UPDATE: Watch And Be Proud As A Chattanooga Marine Veteran Direct A Video Address to Mr. Obama

July 31, 2015

By Lorra B.

On July 28th we wrote about a Chattanooga Marine who had a lot to say to President Obama and he did so in a scathing, yet eloquently presented video, which can be seen below. Well, it seem the Marine is also involved in helping others and could use some help form YOU. So, if you are so inclined, read on and lend a hand if you can.

Again, We salute you and all of our armed forces. Thank you for all you do and all you sacrifice, though those words will simply never be enough!

Lady Raven stated, “By now you and more than half a million people have seen this video –Chattanooga Marine Veteran’s Direct Address to Mr. Obama.

I followed the Marine Veteran’s links and found his We The People Facebook page.  Their mission statement:

Our goal is to bring people together who want to see America become great again. By using power in numbers show that We The People have had enough and want change. The plan for this site is for all like minded individuals to share and connect. Plan peaceful protests. Raise awareness of real issues. United we can do something about them.

Their site is very active and one of the most patriotic you will find.  They are working on several projects including this – Don’t Tread On Us March 9/11/15

There was another link which is the reason why I am putting this post up.  The link is to a GoFundMe page called, of course, We The People.  Note, they established this request for donations to help raise funds on July 13th.

We the People is a group created to unify people of all backgrounds, to pursue the common goal of fighting back against a broken system. The America we leave our children and grandchildren does not look promising if we don’t fight back now. So far we have 2 events planned: a Don’t Tread on US March and a Veteran’s Day cookout for the Chattanooga community veterans. We are looking for support from anyone who feels that America is not what it should be. We need your help for promoting the events, hand outs, candles for the March, supplies and food for veteran’s cookout. Donations are greatly appreciated. You’d be helping us give back to the people and the veteran’s that gave so much for us. Thank you for any donations no matter how small. We stand for change.

You know already that three days later on July 16th, four Marines and a Sailor died in Chattanooga.  This was added to the We The People page two days ago:

WE currently trying to get in contact with the Marine Corp and Mayors office to discuss plans for permanent memorial, and how we can help financially, and to volunteer our time. Please help us let the world know that Americans don’t let our fallen be forgotten. Thank you!
We The People

In sixteen days they have had 588 people sharing the site on their behalf but only four donations totaling $270 of the $5,000 they hope to raise.  That is pretty sad.  I know times are very tough but no one seems to be stepping up to the plate! 

They need help.  Our help.  The math is easy – 946 more donations of $5.00 each and they would reach their goal.  473 donations of $10.00 each would do it.  It just wouldn’t be that hard.”

Original Article:

July 28, 2015

By Lorra B.

Being proud of this brave Marine for speaking his mind would be a gross understatement. Not only does he eloquently speak his mind, he speaks it in truth and with a clear passion.

If this Marine doesn’t make you proud and make you want to take a stand then I can’t fathom what would. No matter what your political stance is, this country was founded on the right for this Marine to speak his mind.

We Salute You Sir and thank you for your service and sacrifices!

H/T LadyRaven

“Racist” MTV `White People’ Show Receives Huge Backlash

July 9, 2015

by tomfernandez28

Illegal immigrant host claims documentary is not about shaming white people

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

The illegal immigrant behind MTV’s controversial new show White People, in which white people are shown sobbing over their “white privilege,” has been forced to defend against accusations of racism, claiming that the documentary is not about publicly shaming white people.

This is a strange comment given that Vargas seemed perfectly OK with re-tweeting a review which said the show “wants to make white people feel very uncomfortable.”

As we reported earlier in a story that went viral after being picked up by the Drudge Report, the show, which is set to air on July 22, confronts white people about their “privilege,” while also featuring interviews with Native Americans and black people who blame whites for their woes.

The trailer for the show prompted a huge backlash, receiving over three times the amount of ‘thumbs down’ compared to ‘thumbs up’ on YouTube. The comments section (don’t be surprised if this gets disabled soon) is also filled with irate users slamming the show for racism, including numerous comments made by black people.

Jose Antonio Vargas, the illegal immigrant creator and host of the show, took to Twitter today in an attempt to stem the backlash, asserting that the show is not about publicly shaming whites.

This is a strange comment given that Vargas seemed perfectly OK with retweeting a review which said the show “wants to make white people feel very uncomfortable.”

Radio host Rush Limbaugh said the show was about promoting “white guilt,” while WND’s Bob Unruhhighlighted a number of other individuals who were disgusted at the content of the trailer.

Liberal media outlets like Salon.com (which previously said all whites must apologize for the Dylann Roof shooting), celebrated the show, saying it would appeal to those who “enjoy watching white people cry”.

The reaction on Twitter was also pretty savage, with some directly accusing Vargas and MTV of peddling racism.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

More at tomfernandez28

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Hillary Clinton On Her ‘Last Rodeo’

July 8, 2015

We The People: “In a lie filled interview seen in the text of this article, Hillary is right, this is her last rodeo as she keeps stumbling before she makes it out of the gate.

“She bobs and weaves like Mohammad Ali in his prime, when answering question, typically not answering them but getting out her talking points.

“Hillary  knows little about market driven economics and like here soon to be relieved friend occupying the White House she would further destroy America and the United States Constitution.

Enough of her lies and deceit.”

Hillary Clinton has few if any accomplishments while serving as junior U.S. Senator from New York and United States Secretary of State.

Clinton gave an anecdote-laden speech in Iowa City on Tuesday.

The National Journal

By Emma Roller

 July 7, 2015

Before Hillary Clinton spoke to a crowd of roughly 250 supporters in the Iowa City Public Library on Tuesday, a young female campaign staffer had a few requests for the attendees.

First, she asked those in attendance to pull out their smartphones and “like” Clinton’s local Facebook page for Iowa and Johnson County.

Then, she rattled off a phone number for the supporters to text in exchange for “updates” (aka donation please) from the campaign, which announced that it added 20 field organizers to it’s already large Iowa staff Tuesday.

But the actual content of Clinton’s speech was refreshingly free of campaign artifice.

Yes, she began with her routine spiel about income inequality, health care, and her excitement at becoming a grandmother, but her remarks felt more off-the-cuff than usual.

Perhaps in an attempt to embrace her inner nerd, Clinton recalled spending hours in her local library during summer vacations while growing up.

One anecdote from her career as secretary of State in particular stood out as something new not only to the attendees, but to the reporters who obsessively cover the Clinton campaign as well.

She told a story about the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Clinton and President Obama were trying to negotiate terms with India and China—two of the fastest-developing countries in the world—for a climate change agreement.

The problem: China and India’s leaders were nowhere to be found.

Clinton said she and Obama “sent out scouts,” who found that the leaders were meeting in a clandestine conference room.

Clinton and Obama marched to the room, she said, and pushed past Chinese security guards to confront the heads of state.

As a result, the assembled countries signed an accord outlining emissions pledges and other goals for energy use, though much of the text was nonbinding.

“We would not be in as strong a position if the president had not pursued everything from auto emissions to utility controls,” Clinton added on Tuesday.

Aside from climate change, Clinton gradually began filling in some of the details of her economic and social agenda.

And she opened up a little more on Democratic politics and her own future.

Come on Hillary, buy some new shoes so your chubby feet will fit in them.

The economy and immigration:

Clinton blamed Republican presidents for the recent economic crises in the U.S., and said that trickle-down economics needs to be “buried six feet under.”

(Why, it certainly worked well for the Reagan Administration with prosperity lasting for thirty years.)

 “There seems to be a pattern here, and we cannot afford to go back to the failed economic policies of the past,” she said.

(She must be speaking about Obama’s policies.)

“We have to be committed to electing a Democrat who will build on what works with actual evidence, so that we build shared prosperity that everybody benefits from.”

(Really?)

On income inequality and immigration reform, there is a yawning chasm between Republicans and Democrats, especially in Iowa.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 70 percent of likely Republican caucus voters say the government should not pursue policies to reduce income inequality, while 91 percent of their Democratic counterparts said the government should pursue such policies.

More at We The People

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Government Trolls Are Using ‘Psychology-Based Influence Techniques’ On YouTube, Facebook And Twitter

(Screenshot credit, End Of The American Dream)

July 3, 2014

End Of The American Dream: By Michael Snyder

Have you ever come across someone on the Internet that you suspected was a paid government troll?  Well, there is a very good chance that you were not imagining things.  Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now have solid proof that paid government trolls are using “psychology-based influence techniques” on social media websites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.  Documents leaked by Snowden also reveal that government agents have been conducting denial-of-service attacks, flooding social media websites with thinly veiled propaganda and have been purposely attempting to warp public discourse online.  If we do not stand up and object to this kind of Orwellian behavior, it is only going to get worse and worse.

In the UK, the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) is a specialized unit within the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).  If it wasn’t for Edward Snowden, we probably still would never have heard of them.  This particular specialized unit is engaged in some very “questionable” online activities.  The following is an excerpt from a recent piece by Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman…

Though its existence was secret until last year, JTRIG quickly developed a distinctive profile in the public understanding, after documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealedthat the unit had engaged in “dirty tricks” like deploying sexual “honey traps” designed to discredit targets, launching denial-of-service attacks to shut down Internet chat rooms, pushing veiled propaganda onto social networks and generally warping discourse online.

We are told that JTRIG only uses these techniques to go after the “bad guys”.

But precisely who are the “bad guys”?

It turns out that their definition of who the “bad guys” are is quite broad.  Here is more from Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman…

JTRIG’s domestic and law enforcement operations are made clear. The report states that the controversial unit “currently collaborates with other agencies” including the Metropolitan police, Security Service (MI5), Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Border Agency, Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and National Public Order and Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). The document highlights that key JTRIG objectives include “providing intelligence for judicial outcomes”; monitoring “domestic extremist groups such as the English Defence League by conducting online HUMINT”; “denying, deterring or dissuading” criminals and “hacktivists”; and “deterring, disrupting or degrading online consumerism of stolen data or child porn.”

Particularly disturbing to me is the phrase “domestic extremist groups”.  What does someone have to say or do to be considered an “extremist”?  For example, the English Defence League is a non-violent street protest movement in the UK that is strongly against the spread of radical Islam and sharia law in the UK.  So if they are “extremists”, how many millions upon millions of ordinary citizens in the United States would fit that definition?

When conducting operations against “extremists”, psychology-based influence techniques are among the tools that JTRIG uses to combat them online.  The following comes from one of the documents that was posted by Greenwald and Fishman…

In other words, these government trolls try to mess with people’s minds.

And here is another document that was posted by Greenwald and Fishman that talks about how JTRIG uses YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to accomplish their goals…

It is very disturbing to think that some of the people that we may be interacting with on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are actually paid government agents that are purposely trying to feed us propaganda and misinformation.

And of course this kind of thing does not just happen in the United Kingdom.  In Canada, it has been publicly admitted that the government uses paid trolls to warp Internet discourse.  The following comes from Natural News…

You’ve probably run into them before — those seemingly random antagonizers who always end up diverting the conversation in an online chat room or article comment section away from the issue at hand, and towards a much different agenda. Hot-button issues like illegal immigration, the two-party political system, the “war on terror” and even alternative medicine are among the most common targets of such attackers, known as internet “trolls” or “shills,” who in many cases are nothing more than paid lackeys hired by the federal government and other international organizations to sway and ultimately control public opinion.

Several years ago, Canada’s CTV News aired a short segment about how its own government had been exposed for hiring secret agents to monitor social media and track online conversations, as well as the activities of certain dissenting individuals. This report, which in obvious whitewashing language referred to such activities as the government simply “weighing in and correcting” allegedly false information posted online, basically admitted that the Canadian government had assumed the role of secret online police.

You can actually watch a video news report about what is happening up in Canada right here:

Needless to say, the U.S. government is also engaged in this kind of activity as well.  For instance, the U.S. government has actually been caught manipulating discourse on Reddit and editing Wikipedia.  When it comes to spying, there is nobody that is off limits for our spooks.  It just came out recently that we even spied on three French presidents, and they are supposed to be our “friends”.

More at End Of The American Dream: 

Disclaimer: This article was not written By Lorra B.

Petition To Light Up The White House For Another Cause Denied For YEARS

June 29, 2015

Mad World News:

Unless you live in a cave — in which case you wouldn’t be likely to be reading this anyway — you are familiar with the Supreme Court decision involving gay marriage. You’ve also likely seen the flood of rainbows in celebration, including our own White House being lit up in a vibrant display.

However, did you know that there’s been a petition requesting the White House be lit up gold for just one day to support another cause? The request has been made for years — and denied.

When  I first saw the Facebook post above, alleging that the pediatric cancer community has attempted for years in various forms to persuade our leaders to turn the White House gold for just one day, but were denied, I was skeptical. Could it just be someone not pleased with the ruling on gay marriage trying to stir the pot? Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

A quick Google search led to a petition on whitehouse.gov. The petition was published on January 7, 2013 and reads:

Cancer is the number one disease killer in children, and seven kids die every day in the United States. We must raise awareness to impact this mortality rate. Changing this outcome requires awareness, and the President can lead this effort by lighting the White House gold for the month of September. Gold represents both the pediatric cancer cause and the light that children provide in our lives. We should honor them by shedding light on their battle. The color of that light is gold.

The White House gave a lengthy response, but in short said, “We cannot light the building gold for the month of September.”

The Facebook post above claims that the pediatric community has been told lighting the White House in the color of gold to “represent all the children who have fought the beast that is cancer, for all the children who have lost their lives, and for all those precious children still giving everything they have for just one more day” has been denied because “it’s too costly, involves too much planning and hands they don’t have, and that they can’t light for every good cause that crosses their desk.”

Yet, as the Facebook user points out, “in a matter of hours they were able to plan its PR and light it bright. This makes me so terribly sad to know that a Supreme Court ruling is held in higher regard, is more celebratory, than our baby’s lives…”

More at Mad World News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Hillary Wants This Slogan & Photo BANNED, So We Should Probably Share It

June 13, 2015

Mad World News: by Meaghan Ellis

Hillary Clinton definitely isn’t pleased with a questionable photo that’s floating around social media sites. With her eye on the White House, this incriminating photo doesn’t help her campaign because it raises so many questions about what actually happens behind closed doors. It’s probably safe to say this is the worse photo she’s ever taken.

The shocking photo, which was originally uploaded via Clash Daily, captures an extremely disheveled Hillary that looks as if she’s been run through a car wash. It’s unclear whether the photo has been photoshopped, but one thing’s for sure — it’s ignited a media firestorm. Shortly after the photo was posted, the comments came flooding in.

Hillary Clinton photo shared via Clash Daily

The shocking photo has been featured on several different conservative sites. It also fueled the fire for hundreds of Instagram memes. Needless to say, Hillary’s been the butt of many jokes via Instagram, because the photo has opened the door for a colossal bashing session.

Surprisingly, it looks like Hilary is planning to combat all the offensive memes posted with the new “signature photo.” According to CNN, the Democratic politician has officially joined Instagram in an effort to reach the masses via social media.

On June 10, she posted her first photo of three shirts as an expression of patriotism. The three items are all part of Hillary’s signature pantsuit ensemble. So far Hillary only has 100,000 followers, but the preliminary poll offers surprising results.

Here’s Hillary’s first post:

A recent Harvard University Institute of Politics poll shows that 83 percent of Facebook users are 18 to 29-year-old. A total of 44 percent in that age group are on Instagram, and only 39 percent are on Twitter. The poll also shows that 55 percent of all young adults in that same age group “would rather see a Democrat in the White House in 2016.”

However, traditional Republicans appear to show more voting consistencies for midterm voting. With 300 million viewers sharing more than 70 million photos and videos on a daily basis, Instagram will reportedly make the 2016 election one of the “most visual elections to date.” So, visual aspects can definitely help or hurt Hillary’s campaign. Only time will tell how it all pans out.

More at Mad World News

[Image via Gallery Hip]

Disclaimer: this article was not written by Lorra B.

Free Speech, Facebook and the NSA: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

June 11,  2015

Outlawpatriotnews:

By John W. Whitehead

The Rutherford Institute

“A person under surveillance is no longer free; a society under surveillance is no longer a democracy.”—Writers Against Mass Surveillance

THE GOOD NEWS: Americans have a right to freely express themselves on the Internet,including making threatening—even violent—statements on Facebook, provided that they don’t intend to actually inflict harm.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Elonis v. United States threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who was charged with making unlawful threats (it was never proven that he intended to threaten anyone) and sentenced to 44 months in jail after he posted allusions to popular rap lyrics and comedy routines on his Facebook page. It’s a ruling that has First Amendment implications for where the government can draw the line when it comes to provocative and controversial speech that is protected and permissible versus speech that could be interpreted as connoting a criminal intent.

That same day, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the legal justification allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to carry out warrantless surveillance on Americans, officially expired. Over the course of nearly a decade, if not more, the NSA had covertly spied on millions of Americans, many of whom were guilty of nothing more than using a telephone, and stored their records in government databases. For those who have been fighting the uphill battle against the NSA’s domestic spying program, it was a small but symbolic victory.

THE BAD NEWS: Congress’ legislative “fix,” intended to mollify critics of the NSA, will ensure that the agency is not in any way hindered in its ability to keep spying on Americans’ communications.

The USA FREEDOM Act could do more damage than good by creating a false impression that Congress has taken steps to prevent the government from spying on the telephone calls of citizens, while in fact ensuring the NSA’s ability to continue invading the privacy and security of Americans.

For instance, the USA FREEDOM Act not only reauthorizes Section 215 of the Patriot Actfor a period of time, but it also delegates to telecommunications companies the responsibility of carrying out phone surveillance on American citizens.

AND NOW FOR THE DOWNRIGHT UGLY NEWS: Nothing is going to change.

As journalist Conor Friedersdorf warns, “Americans concerned by mass surveillance and the national security state’s combination of power and secrecy should keep worrying.”

In other words, telephone surveillance by the NSA is the least of our worries.

Even with restrictions on its ability to collect mass quantities of telephone metadata, the government and its various spy agencies, from the NSA to the FBI, can still employ an endless number of methods for carrying out warrantless surveillance on Americans, all of which are far more invasive than the bulk collection program.

As I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. Just recently, for example, it was revealed that the FBI has been employing a small fleet of low-flying planes to carry out video and cell phone surveillance over American cities.

Then there are the fusion and counterterrorism centers that gather all of the data from the smaller government spies—the police, public health officials, transportation, etc.—and make it accessible for all those in power.

And of course that doesn’t even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine. Indeed, Facebook, Amazon and Google are among the government’s closest competitorswhen it comes to carrying out surveillance on Americans, monitoring the content of your emails, tracking your purchases and exploiting your social media posts.

more at Outlawpatriotnews

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Obama Under Pressure To Release Secret Pages Of 9/11 Report ‘Showing Saudi Arabia Financed Attacks’

June 5, 2015

The Telegraph: By Harriet Alexander, and Peter Foster

A long running campaign over redacted pages of a Senate report into 9/11 which allegedly reveal Riyadh as the principle financier is gathering new momentum.

The Obama administration is facing renewed pressure to release a top secret report that allegedly shows that Saudi Arabia directly helped to finance the September 11 attacks.

Rand Paul, the Libertarian Republican senator from Kentucky, is demanding that Mr Obama declassify 28 pages that were redacted from a 2002 US Senate report into the 9/11 attacks.

Mr Paul, who been vocal in attacking the bulk NSA spying programmes revealed by the rogue security contractor Edward Snowden and is running for president in 2016, has now promised to file an amendment to a Senate bill that would call on Mr Obama to declassify the pages.

The blacked-out pages, which have taken on an almost mythical quality for 9/11 conspiracy theorists, were classified on the orders of George W. Bush, leading to speculation they confirmed Saudi involvement.

_{Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdar (Getty Images)}

According to Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who was chair of the Senate Intelligence committee at the time of the report, they show that Saudi Arabia was the “principle financier” of the attack.

The White House said in January that it was reviewing the file, said that it had set no timetable for the conclusions of its deliberations.

Some families of 9/11 victims have campaigned for several years for the declassification of the 28 pages, supported by Mr Graham who has now enlisted the high-profile Mr Paul to his cause.

“Information revealed over the years does raise questions about [Saudi Arabia’s] support, or whether their support might have been supportive to these Al Qaeda terrorists,” Mr Paul said at the press conference in Washington this week.

“We cannot let page after page of blanked-out documents be obscured behind a veil, leading these families to wonder if there is additional information surrounding these horrible acts.”

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but previous investigations always failed to find a formal link between the country and the terrorist attack, which killed 2,996 people.

Many victims groups believe the full extent of Saudi involvement in 9/11 has long been covered up by both the Obama and Bush administrations to protect US-Saudi relations.

Terry Strada, who leads 9/11 Families and Survivors United For Justice Against Terrorism, said that the supposed Saudi funding link was not a surprise.

“Nearly every significant element that led to the attacks of Sept. 11 points to Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Money is the lifeblood of terrorism. Without money, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.”

More at The Telegraph

Disclaimer: This was not written by Lorra B.

U.S. Military Wants China To Know They Are Losing Patience

May 29, 2015

CNN: By Jim Sciutto

CNN’s Jim Sciutto recently got exclusive access to a U.S. Navy surveillance plane on a secret mission near China, where they flew over a string of man-made islands. China’s Navy issued eight warnings to the plane and told it to leave the area. On Tuesday, Jim answered questions from the Reddit community during an “Ask me anything“ session. Below are highlights from the conversation.

1. If your flight was warned eight times, I guess the flight crew didn’t take it very seriously then?

The flight crew was prepared — and read a scripted response saying that the U.S. considers the airspace there international. Frankly, both sides were very professional and calm, although I did hear frustration in the voice of one of the Chinese Navy radio operators when he yelled, “You go now!”

This was not the first U.S. flight over the islands but it is the first one the U.S. advertised broadly by bringing a TV crew on board. That was intentional and, judging by the Chinese government reaction, seems to have accomplished its goal of sending a message.

2. Did the crew show any change in posture/emotion when the warnings were received?

Frankly, it did not. They have flown these flights before and been challenged by the Chinese Navy before. A few months ago, it was a different story when a Chinese fighter did a barrel roll in front of a U.S. surveillance flight much closer to the Chinese coast. The U.S. formally complained to China and — I’m told — China promised it wouldn’t happen again.

CNN exclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane

3. How capable is China of shooting down the aircraft, even if flying at around 15,000 feet? Do eight warnings seem a bit redundant in their case?

Good question: for now, the flights are too far from to Chinese coast to be in range of Chinese fighter aircraft. Chinese naval ships are nearby though — we saw them! — and could have the weapons on board to threaten a U.S. aircraft but at this point, firing at a U.S. plane would be a clear act of war and therefore extremely unlikely.

4. If you were on a spy plane … why announce it to the world?

Again, fair question: clearly, in this case, the U.S. military wanted the world to know. Fact is, by bringing a CNN crew on board, the military wanted not only to show the world the extent of China’s activity but also show China that the U.S. is watching and, frankly, losing patience. In terms of sending a message, that tactic seems to have worked.

5. How does this type of access affect your reporting? Is bias not a concern with the networks anymore?

This is a very fair question. It’s my personal view that embedding during the second Iraq war often served the military’s interests. When you’re with troops — and your life, frankly, depends on them — it takes a real effort to separate your own point of view from theirs. I faced that challenge myself and hope I found a way to do it. I had the same concern going up in the surveillance flight. All you can do is ask hard questions and attempt to tell both sides of the story as best you can. But we all have to be very vigilant.

6. Do you think that these actions could deteriorate to an armed conflict over these islands?

Though neither side wants it, it is possible. And it most likely wouldn’t happen by choice. Rather, the worry is that a Chinese plane comes too close to an American plane or a Chinese ship too close to a U.S. ship. Do they bump? Does one go down? Fact is, this has happened before. In 2001, a Chinese fighter bumped a U.S. EP-3 surveillance plane. The Chinese fighter went down, the EP-3 did an emergency and dangerous landing on a Chinese island and were held for several days. The same encounter today, with China’s military much stronger, would be extremely dangerous.

More at CNN

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Silent Soldier.

Appeals Court Deals Blow To Obama’s Amnesty Plan

May 27, 2015

Mad World News:

A federal appeals court refused to lift the ruling from the Texas judge halting President Obama’s amnesty plan dead in its tracks. This is the second ruling by a federal court, delivering a major legal setback to the administration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Judge Hanen’s decision that Obama broke the law in taking his own unilateral action last year to grant amnesty to millions to avoid deportation. The three judge court shot down Obama’s hopes to reinstate amnesty quickly in a vote of 2-1. That means he will likely have to go to the Supreme Court to pursue his agenda any further.

Judges Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod, the majority voters, stated that the president’s new program, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), should have gone through the usual public comment and notice period. They sided with the lower court that the actions should not have been taken unilaterally by Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson late last year.

Twenty-five states joined Texas in stating that the president’s actions were unconstitutional or, at the very least, illegal. The district court in Texas and now a federal court of appeals both sided with the states. This gives twin rebukes to President Obama trying to say his executive actions were constitutional.

“We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the president’s attempt to bypass the will of the American people was successfully checked again today,” said Texas Governor Greg Abbott. (Washington Times)

The rulings will not halt the president’s 600,000 “Dreamers” from 2012 being allowed to stay in the U.S. It also doesn’t stop him from ordering the Department of Justice to refuse to deport illegals. It does mean that Obama can not proceed with granting illegal immigrants affirmative status, carrying all sorts of benefits usually reserved for citizens. Some of the benefits it does stop are things such as driver’s licenses, tax credits, and preferential work status under the terms of Obamacare.

Immigrant rights advocates were quick to jump in and blast the courts decisions. They tried to cast both the courts as immoral.

“We are on the right side of history, the right side of justice,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. (Washington Times)

The advocates called on President Obama to ignore the rulings and use his executive authority to halt all deportations until Congress caves to making new immigration laws. Such actions can be constituted as illegal and breaching court orders.

The majority judges ruled that the original brief by Judge Hanen was accurate. They state that the president’s executive orders would have serious adverse affects on the states.

Executive amnesty is dead in its tracks for now, but look for this administration to seek to try to get the Supreme Court involved.

(h/t: Washington Times)

More at Mad World News:

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.