OBAMA'S GANGSTER REGIME

ROGUE EXECUTION BY ANOTHER GANGSTER  REGIME
Potentially coming to your neighborhood
under a second Obama term
and his lawless One Million Man Civilian Security Force

Gangster Government, and Sakharov's Immunity  
Matthew Bracken, February 29, 2012

* * 1 * *
For over a year now, the Department of Justice has been stone-walling the House committees investigating Operation Fast And Furious, wherein thousands of semi-automatic rifles ("assault rifles" in the liberal lexicon) were deliberately allowed to "walk" into Mexico, straight into the hands of drug cartel killers. One of those weapons was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry a dozen miles inside of U.S. territory. 

The actual killer is believed to be an FBI "informant." In other words, a cartel assassin in his own right, but also a valuable "asset" in the FBI's consideration. The FBI and DOJ have been shielding this killer, while obstructing the delivery of justice to the Brian Terry family. On the other side of the border, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was also murdered with a "gun-walked" weapon, along with over three-hundred innocent Mexican citizens as of this date. 

And where is the elite Mainstream Media in its coverage of this festering scandal of such epic proportions? Over the past year they have dedicated scant minutes to the scandal, and then, usually to parrot the Obama administration's lies and obfuscations. Just during one recent week, the elite media spent countless hours covering the death and funeral of a beloved celebrity drug addict, compared to the few minutes they have spent covering Operation Fast And Furious during all of the last year. 

Under Operation Fast And Furious, and related DOJ-ATF gun-walking schemes in at least five states, there was no plan or means to track the weapons after their sale. Licensed gun dealers were coerced by the BATFE into making repeated bulk sales, even when they expressed grave concern about the persons buying the weapons, including known felons. Federal cash was provided to the straw purchasers when they did not have their own money. 

As conceived and carried out, the intended purpose of Operation Fast and Furious was to rack up a bloody body count in Mexico, in order to discredit the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as spelled out in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The murdered Mexicans were intended to buttress the false claim that ninety percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico after gangland shootings came from American gun dealers. 

In short, the Obama administration conducted a program of mass murder for political purposes. Or, as President Obama put it to Sarah Brady, he was still pursuing a gun control agenda, but "under the radar." It is hard to conceive of a federal "law enforcement operation" [sic] more evil from top to bottom than Operation Fast And Furious. 

* * 2 * *
By comparison, consider the Watergate scandal, which at the time was generally called "a third-rate burglary." I was a teenage construction worker the summer of 1973 when the Senate Hearings took place. Out on the construction sites, you could hear radios playing the hearings all through the day. The radio and television networks suspended normal programming in that pre-cable era to bombard America with gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Watergate hearings. 

We all know the result of that non-stop media focus: President Nixon soon resigned in disgrace to avoid impeachment, and U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell was sent to prison. And all over a bungled political burglary, where nobody was killed or even hurt. 

But imagine for a moment if President Nixon's men, when called before the committees investigating the Watergate scandal, had provided less than twenty percent of subpoenaed documents after a full year of ignoring requests and congressional pleadings. Then further imagine that among the twenty percent of the documents that were provided to Congress, hundreds of pages were "fully redacted," or completely blacked out. Black paper, by the ream. 

In diplo-speak, this is leaning across the witness table toward the congressional investigators, giving them two middle fingers and a hearty, "F--- you, you punks, what are you going to do about it?" 

Then imagine if the New York Times, the Washington Post and the television networks never mentioned Watergate or the hearings, except rarely, and then only to refer to the congressional investigators as partisan hacks on witch-hunts, simply bent on destroying the nation's beloved President Nixon and stopping his good works. In this alternate reality, Woodward and Bernstein never got a Watergate by-line, but instead they were sent to cover the new "ecology" movement and Earth Day. 

Reverse the party polarity, jump ahead four decades to today, and that is the current sad state of American reality. Gangsters rule the federal government; the Operation Fast And Furious congressional investigators are ineffectual, toothless buffoons, and their spineless congressional leaders even balk at further investigation of the deadly scandal. 

In the modern case of Operation Fast and Furious, hundreds of Mexicans were murdered as a necessary pre-condition for a desired political outcome, the undercutting of Second Amendment rights in America. From the outset, the administration's goal was to bury our Right to Keep and Bear Arms beneath a growing mountain of Mexican corpses. The innocent murdered Mexicans were not collateral damage of Operation Fast and Furious, they were the intended targets from the start. 

Murdergate, plain and simple. 

Dear readers, it does not get more evil than that. 

Attorney General Holder and his lieutenants have repeatedly lied and are repeatedly caught lying, so they make up more lies, bald-face lies, contradicted by email records and their own words. But no charges of perjury ensue from Congress, only more extensions of meaningless deadlines to produce the subpoenaed documents and all of the witnesses who have been called to testify, but who have simply refused to appear. 

Two middle fingers, and a hearty "F--- you." 

And not only does the elite Mainstream Media ignore the story, thereby shielding the Obama administration from answering for Operation Fast and Furious or many other administration scandals, they actually take an active role in promulgating the latest messages put out by the Obama White House. One recent blatant example will suffice. Most viewers were bewildered at the Republican primary debate in New Hampshire on January 7, when moderator George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked, and continued to ask, seemingly off-topic questions about the candidates' views on, of all possible subjects, birth control. 

We now understand that current White House War Room "General" Valerie Jarrett has been conducting weekly planning meetings with representatives from the hard-left Media Matters, for the purpose of delivering the latest administration "talking points" and strategic memes to their cooperating friends in the elite media and thereby to the public at large. Then lo and behold, the original Clinton White House War Room "General" George Stephanopoulos just happened to pick debate questions not about Operation Fast And Furious, but, of all things, the birth control meme that the Obama White House wanted to float, as a diversion from discussing the perilous state of the economy. And wildly successful it has been, this meme-making machine, at keeping the Republican candidates off-message and off-balance. 

A horribly biased media that will not even investigate Operation Fast And Furious will certainly not investigate this grossly transparent act of political prostitution by "journalist" George Stephanopoulos. In graphic terms, this was not merely discreet political sex for a quiet off-camera payoff; this was naked, grunting copulation at high noon, on the public square. Even so, today almost nobody will say aloud what needs to be said: George Stephanopoulos has now proven himself a political whore of the lowest stripe, but even worse than that, he has shown himself to be a serving member in good standing of Gangster Government, Inc. And his colleagues in the elite liberal media establishment are fine with that, because they are also complicit, either knowingly or unknowingly. 

George Stephanopoulos does the political bidding of Valerie Jarrett and Media Matters, making him a willing stooge and a critical cog in Gangster Government, Inc., thereby disgracing both his family name and the occupation of journalist. He will go down in history as a dishonorable scoundrel, who put his shared liberal political agendas ahead of any bare pretense at making an honest search for the truth concerning deadly scandals such as Operation Fast and Furious, which by objective measures is the worst political scandal of the modern era. 

* * 3 * *
Let's return to Watergate. When the activities of the Nixon White House "Plumbers" became known, a vigorous media examination provided the clean water and bleach to quickly disinfect the mess and restore the integrity of government institutions. Officials as high as the U.S. Attorney General went to prison, and President Nixon was forced from office in abject disgrace. 

However, nothing like that happens today, under the willfully averted gaze of "state-controlled media." Operation Fast and Furious, a scandal that is demonstrably orders of magnitude worse than Watergate, gets a complete pass. The MSM is too busy covering the latest celebrity escapades to be bothered with mere mass-murder, carried out as an intended part of a federal "law enforcement operation" [sic] at the Obama administration's direction. 

How may we understand this total disinterest by the elite liberal media in President Obama's own Murdergate? Gangster Government, Inc. cannot thrive unless it can depend on its loyal GGI affiliates in the elite media. Without the looming threat of investigative reporting, Gangster Government is protected on its flanks, and is empowered to advance. The elite media becomes a willing shield for the gangsters, instead of a check against their depredations, all the while claiming objectivity in their reportage. 

In effect, the elite liberal media pisses on our heads and tells us it is raining, and then expects us not only to believe their lies, but to be happy about them. However, out here in the Bitter Clinger Nation, we do indeed see what is happening in sharp detail, and we know that it is not rain that is coming down. We understand, but we are simply unable to change the situation. Not when the elite media itself becomes a key part of the cover-up of Murdergate and other manifestations of Gangster Government, Inc. 

Why spend so much time on this comparison between the Watergate scandal and Operation Fast and Furious? Because it is the Rosetta stone for understanding how Obama's Gangster Government came creeping in, bent on turning the United States into a socialist total control grid, where vestigial scraps of American freedom will be doled out by the State to obedient subjects. When a Gangster Government is not opposed by an honest media or the threat of meaningful congressional hearings, it is emboldened and it advances. This is the outcome of President Obama's new policy of ruling by executive decree, and his repeatedly stating that, "If the Congress won't act, I will." 

"So what?" you may ask. "We live in a corrupt age, so we have a corrupt government. And not for the first, or the last time." 

No, I'm sorry, but this is not the same as anything seen before. Hold on to the example of Watergate: a third-rate political burglary, under a constant media spotlight, leading to the end of a presidency, and an attorney general in prison. Compare that to Operation Fast And Furious: a covert policy of mass murder for political benefit, followed by feeble congressional investigations, with exactly zero elite media interest. It is an objective metric to compare Watergate to Murdergate. The current lack of accountability leaves the Obama administration emboldened to move further away from adherence to the Constitutional limitations they swore to uphold. 

"If the Congress won't act, I will," may be translated into standard English as, "To hell with the Constitution, I am in charge, and nobody can stop me." 

Gangster Government, Inc. 

We have reached a sickening point in our history, when an FBI "informant" shot and killed a U.S. Border Patrol Agent with an AK-47 "walked" to the cartels as part of Operation Fast And Furious. The only part of this that did not go exactly according to the plan cooked up in the Obama White House is that the "walked" rifle killed a U.S. federal agent in America, instead of just one more Mexican in Mexico. The murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry at least spilled a bit of light on the murderous operation, but not enough. More than a year later, the cover-up is holding firm, with the willing assistance of the elite liberal media in blocking the reportage of any news injurious to the Whitehouse. 

(This is not the first time, by the way, that FBI "informants" were allowed to commit murder while receiving FBI protection. It recalls the Irish mobs in Boston who were given FBI protection for over twenty years, in particular the Whitey Bulger gang. It has taken the FBI decades to mitigate the stink of their long-term participation in the Boston Black Mass, which included covering up numerous murders by their "informants.") 

Now the FBI is running "informants" in Mexican cartels, who receive FBI protection, even after they murder U.S. agents in the United States. This ongoing lamentable situation will dishonor every faithfully serving FBI Special Agent as long as it is allowed to continue, just as it also dishonors the memory of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. 

* * 4 * *
Dear readers, we are at a precarious point in our history. When I wrote Enemies Foreign And Domestic in 2002, I was not making wild guesses. I was studying historical and recent foreign examples. When a Gangster Government is left unchecked by a complicit elite media, it is an entirely foreseeable consequence that federal "law enforcement" [sic] agencies will conduct the types of false-flag and other black ops described in my novel EFAD, and actually conducted under the DOJ's Operation Fast And Furious. Power unchecked is power abused. Without the threat of significant media examination or congressional oversight, what do the gangsters have to fear? Nothing at all. 

Look to the recent experiences of countries in Latin America to project what will come next--if it is not already occurring sub-rosa. There will be officially unsanctioned operations that are launched after a wink and a nod from the upper floors. Criminal "informants" seeking large cash payments or stay-out-of-jail cards (or both) will handle the "wet work" on a deniable basis. Rogue units like the Special Training Unit described in EFAD will far overstep any Constitutional bounds, and sally forth on both personal and political vendettas, seeking to destroy those they cannot silence, with no regard for the rule of law, and no fear of being held to account by the complicit elite liberal media. 

All of this will happen, just as surely as mushrooms will sprout forth from horse manure in a dark place. It is what always happens, when a Gangster Government veering toward outright fascism is assisted by a compliant press. Study the past decade in the political life of Venezuela, to see America's future. Secret police, and eventually even death-squads made up of "off-duty" agents and their cartel and street gang "informants" will proliferate. Violent street mobs mobilized and directed by federal instigators through cutouts will be unleashed on political enemies, while the Feds and the elite liberal media study their fingernails. These are a few examples of what always happens under these conditions. It is as predictable as the swing of a pendulum. Don't wonder. This is what comes next. 

Data-mining programs will provide these abusers of power with powerful tools for creating enemies lists, and for targeting them, as described in EFAD. Social media networks are already under intensive federal scrutiny. This year, it is ostensibly to track down undefined terrorist threats. But social media, so popular today, must be understood as a two-edged sword. The same social media that facilitated the Arab Spring, today brings the secret police of Syria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations to the doors of obscure bloggers hidden in tiny apartments, to drag them away to secret torture cells. 

The point is that social media works both ways, and analyzing their traffic patterns is currently a booming sector in federal law enforcement. This year, unnamed groups of terrorists are the reason given for all of the new federal law enforcement "fusion centers." Next year or the year after, other classes of political enemies may be placed on the federal microscope's slide as political circumstances evolve. Gangster Government, when it is unconcerned about being held to account, always moves forward to greater levels of outright repression. Always. Power unchecked, is power abused. 

The ratchets restricting our freedom click tighter. People are afraid to speak, for fear of winding up on a list, and what that might mean in the years ahead under a Gangster Government. Your spouse desperately needs an organ transplant or other critical operation? Gee, sorry, not available, not to you, not now. Not to a political enemy, they will mean but not say. Therefore, you had better shut up and get with the program, if you know what is best for you. That compliant and fearful attitude is the intended outcome of Gangster Government, Inc. It needs a silent and submissive nation of frightened sheep to thrive unchecked. 

However, some of us will just not get the word. We will not all shut up and play ball, so at the next stop along this express railroad to overt fascism, the regime's political enemies will be targeted for assassination. But not necessarily in the 1963 or 1968 meaning of the word. That is, not by "kinetic solutions," to use today's favored expression. Today, assassination comes in many subtler forms. 

* * 5 * *
Which brings me at last to Sakharov's Immunity. Andrei Sakharov was a Soviet physicist and a primary inventor of the H-bomb. When he went off the Communist reservation in 1967 and became a dissident, the regime made his life miserable but they did not kill him, which was certainly in their power to do. His death under such circumstances would have proved the very points he was making about the illegitimate Soviet regime. They moved him far into Siberia to keep him isolated from intrepid foreign visitors, but they did not sprinkle radioactive Polonium dust on his salad. The introduction of that deadly form of Russian salad dressing was left for a later strongman, Vladimir Putin, formerly of the KGB. 



And there are many other means of assassination. The Soviet KGB could not assassinate Sakharov's reputation; it was above reproach. But in the modern era, with the elite liberal media serving as the Obama regime's willing propaganda organ (birth control, anyone?) this is easier to arrange than ever. Popular media icons can be and have been driven off the airwaves by the full-court press of the Media Matters smear machine, in coordination with Valerie Jarrett at the White House War Room. And does anyone believe that the vicious smear campaign against black conservative Republican candidate Herman Caine was not orchestrated in the War Room of Gangster Government, Inc? 

Or the regime can commit an "Economic Waco," the way it has recently done to the Rick and Terri Reese family of Deming, NM. Read about this case, and ponder this federal engine of total destruction being turned against your family. At the same time the secret federal "law enforcement program" [sic] of walking thousands of guns directly to Mexican cartel killers was official ATF policy, and nobody has even been charged with a crime. 

Obviously, taking a defiant public stand against Gangster Government Inc. and its complicit elite media minions comes with some risk. They can drop a large building on you if they want to, just as they did to the Reese family in New Mexico, and grind you under their boot heels. 

So why do I stand and point my accusing finger at Leviathan? Perhaps those dissidents with a sufficiently high profile will earn some measure of Sakharov's Immunity, at least for a while. Certainly keeping a low profile is no guarantee of protection from being railroaded and destroyed, as the gut-wrenching case of Rick and Terri Reese clearly demonstrates. Needless to say, the elite liberal media has no interest in covering their physical and economic crucifixion by the federal government. Please read about their case; it will make you sick to your stomach that this kind of official abuse can happen in the United States of America. 

So if maintaining a low profile does not promise safety from the organs of state destruction, perhaps keeping a high profile will. I am pinning a lot on this Sakharov's Immunity idea. But if it is my fate to serve as one of the canaries in the coalmine of freedom, so be it. I am in good company, standing with many genuine heroes. You already know many of them, but it is not for me to name them here. 

[March 2 addendum: One of them, Andrew Breitbart, died yesterday of "natural causes," at the unnaturally young age of 43, while alone on a walk near his home.] 

* * 6 * *
And a final note to federal law enforcement officials and special agents: More than any other group of Americans, I wish that you would please read my 2003 novel Enemies Foreign And Domestic. (If you know a federal law enforcement agent, please forward this essay to him or her.) 

I know that most of you depend greatly on your federal paycheck, and look forward to receiving your federal pension. Millions of us are in a similar boat. We all have bills to pay and kids to feed. However, while you ponder your need for your federal paycheck, please remember that the FBI, the flagship of federal law enforcement agencies, also stands for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. 

If you are being asked or encouraged to perform dishonorable or unconstitutional acts, remember, it often takes a lot of bravery to remain faithful to your core value of personal integrity. Remember always that you swore a solemn oath to defend not a Fuhrer, or a Fatherland, or even a desired ideological outcome, but the Constitution of the United States. 

This means that if you are instructed by a supervisor like the fictional Wally Malvone to engage in dirty tricks and black ops (like those that actually took place under Operation Fast And Furious, AKA Murdergate), you are both duty and honor bound to blow the whistle, like the brave ATF Special Agents who remained faithful to their oaths and preserved their integrity. There can be no more of protecting killers because they are federal law enforcement agency "informants," like the members of the Whitey Bulger Irish mob in Boston, or the FBI "informant" who was the likely assassin of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona. 

As a faithful agent who believes in your oath, it is your duty to root out and extirpate the rot and filth of political corruption, which is far more dangerous to our Republic than the corruption of mere personal greed. You must remain vigilant to the danger that your agency will become fully politicized, transforming over time into an American KGB or Stasi. Please reread the oath you swore before accepting your gold shield, especially the part about domestic enemies. If you willingly become a Stasi or a KGB man, if a job is a job and you just follow orders, then that domestic enemy is you, and trust me on this, many of us are watching these developments very carefully and with great trepidation. 

You see, countless tens of millions of us also took our own versions of that same oath when we joined the military or law enforcement, and our oaths did not come with an expiration date. 

Matthew Bracken

February 29, 2012 

MATT

ISLAMIC MIND SETS THEY WANT TO IMPOSE ON YOU

Egyptian Islamists have announced Moslems must STOP eating TOMATOES as they carry a
Christian symbol (the Cross) on them.

In Iraq, vegetable vendor have been forbidden to display cucumbers next to tomatoes on their stalls so as not to offend Islam and excite women by this pornographic juxta-positioning.

Iran has closed down  a cinema and officially sealed the doors to PREVENT WOMEN from watching the international soccer matches when en are present! "We cannot have our womenfolk together with men watching this kind of scene.

Iranian law enforcement authorities are patrolling neighborhoods  to prevent this happening in private homes while games broadcast on TV.

Indonesia and Malaysia also have some mind-boggling sharia laws. 


In one case, a Hindu man of Indian origin was ordered by the Islamic courts to DIVORCE his Moslem wife with whom he had had SIX children because Moslem women had NO RIGHT to marry non-Moslem men.

Have fun and Google "Sharia laws" and related words like "Moslem women and non-Moslem men"

DESPICABLE DHIMMIS: LEON PANETTA AND GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY

Military leaders who are teaching that Islam is the enemy should be given promotions





Instead, the terrorist-supporters from CAIR are calling for their dismissal as well as eliminating anti-Islam training materials, all of which are factually correct. The only people who should be dismissed, if not court martialed, are the ones who leaked the training materials to the media and CAIR.

The Traitor in the White House is systematically destroying our military and its ability to defend us. If we do not kick his Muslim Marxist ass out of office, we will all be bowing to Islam four years from now.

TWO despicable dhimmi Muslim ass-kissers: Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, right, talks to reporters alongside (Communist) Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta at the Pentagon in April. Commenting on a military training class containing anti-Islam sentiments, Dempsey called the course "totally objectionable."

MSNBC Emerging details of inflammatory anti-Islam materials used in U.S. military training have prompted a chorus of outrage from civil rights and American Muslim groups, and growing demands for the dismissal of military leaders associated with the course, and for other actions to address the issue.

The materials, first detailed by Wired.com, used in an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., promoted "total war" against Muslims in order to stave off terrorism. The course, "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism," raised the option of "taking war to a civilian population," in disregard of the Geneva Convention of 1949, and possibly destruction of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s holiest sites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RHxaTgkoW4

"This is Abu Ghraib by power point and lectern," said (radical leftist atheist) Mikey Weinstein, president of the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), referring to the scandal that erupted in 2004 after the surfacing of torrid pictures of U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq. "It’s even worse than Abu Ghraib. What they are talking about is essentially genocide," of Muslims.

The military announced a review of its training materials and canceled the "Perspectives" course in late April. The action came after an FBI review resulted in the elimination of reams of materials that were found to be discriminatory against Muslims, treating the whole population with suspicion.

The details coming to light from the the 8-week course at an elite military institution — taught to officers since 2004 — have shocked even those who have long complained about discrimination against Muslims.

Instructor Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, the main focus of the criticism, taught that the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict are "no longer relevant. "This would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable...)."

Dooley’s materials mock the notion of "moderate Muslims." He taught that the growing number of mosques and Islamic centers in the United States would generate more adherents to use "violent jihad" in pursuit of Islamic domination.

The course materials admit that the actions and views included will not be seen as "politically correct."

Indeed, the courses contradict U.S. government positions — as represented internally and to U.S. allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere — that while the country is fighting Islamic extremists, it is not at war with the religion or its adherents as a whole.

On Thursday, the Chair man of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama appointee, General Martin Dempsey called the course "totally objectionable" and "against our values."

Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon that Lt. Col. Dooley was no longer teaching, but has
kept his job at the college, a top post-graduate professional military institution that serves students from around the world.

Among the organizations calling for Dooley’s dismissal from the college is the Council on American Islamic Relations.

"It is imperative that those who taught our future military leaders to wage war not just on our terrorist enemy, but on the faith of Islam itself be held accountable," wrote CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad in a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. "These shocking revelations are completely out of line with the longstanding values of one of our nation’s most respected institutions."

The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee is urging the Pentagon to recall and retrain military personnel who have been subjected to the anti-Islam material.

"It’s very troubling,” Abed Ayoub, ADC legal director, told msnbc.com. "You’re sending American soldiers overseas with these trainings and these biases ... I think there definitely should be a study as to what impact these trainings have had on their actions."

Weinstein, from MRFF, asserts that Dooley and others in his chain of command who knew about the course materials or should have known about the material should face court-martial.

"MRFF calls for the immediate dismissal of Lt. Col. Dooley, as well as an immediate condemnation, deeply probing investigation, and swift trial by courts-martial of those responsible for allowing content advocating genocide to be used to indoctrinate future leaders within the U.S. armed forces," he told msnbc.com.

Atheist Leftist Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate general, or JAG, believes the course is merely a symptom of a larger problem. In recent years he has campaigned against the military’s invitation of speakers that are known for virulent anti-Islam views. "This is simply a small cancer cell that is rapidly metastasizing," he said. "This is representative of a larger more sinister force which is fundamentalist Christianity." (This atheist POS thinks Christianity is bad but Islam is good)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwq1VUtuCj0

OBAMA STYLE MANUFACTURED RACE WARFARE FOR ELECTION PURPOSES



ORIGINAL PHOTO

 The media also fills their articles with outdated baby-faced pictures of Trayvon. Very few include that he was a towering 6'2” football player. Is the media really reporting the news, or is this classic agitation/propaganda to advance a political agenda.







DOCTORED/SOFTENED  PHOTO USED BY PRESS



Last weekend in the city of Chicago alone, gangbangers slaughtered ten people and wounded another forty.

The youngest fatality is only six years old. The youngest person wounded is only one-year-old. Many of the victim were pedestrians sprayed with bullets in drive by shootings. The national news has said nothing about this.

So why does one shooting in Florida warrant weeks of national news? Why have there been thousands of articles a day, for the last four days, about one single shooting?

Almost all of the news items about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin contains a combination of false statements, opinions presented as facts, transparent distortions, and a complete absence of some of the most relevant details.

Almost all news items are written solely from the point of view of the grieving family. The media also fills their articles with outdated baby-faced pictures of Trayvon. Very few include that he was a towering 6'2” football player. Is the media really reporting the news, or is this classic agitation/propaganda to advance a political agenda.
Literally thousands of articles contain at least one false statement in the first couple of lines. They usually read "George ZImmerman, a white man," or "shoot by a white man."

Zimmerman is described by family as a multiracial Hispanic. His appearance is clearly that of a Latino/Mestizo individual. However, the media wants him to be white because that better fits the political narrative they are trying to artificially create.

Many news articles have also claimed the neighborhood is "mostly white." This is also a lie. The neighborhood is only 49% white. It is over half non-white.

All the way back on February 27th, the local Orlando Fox station interviewed the witness who dialed 911. Almost none of the thousands of articles since have mentioned any of the details described by the witness. Some, however, have attributed false statements to this witness. On March 16th, the Sanford police department released new details to the Orlando Sentinel. Once again, these details have been ignored or changed by the media.

1.The witness reports that George Zimmerman was on the ground and Trayvon is on top of him punching him.

2.The witness says that George Zimmerman was screaming and yelling for help.

3.Police arrive and find Zimmerman bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back. All this confirms the story told by Zimmerman and the witness. (And broken nose).

4.Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin's father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

The neighborhood this took place in has seen a lot of crime. Would you be surprised to learn that there were eight burglaries, nine thefts, and a shooting just in the past year?

In fact, the local homeowners' association reports that George Zimmerman actually caught one thief and aided in the apprehension of other criminals.

The Miami Herald wrote about this on March 17th. None of the thousands of articles and cable news segments that came after, thought this was important.

In fact the Miami Herald goes on to interview neighbor, Ibrahim Rashada, who is black. Rashada ​confirms that there has been a lot of crime in the neighborhood and indicates to the reporter that the perpetrators are usually black.

The media also characterizes Trayvon as a "model student." In fact, he under a five day suspension when the shooting took place.  (Apparently a more serious TEN days).That is why he was staying at a house so far from his school on a school night. A laywer for Trayvon's family has blocked access to his school records. However, you have to do something pretty bad to get suspended for five days.

Now that you know the suppressed facts of the case, you can for form a better more balanced opinion. Maybe you still think Zimmerman was wrong to pull the trigger. However, I think you will come to the conclusion that the "mainstream" clearly is pushing an agenda. Even when they have to grossly alter and adjust a story to fit that agenda.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin#ixzz1qGVdHV5u

AMERICANS STRESSING OUT

http://alanpetersnewsbriefs.blogspot.com/2012/03/stressing-in-america.html

s-EVIL-ious SEBELIOUS

Kathleen "sEVILious" Health and Human Services Secretary Sebilius - a frighteningly intrusive, evil woman in charge of so much of our misery!

And increasing future ill-health as her and Obama's weird, radical and scandalous policies kick in. Specially TIMED to kick in AFTER the elections, where if they get in again, able to ignore American voters for FOUR years, America is doomed financially, morally, culturally, religiously and almost TOTALLY deprived of our long standing Constitutional freedoms!

After Film Warning Kids Not to Call Others 'Jerks,' Sebelius Tells Kids to Say: 'You're Being a Jerk'

By Penny Starr

Immediately after showing middle-school students a new video from the Cartoon Network that admonishes children not to call people names like "stupid," "fat," and "jerk," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the students they could do a lot of good by telling some students they were "jerks."

It "can make a huge amount of difference," she said.

Sebelius' OFTEN VERGING ON LUNACY remarks came in response to a question from CNN’s Don Lemon, who served as moderator of a panel discussion following a screening of “Stop Bullying: Speak Up.”

The audience was comprised of children at the Stuart-Hobson Middle School in Washington, D.C. The students, from the 6th to 8th grade, were given black t-shirts with the “Speak Up” logo to wear at the assembly.

“What do you think is the best advice for people who are going into watching this film and anyone who is watching?” asked Lemon.

As part of her answer, Sebelius said: “I think, very important, is for kids to understand how powerful you really are. You might feel like you’re not big enough, not strong enough, not--don’t have enough tools. But just saying, ‘Stop it! You know, you’re being a jerk!’--walk away, get away from this person can make a huge amount of difference.”

             Sandra Fluke "S-evil-ius" ACTIVIST advocate!

POPPERS OR SEX PRODUCED LOWER BODY STINK?

This is an undocumented supposed incident that happened in Harvard.

During Barack Obama’s ALLEGED tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.

THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

White House spokesman Jay Carney reportedly told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

Obama was allegedly president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.

In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

UPDATE: Third man comes forward to AP.

The AP:

A third former editor says he considered filing a workplace complaint over what he considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Barack Obama when he worked under the president in the 1991 at the University of Chicago. He says the behavior included a private invitation to his apartment.

He worked for the University of Chicago when he was a Visiting Law and Government Fellow. He told The Associated Press that Obama made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that the two editors of the Harvard Law Review had settled separate harassment complaints against him. The employee described situations in which he said Obama told him he had confided to colleagues how attractive he was and invited him to his apartment outside work. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation. The White House declined to comment.

Related articles
•Men Accuse Obama Of Sexually Inappropriate Behavior While At Harvard Law Review thedaleygator.wordpress.com  )
•Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior ( theboldcorsicanflame.wordpress.com )
•Barack Obama Accused By Two Men Of Inappropriate Behavior ( zionistoutrage.com )
•Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate behavior ( gunnyg.wordpress.com )

The Ulsterman Report: Sex and Murder in The Land of Obama?

And as I stood there not quite sure what to do the smell seemed to go from sweet to kind of gross like rotting garbage. It was weird.

I started to try and sneak past the open door so whoever was in there couldn’t hear me but I sure could hear them and that was when I realized the sounds coming out of that conference room were sexual. I heard a male voice saying “Yeah,” again and again and then another sound from another male voice. I realized then that there were at least two men in that room having sex with themselves or someone else I could not hear. I was almost past the door when I heard a loud sniffing noise, and more of that weird smell coming from the room, and then one of the men yelled out the F-word.


Read more including about tthe murder:
http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/the-ulsterman-report-sex-and-murder-in-the-land-of-obama/#ixzz1orcotRcH

(HUMOR) SOME OF OUR COUNTRY LEADERSHIP IN PICTURES (HUMOR)

THE END OF MY PHONY MESSIAH ACT!

========================================

NO WORRIES! I WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO....

LOOK AT ME LEADING THE WORLD!!



Iran's President Ahmadi-Nejad
























================================================

THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL SEE  A MOSLEM KISS A PIG!

AND MISS PIGGY IS JEALOUS AND WANTS HER KISS!

VIOLIN - STRINGS OF THE HEART

Hat Tip to FR's rdb3  "the mouth is the exhaust pipe of the heart"

Alan Note: Over the decades I have had a classical music station on my car radio "speed dial" though my CD player also provides an ecclectic variety of music.

At one time in life, a girlfriend would turn to another station if a violin (her villain) began a solo, though usually politely ask me to do so, since she said the instrument made her grit her teeth, no matter if it were a sweet tone or rapid "flight of the bumblebee" movement.

I never quite understood till I listened to these violin tunes. While they jarred my nerves they are clear and worth sharing and perhaps echo my mood rather than being "lethal" as rdb3 indicates! (Smile).

===================================================


25 years ago, we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope.


Today we have Obama, no cash, and no hope!

If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.

http://aimini.net/view/?fid=ajK0X0veB6xWd8tiTXh3


Or you can get raw with these strings.

http://www.aimini.net/view/?fid=EYuOurf9TXcXihh6GHpw

How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).

http://view.aimini.com/?fid=h3AnkzvVa1N3DnycQIDU

And finally, this, dedicated to the one and only rdb2, whose eyes are growing dim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgfj6YrTTY

Either way, the violin is sweet yet LETHAL.

Do it!

THE DOMINOS LINE UP FOR THE FALL

An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

WORRIED AND SHOWING IT

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.


Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend the junior Obama was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.

TERRORISM BY GOVERNMENT THUGGERY - courtesy of OBAMA

Note: Currently the EPA decisions CANNOT be taken/appealed to court by the accused-defendant. Right now this small landowner who wants to build a small house is facing $100 MILLION in EPA fines!!!!

by Lyle Denniston Reporter


January 9th, 2012


A weak defense of EPA (UPDATED)



Analysis

With a federal government lawyer conceding almost every criticism leveled at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compels landowners to avoid polluting the nation’s waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agency’s enforcement powers. Their task was made easier as Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart stopped just short of saying that EPA was just as heavy-handed as its adversaries — and several of the Justices — were saying.

Perhaps the most telling example: when several of the Justices expressed alarm that a homeowner targeted by EPA’s efforts might face a penalty of as much as $37,500 each day of alleged violation, Stewart made it clear that the fine actually might be doubled, to $75,000 a day, although he tried to recover by saying that was only “theoretical,” and that he did not think that EPA had ever taken that step.


The argument in Sackett, et al., v. EPA (docket 10-1062) did not appear to portend a slam-dunk loss for EPA during the first half of Monday’s argument, when the lawyer for an Idaho couple faced quite rigorous questioning about whether the couple had exercised options that might have been open to them to avert the dire consequences of EPA enforcement.

But the tenor of the session changed abruptly as soon as the line of argument chosen by EPA’s lawyer, Stewart, unfolded.

It all came to something of an explosive verbal climax when Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the scheme that Stewart had outlined would be considered by the ordinary homeowner as something that “can’t happen in the United States.”

Alito ticked off the situation: the homeowner planned to build a house on a lot, the lot was found to have “a little drainage problem,” the homeowner was soon told by EPA that “you have wetlands,” that steps had to be taken to alleviate the environmental threat, that “you have to let us on your premises,” that every day “you face $75,000 in penalties,” that the homeowner cannot go to court to make a challenge, and that, if there is a court case, it won’t occur “until we choose.”

(UNBELIEVABLE: Justice delayed is justice denied!!!)

(Alan note: Obama proving his Terrorism against America is not just with bombs and bullets!)

Stewart did not dispute the recitation even in that accusatory fashion, and could only answer that such an order from EPA would not have been “the first communication” from EPA to the homeowner, since the agency would try earlier to alert property owners of their obligations under the law.

The argument that a homeowner — or a business firm, for that matter — could face a double penalty was raised early in the argument Monday by Damien M. Schiff, a lawyer for Chantell and Michael Sackett, the Priest Lake, Idaho, couple that has been fighting with EPA for four years over their plans to build a home on a lot they own — a lot that EPA says has wetlands on it. Schiff, continuing his legal team’s emphasis upon the personal plight of a couple supposedly of modest means, said the couple could be fined the maximum — $37,500 per day if they were found to violate federal environmental law itself, and a separate $37,500 if they took actions that violate EPA’s compliance order against them*. Schiff said that EPA had conceded that in its brief in the case.

(Alan note: in other words don't you DARE complain of we'll get you! Obama Chicago style policy and governance!)

It appeared to come, however, as a surprise to the Justices. And, at one point, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., intimated that Schiff was exaggerating the threat to his clients, since, Roberts said, the fine might actually be only $10 a day, not the maximum.

But when Schiff, in answer to the Chief Justice, sought to make a separate challenge to other obligations under the compliance order, even without fines, Scalia suggested that he stay on the fines. “So, you know, sufficient unto the day the evil thereof. We don’t have to consider more difficult cases.”

Indeed, as Schiff’s argument unfolded, he did not appear to be generating much sympathy for clients like his, since much of the argument was a detailed exploration of what processes they might have available to challenge EPA, and the prospect — described by some Justices as rather dim — that they could defeat EPA even if they did have court review of their challenge.

Indeed, as the Sacketts’ lawyer prepared to take his seat, the character of the case had moved well away from his preferred David vs. Goliath contest, into a somewhat dull exploration of administrative law, even though Schiff now and then would bring up again the $37,500 figure and the threat of “ruinous” financial penalty.

Apparently, however, Schiff had gotten the attention of the Justices on the issue of the double penalty, and that prompted Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, as he began his response, to concede the possibility of double penalties. He said it had been put in the EPA brief “as an exercise of our duty of candor to the Court.”

He said it was “theoretical,” not “practical.” When Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the compliance order issued to the Sacketts had mentioned only $37,500, not double that, Stewart said that was all that the order needed to say.

Soon, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said he was confused, asking whether there were double penalties? Stewart said it was a legal possibility, but he knew of no case in which it had been done.

The Justices, though, were now fully engaged on the double penalties, and other members of the Court pressed Stewart on it. Justice Alito, for example, got an admission from Stewart that the government had not adopted a policy to rule it out. “So,” said Alito, “‘it’s more than theoretical.”

And when the government lawyer continued to say double fining had not been done, Justice Scalia remarked sarcastically, “I’m not going to bet my house on that.”

When Stewart tried to defend himself by saying that the Sacketts had not even been aware of the double penalty prospect before reading the government’s brief, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered his own sarcastic thrust: “They were getting a good night’s sleep before they read your brief?” The audience laughed.

What had clearly happened, in the opening moments of Stewart’s argument, was that the threatened plight of the Sacketts had come fully into prominence again, and the government was exactly where Schiff had sought to put it: on the defensive. Stewart might have wished that he had chosen another way to open his side of the argument.

But the circumstances actually deteriorated further for EPA and its lawyer.

As Stewart answered other questions about how EPA’s compliance orders actually work, his responses sometimes simply produced more sarcasm. Scalia, for example, said “Well, that’s very nice” when Stewart said the Sacketts had been advised that they could tell EPA if they thought some of its demands were “infeasible.”

Scalia continued: “That’s very nice, when you have received something called a compliance order, which says you are subject to penalties of 32.5 for every day of violations.” ($32,500 was the former maximum penalty per day; it is now $37,500, as other comments during the argument made clear.)

Scalia warmed to the subject, suggesting flatly that the agency had been “high-handed,” demanding things of the Sacketts that simply were not required by the law.

It was Justice Alito, though, who completed Stewart’s embarrassment, with the devastating query that began this way: “Mr. Stewart, if you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States?”

(Alan note: unless it is the Obamination of the USA)

A good deal of time remained in the argument, but it seemed virtually over at that point. Schiff was obviously pleased; when his time for rebuttal came up, he offered to waive it if the Court had no more questions. There were a few, but there was nothing in them to bail out the EPA’s compliance order.