of unqualified babysitters Mom dumped us off with, and her string of loser boyfriends that shuffled through our lives before she married that asshole who screwed up our adolescence.

Of course we don't remember any of the boyfriends names so we will use the nicknames we assigned to them. Such as Uncle "Always Smells like Whiskey," Uncle "Keeps Calling us by Other Kids Names," and of course Uncle "Don't Answer the Door it Might be the Police."

Then if that does not dissuade Mom from playing dirty, I will be forced to bring up the nicknames SHE had for them, such as Uncle "Lied About Being an Airplane Pilot," Uncle "Hung like a Parakeet," and Uncle "Farts When he Climaxes."

And that will signal the end of our trip down memory lane. And signal an uptick in the drinking.

So then it is time to eat the turkey, compliment each other for staying out of jail, and start talking shit about the relatives that did not show up to defend themselves. ("Have you heard from what's her name, you know the one with the uni-brow?" "How is cousin STD doing these days, is he still trying to convince everybody that he wears loose fitting pants for the comfort and not due to herpes flareups?")

Man I can hardly wait!

P.S. I probably should add that I ADORE my mother and credit her with everything good about my life. She is a very tough lady however, and our teasing peppered with embarrassing anecdotes are accepted in the spirit in which they are given.

With love.

Passive aggressive love.

Source

Happy Thanksgiving! pic.twitter.com/R8RYLDN16i
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 28, 2013

I have to say, all partisanship aside, that I really like this family.

They just seem far more genuine than most of the political families that have occupied that house.

But maybe that's just me.

Source

(Nov. 29, 2013) — As Thanksgiving approaches, I begin to think about all of the many things I am grateful for. I’m patting the back of my sleeping son thinking about the men on the battlefield in our Revolutionary War. Fighting for ideas, principles, and standards that were Revolutionary that were yet to be penned in the United States Constitution, they died on the battlefield, I’m sure, wishing they were home with their wives, children, brothers, sisters, mom and dad.

The sacrifices they made were ultimately for the love of their families in the future. It had to be, or their sacrifices, and the United States, for that matter, were indeed a lost cause. How could they know or have an inkling of an idea that they were fighting for what would become the great world power on the backs of their valiant efforts?

That war ended, but in a way it never has ended. Since the birth of the United States of America, a constant barrage of hatred, scheming, back-stabbing assaults and fights have come to be known as American history included in both our foreign and domestic affairs.

Our standards burn bright, but there never seems a lack of individuals who are willing to cast aside those standards of law both from within and without. In 1779 the Revolutionary war had just finished and President George Washington called for a day of Thanksgiving. It wasn’t supposed to be an annual thing, nor was it until 1863, Nov 26th, in a speech given by Abraham Lincoln in which he invited and declared that the last Thursday would be considered an annual Thanksgiving. Roosevelt changed in 1939 the day to the 3rd Thursday hoping to stimulate the economy with more shopping days between Christmas, but in 1941 the effort was declared a bust.

The birth of our nation was forged in gratitude for just a “chance,” an “ un-compelled opportunity” that was not insured, and those Birthers were around to take a stand against tyranny; against the dictates of a king, against taxation without representation, and certainly against the state sponsor of any particularly named religion. The broad strokes of an American standard were indeed not polished at first light but over time they have shined throughout the entire world.

We the families of those fighting in the Revolutionary War have lived to reap the reward of those who had their last meal in the trenches of war amid the meagerness of food, clothing and bedding. I cannot stand not to be grateful for their Herculeam courage and sacrifices.

The fronts have shifted a bit, but there are those who indeed say one thing and do quite another, and the one that comes to my mind right now is this one: “You can keep your insurance” while millions have received cancellation notices. It’s estimated by next year over 160 million will have their insurance canceled in one form or another, and it’s all due to a short two-year period when Democrats ruled all three branches of government from 2008 to 2010.

Withstanding any form of negotiation from Republicans, the Usurping Administration grabbed hold of power and decided to abuse it in removing freedom and employing force, in removing choice and employing the lash, in standing for mandates yet ignoring the standards of the Constitution.

We Birthers declare Obamacare is a compromised constitutional act without the signature of a President.

The Birthers founded this Nation and it is the Birthers who continue to protect this Nation. When you hear the media rail against the Birthers, don’t picture them calling Cody Robert Judy the most insulting names of ridicule they can conceive; picture them calling those signers of the United States Constitution and those who have died on the battlefields “criminals” and “extremists.”

To all this fuss about losing your health insurance, the Birthers are just shaking their heads and telling them, “I told ya so,” and yet the Mainstream Media still won’t acknowledge the actual qualifications of the Office of the President declared and mandated in the United States Constitution as the law. They hear Barack Obama say “We are a Nation of Laws,” but they deny the very principles and standards that have brought them so many blessings.

The natural born citizen qualification clause that is still the Constitutional law; that is still the principle of protection in the United States of America declaring a full two-generation separation between foreign states and the United States Office of the President, declares the signature of Barack Obama a fraud upon the law.

Obamacare is unsealed, unlawful, and is not the standard by which we as Citizens of America have lived. We didn’t give the power to our Government Leaders to usurp the Constitution – We gave the power to protect and defend and preserve it. [...] Read the rest here. Source link. © 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

- Image Credit: Free Republic. -

Source

New York University professor Jonathan Zimmerman @ Washington comPost:

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves. - [...] - Washington Post.





Source

China sent fighter jets to patrol a group of disputed islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, after the US, Japan and South Korea ignored its unilateral defense restrictions over the area.


Read Full Article Source here
Author:
By Reuters

In this frame grab taken from enhanced video made by NASA's STEREO-A spacecraft, Comet ISON, left, approaches the sun on Nov. 25.


Read Full Article Source here
Author:
By Associated Press

Joe Arpaio next to Sarah Palin, Trig Palin, and her "servant's heart."

Courtesy of TPM:

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R) took to Twitter on Wednesday to show off the "special" Thanksgiving meal his office served to inmates on Thursday. What made the meal special? The 56 cent cost per inmate.

"Thanksgiving menu is all set!," Arpaio wrote on Twitter. "Hope the inmates give thanks for this special meal being served in the jails tomorrow."

Thanksgiving menu is all set! Hope the inmates give thanks for this special meal being served in the jails tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/3L5vcWX8Jc
— Joe Arpaio (@RealSheriffJoe) November 27, 2013

I am not sure exactly what "Turkey Soy Casserole" is, but it sounds like a good reason to riot to me.
Look I am all about saving money, but I think that prisoners should be allowed to have an actual meal at this time of year. How can you rehabilitate people if you treat them like animals?

Of course I guess it is to be expected from a guy who hangs out with Ms. "Christmas is only for Christians" herself. Two peas in a hateful little pod.

Source

Courtesy of Mother Jones:

All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now, it protects climate education too.

How did these issues get wrapped up together? On its face, there isn't a clear reason—other than a marriage of convenience—why attacks on evolution and attacks on climate change ought to travel side by side. After all, we know why people deny evolution: Religion, especially the fundamentalist kind.

And we know why people deny global warming: Free market ideology and libertarianism. These are not, last I checked, the same thing. (If anything, libertarians may be the most religiously skeptical group on the political right.) And yet clearly there's a relationship between the two issue stances.

Indeed, recent research suggests that Christian "end times" believers are less likely to see a need for action on global warming.

And now new research by Yale's Dan Kahan further reaffirms that there's something going on here. More specifically, Kahan showed that there is a correlation (.25, which is weak to modest, but significant) between a person's religiosity and his or her tendency to think that global warming isn't much of a risk. Perhaps even more tellingly, Kahan also found that among highly religious individuals, as their ability to comprehend science increases, so does their denial of the risk posed by global warming.

"I have to say, those effects are bigger than I would have expected," wrote Kahan of his findings. The researcher went on to say that he isn't sure why greater religiosity predicts greater denial of climate change. But in his data—with a representative sample of over 2,000 Americans—it clearly does.

The article goes on to give a couple of reasons as to WHY they think these two seemingly disparate subjects have become connected in the minds of many religious Americans, and in the policies put forward by their conservative representatives in Washington.

However I have to say that the first time that I became aware of it was while watching the movie "Jesus Camp."

Frightening, isn't it? In the minds of these religious conservatives secular education is bad, and is simply an attempt by the non-religious to brainwash their children. And ANYTHING that is stressed as dangerous by scientists MUST, by definition, be false and should be rejected outright.

Besides how can the earth become dangerous for humans when God created it especially for them?




Source

Courtesy of Rianvosti:

A couple in Russia face jail after their religious zeal compelled them to drive their child, injured in a car crash, to church for an urgent baptism rather than to hospital.

The two-month-old infant was dead by the time it was delivered into the hands of the priest, Fontanka.ru news website said Sunday.

The boy sustained a brain injury in a minor crash in St. Petersburg on Saturday despite being in a child safety seat, the report said.

The worried parents sped him up to the church because “otherwise he would be denied the Kingdom of Heaven,” investigators cited them as saying, Fontanka.ru reported.

Now the two parents, both in their forties, are being investigated for “failure to assist a person in danger,” punishable with up to a year in prison.

This is usually the part where I go off on the ignorance of these people, but I will let a spokesman for the church do that instead.

“This is superstition, not religion,” an Orthodox Church spokesman told Fontanka.ru. “They should have gone to the hospital, it’s only human.”

Yeah, no shit!

Source

My favorite memory of the Mormons, is from when I lived in Hawaii for that year while attending school.

I would see these young men riding their bikes up and down the hills of Hilo, Hawaii, dressed in their black slacks, white shirts, and ties in 80 degree temperatures, and think to myself that for that reason alone it was a religion to be avoided at all cost.

When I lived on the island I could barely wear clothes without being reduced to a puddle of sweat.

While we are on the subject I should probably admit that I have often had a rather adversarial relationship with the Mormon church though in my defense I don't think it was all my fault.

I don't really have any more against them then I do other religions (You know I dislike them all equally.), but it just seems that we have crossed paths more than a few times and I have always been left with a bad taste in my mouth.

And this was BEFORE Mitt Romney.

Hey, maybe it's just me.

Source

Obama allegedly wrote the following letter to a schoolteacher in Texas concerned about Obamacare.










Source

(Nov. 26, 2013) — The Post & Email can exclusively report that the Tennessee state attorney general’s office has stated on the record that the “foreperson” of all grand juries in Tennessee is IS NOT A JUROR as Tennessee state statutes require.

The office of the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter claims that the grand jury foreman is a state employee, not a juror empaneled by state statutes

In December of last year, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III was convicted in the Monroe County, TN Criminal Court of “tampering with government records,” with Judge Walter C. Kurtz presiding.

Defense Attorney Van Irion submitted an appeal in the case of State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III protesting CDR Fitzpatrick’s innocence. One of Irion’s points was that the grand jury foreman had over-served her legal term of one year. Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) states that following their service on any jury in the state, jurors cannot be resummoned for a minimum of 24 months.

This past September, in his official capacity as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Justice Division, Kyle Hixson responded to the Fitzpatrick appeal, writing a brief on the state’s behalf of which The Post & Email first came into possession last Thursday afternoon.

At the bottom of page 13 of his brief, Assistant Attorney General Hixson wrote:

“…the foreman of the grand jury is not ‘impaneled’ from the ‘summoned’ members of the ‘jury pool.’ See Tenn Code Ann. §§ 22-2-306, -307, and -310. The foreperson is ‘appoint[ed]’ by the trial court. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 6(g)(1). As such, section 314, by its terms, does not apply to the appointment process of the grand jury foreperson.”

The state’s entire argument can be read here: HIXSON BRIEF

Section 314 reads as follows:

“22-2-314. Limitation on jury service.

“A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service term in any court of this state for a period of twenty-four (24) months following the last day of such service; however, the county legislative body of any county, may, by majority vote, extend the twenty-four-month period.”

Hixson clearly reports that grand jury forepersons do not come from the “jury pool,” are never “summoned” to jury duty, are never “impaneled” as a jurors, and never subject to state laws which deal with jurors and jury duty. Simply stated, Hixson affirms on behalf of the State of Tennessee that grand jury forepersons are never jurors.

However, Tennessee state law commands exactly the opposite: Tennessee statutes say that grand jury forepersons must always be jurors.

Tennessee state law, as tailored and refined by the Rules for Criminal Procedure, require that thirteen (13) jurors (or members) populate all state grand juries.

Hixson has now said, in clear terms in a statement against the state’s self-interest, that criminal court judges add a non-juror to the grand jury by their selection of the foreman. The 12 jurors plus one non-juror combination consequently leaves Tennessee grand juries one short of the lawfully-mandated requirement of thirteen (13) jurors. This has been and remains the case for decades.

Tennessee state law requires that all state residents, in the process of becoming jurors, must initially be randomly selected into the jury pool. From that pool, a smaller number of individuals are randomly selected to be issued summonses to report to the courtroom on a particular day, at which time jurors for the grand jury and trial juries are selected in but a third process of random selection.

In each of these three random selection rounds, the process used must be one that does not allow for the possibility of “human intervention.”

The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference describes the grand jury as:

…a group of thirteen citizens chosen from the jury panel. One of these thirteen is the fore person and will preside over the grand jury.

Assistant Attorney General Hixson now reports that criminal court judges have always been permitted to install a handpicked non-juror foreman, that is, to “appoint” the foreman from, as Monroe County Court Clerk Martha M. “Marty” Cook has said, “from wherever they choose because the state laws that apply to jurors do not apply to non-jurors.

As readers of The Post & Email are already aware, Fitzpatrick’s challenges to the scope and operation of Tennessee grand juries arose upon his discovery in 2010 that the Monroe County Tennessee de facto grand jury foreman, Gary Pettway, had held that position since 1982, a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive years. Moreover, there was no appointing order or evidence that Pettway had ever been duly sworn in.

Fitzpatrick placed Pettway under citizen’s arrest in April 2010. State law enforcement officials ignored Fitzpatrick’s complaint and arrested Fitzpatrick instead. The Monroe County grand jury then indicted Fitzpatrick for attempting to intimidate a juror, Gary Pettway.

Indictment against Fitzpatrick for the alleged felony of intimidating a “juror,” Gary Pettway, who the State Attorney General’s office says is not a juror

Fitzpatrick has demonstrated that the grand juries and trial juries in Tennessee are unduly influenced by prosecutors, grand jury foremen, and court personnel and contaminated by jurors serving consecutive terms in violation of state law (TCA 22-2-314). In one case in Davidson County, a grand jury foreman chosen by a judge was discovered to be a convicted felon, which violates Tennessee statute and required the review of approximately 800 cases over which the illegally-serving foreman had presided.


Grand jury foremen in Monroe County are reportedly “picked from wherever” the judge “chooses” by means of an unknown vetting process. Throughout Tennessee, grand jury foremen have served for decades or multiple times with occasional breaks in service.

Tennessee Code Annotated provides no special selection process for the grand jury foreman.

Grand jury tampering and judicial misconduct have been reported to The Post & Email in Campbell County, Roane County, Sevier County, and Madison County. Crimes against District Attorney General R. Steven Bebb of the Tenth Judicial District have been alleged but dismissed by Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper, Jr., although members of the Tennessee General Assembly are working to remove Bebb from his post.

Now, for the first time ever, Kyle Hixson explains that (1) Gary Pettway was never a juror, resulting in (2) the law limiting jury service does not apply to grand jury forepersons such as Pettway, and (3) judicially “appointed” Tennessee residents are allowed to serve in a career position as a county employee called the “grand jury foreman.”

Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 40-12-206 is the only state statute which details the composition of every Tennessee state grand jury. The law commands that all grand juries be populated with thirteen (13) jurors (members) and up to five (5) alternates. The law does not provide for the judicial appointment of a “foreman” into a Tennessee grand jury.


The same law makes no distinction among the jurors (members). There is no distinction or separate-identity, non-juror “foreman.”

The process by which all jurors are to be selected is described as (1) Randomly populate the “jury pool,” (2) Randomly select potential jurors from the “jury pool,” (3) “Summon” the potential jurors to court for random selection into the grand and trial (petit) jurors for identified term dates, and (4) “Impanel” the grand juries and trial jurors.

Hixson, representing the state of Tennessee, publicly declared in his September 2013 appeals brief that, in Tennessee, grand jury foremen are not jurors.

Restating the state’s now first-time ever publicly pronounced policy position more clearly:

• The grand jury foreman is not a juror.
• A criminal court trial judge individually and personally selects, then specifically delegates (appoints, employs) grand jury foremen in Tennessee state.
• The grand jury foreman does not come from a randomly-selected jury pool.
• The grand jury foreman is not summoned to a courtroom to participate in the process of jury impaneling.
• Tennessee state statutes that apply to jurors and jury duty do not apply to the grand jury foreman who is, rather, a paid Tennessee state employee.
• Judicial appointment of a grand jury foreman who is a “non-juror, as Hixson described the office and process, is illegal under the Tennessee statutes.

The Post & Email asks if the State of Tennessee is committing the same crime as that which the U.S. Navy continues to perpetrate after more than 23 years in which an honest person is sacrificed and condemned for the sake of preserving a criminal enterprise in which a judge’s personal appointee masquerades as a member of the grand jury, unduly influencing that body and often casting the decisive vote to indict.

———————

Editor’s Note: More articles on Tennessee grand jury foremen and the law will be forthcoming in the near future.

Source link. © 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

RELATED: Audio: CDR Fitzpatrick Appeals Hearing; Judges Protecting Criminal Enterprise - CLICK HERE.

- Image Credit: The JAG Hunter -

Source

Boy that Willow's a friendly gal isn't she?

I love how in the spirit of Christmas Palin steals that old man's pen, uses it to sign two other people's books but not his, and then forces him to wrench in out of her hand to get it back.

I also noticed that in this video Palin manages to ignore the Levi Johnston questions, the same questions to which later in the day she could no longer resist responding.

By the way as of this posting Palin's faux Christmas book is back up to 278 in the Amazon bestsellers rank, which must mean that some conservative group made a bulk purchase in order to help her save face. Calling in those favors Sarah?

Source

Courtesy of The New Civil Rights Movement:

American Atheists and other secular groups are taking the IRS to court over what they say is the preferential treatment the tax-collection agency gives to religious organizations.

Studies show that Americans subsidize religious organizations to the tune of an estimated $71 billion annually, in the form of tax-exemptions. “This is about equality,” American Atheists President David Silverman said in a statement.

“This is about the U.S. government holding everyone to the same standard and giving the same rights to all. No exceptions. We are seeing religions getting preferential treatment by our government, a government that is supposed to serve us and respect us all as equals, and that’s wrong. It’s not what this country is about and it’s unpatriotic.”

Dave Muscato, a spokesman for American Atheists, told Newsweek, “We find it discriminatory, so we’re suing. The way that this is set up, we all pay for it. We’re all supporting churches for what they do.”

Because religious organizations are automatically granted a tax-exempt status and are not required to file forms that non-religious organizations must, American Atheists claim secular groups are unfairly burdened, while religious organizations have a fundraising advantage that includes not having to reveal their donors.

I know I am looking at this from a very prejudicial angle, but you have to admit American Atheists have a point.

It is unfair to ask nonmembers of a religious organization to subsidize churches through their tax dollars, when often the churches themselves have money to burn.

Churches should pay their fair share, ESPECIALLY if they are going to dabble in politics, which is increasingly the case these days. Not only that, but I think that the new Pope would agree with me on this topic.

Source

Courtesy of Accounting Today:

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service said Tuesday they are issuing initial guidance regarding qualification requirements for tax-exemption as a social welfare organization under Section 501(c)(4) of the Tax Code after a scandal erupted earlier this year over claims that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status.

The proposed guidance defines the term “candidate-related political activity,” and would amend the current regulations by indicating that the promotion of social welfare does not include this type of activity. The proposed guidance also seeks initial comments on other aspects of the qualification requirements, including what proportion of a 501(c)(4) organization’s activities must promote social welfare. The initial guidance is expected to be posted on the Federal Register later today.

The Treasury is issuing the guidance in response to a recommendation in a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration on how the IRS selected inappropriate criteria for screening applications from tax-exempt status from various groups. Ahead of the release of the TIGTA report. Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations, touched off a firestorm of criticism of the IRS after she disclosed in May that the agency was using terms such as “Tea Party,” “Patriot” and “9/12” to filter through applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status from conservative organizations. It later emerged that the IRS was also using terms like “progressive” and “Occupy” to filter out applications from liberal groups. Lerner was eventually forced out of the agency along with other officials such as former acting commissioner Steven T. Miller.

His replacement, the current IRS acting commissioner Danny Werfel, has pledged to stop using so-called “BOLO,” or “Be on the Lookout,” lists, and to enable streamlined processes for tax-exempt status including allowing 501(c)4 organizations to self-certify themselves as tax-exempt until their applications have been examined. Meanwhile Congress has been grilling IRS officials at a contentious series of hearings and introducing legislation as recently as last week to reform the process further (see Congress Introduces Bill to Change IRS Reviews of Tax-Exempt Organizations).

The TIGTA report recommended that the Treasury Department and the IRS chief counsel develop guidance on how to measure the primary activity of 501(c)4 social welfare organizations.

The whole kerfuffle over the IRS trying to determine who was gaming the system, which used key words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" to identify groups that required extra scrutiny, would be completely unnecessary once these new guidelines are in place.

Then the conservatives could not accuse the IRS of targeting them, because the new rule changes would affect EVERY group who claimed to be a "social welfare group" but were in fact partisan smear merchants.

Of course, as you can imagine, this rule change has already sparked anger from one side of the political aisle:

"The fact that the administration's new effort only affects social welfare organizations - and not powerful unions or business groups - underscores that this is a crass political effort by the administration to get what political advantage they can, when they can," said Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican. Some of the biggest spenders in the last election also expressed outrage at the proposal.

In my opinion ANY rule change that pisses off Darell Issa is a good rule change.

And remember there is NOTHING saying these groups cannot exist, that would be un-American, they simply cannot claim tax exempt status.

Source