Obama Secretly Pledges To Divide Jerusalem

TEL AVIV – Now that he has secured his second term, President Barack Obama has already secretly pledged to the Palestinians he will press Israel into a new round of so-called land-for-peace negotiations, a top Palestinian Authority negotiator told WND.

The negotiator said top members of the Obama administration told the Palestinians the U.S. president will renew talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state in the so-called 1967 borders – meaning in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and, notably, eastern Jerusalem.

The negotiator further revealed when it comes to dividing Jerusalem, Obama wants to rehash what is known as the Clinton parameters.

That formula, pushed by Bill Clinton during the Camp David talks in 2000, called for Jewish areas of Jerusalem to remain Israeli while the Palestinians will get sovereignty over neighborhoods that are largely Arab.

WND previously reported how Palestinians are building illegally in Jewish-owned areas of Jerusalem, changing facts on the ground and resulting in Arab majorities on certain neighborhoods.

This is not the first time the Palestinians are claiming Obama will push for new talks during a second term.

Just before November’s presidential election, a senior PA negotiator claimed to WND if Obama secures another four years in office, he will use his second term to target Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the main party to blame for the collapse of Mideast peace talks.

The negotiator further claimed Obama quietly pledged to the Palestinians a campaign at the United Nations to renew U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for a Palestinian state in the “1967 borders.”

The negotiator further said Obama had promised the PA that the establishment of a Palestinian state will be one of the main priorities for a second term.

“We were told that the negotiations for a Palestinian state will be a main goal for Obama,” said the negotiator. “Netanyahu will be declared the main person responsible for the collapse of the peace process.”

Source :Aaron Klein is WND.com's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor John Hagee recently stated,“Jerusalem should never be divided for any reason. It is the property of the people of Israel. The president of the United States has no authority to tell the people of Israel what they can and cannot do with the city of Jerusalem,” said Hagee, who is also the founding pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, in the CUFI webcast. “God did not make a covenant with Washington, D.C. He made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And that covenant stands. It is still the covenant.”

God warns of what will happen to those who divide His land: "FOR BEHOLD, in those days and at that time when I shall reverse the captivity and restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and will bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and there will I deal with and execute judgment upon them for their treatment of My people and of My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations and because they have divided My land." (Joel 3:1-2; Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary)

Senator to DefSec Nominee: Why Have The Iranians Endorsed You?

Senator Jim Inhofe asked Chuck Hagel why the Iranians had endorsed his nomination for secretary of defense:

Given that Iran, the people — I’m quoting right now from Iran — people of the Middle East, the Muslim region and North Africa, people of these regions hate America from the bottom of their heart," said Inhofe. "It further said Israel is a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Islamic world. They further said Iran’s warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map. The question I’d like to ask you, and you can answer for the record if you’d like, why do you think the Iranian foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination to be the Secretary of Defense?" Hagel responded, "I have a difficult enough time with American politics, Senator. I have no idea, but thank you. And I’ll be glad to respond further for the record."
WeeklyStandard.com

Mr. Kerry, we have a pretty good idea. Maybe it's the fact that you are a wishy-washy liar that has no backbone. It's never a good thing when our enemies endorse of so-called leaders. Right Mr. Obama?

MUSLIMS TO MARCH ON WHITE HOUSE NEXT SEPTEMBER 11TH

Source: EndTimeHeadlines.WordPress.com
Everyone knows that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is the most powerful lobby in Washington. But starting next September 11th, a new group called AMPAC, the American Muslim Political Action Committee, will challenge AIPAC’s stranglehold on American political life.

AMPAC will be forcefully announcing its presence with a “Million Muslim March” on the White House on September 11, 2013. The goal, announced at AMPAC’s press conference in New York:

“We at AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) are planning a historic event for 9/11/13. One million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government. We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our First Amendment rights. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for the Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the establishment of a real 9/11 Commission to reveal the truth to the American people.”

AMPAC founder M.D. Rabbi Alam, a well-known Missouri Democratic Party organizer, points out that American Muslims, like other Americans, were targeted on 9/11. More than 60 Muslims were murdered in the explosive demolitions of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, and a mosque in the South Tower was annihilated. Alam points out that “Muslim and non-Muslim alike were traumatized by 9/11, but we as Muslims continue twelve years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”

American courts have traditionally held that the Bill of Rights guarantees that all religions must be treated equally by the government. Alam cites “the ‘war on terrorism’ in Islamic countries, Congressional hearings on Islam in America, and changes to the NDAA” as infringements of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

AMPAC organizers also argue that the US government and media have lied about 9/11 and its aftermath. According to the AMPAC press release, “These lies told to the American population have made it impossible for us to do true Dawa (Islamic outreach).”

The attack on American Muslims’ free speech actually appears to have begun a few days before 9/11, when the FBI raided key Muslim organizations and shut down their computer servers. The FBI’s raids preemptively prevented Muslims from freely expressing and disseminating their view of 9/11: That it was an inside job, presumably orchestrated by Israel and its American agents.

Polls show that more than 80% of Muslims globally, and two-thirds of American Muslims, believe that 9/11 was an inside job – and these polls undoubtedly understate the real numbers. Yet the corporate media, dominated by Jewish Zionists, has refused to allow Muslims’ perspective on 9/11 to even be heard, much less debated. To this day, most Americans falsely believe that Muslims accept the official story of 9/11.

9/11 was used to shut down the free speech rights of Muslim Americans – and not just about 9/11. Sami al-Arian, America’s leading Muslim political organizer, was harassed and imprisoned after 9/11 for the crime of publicly stating his strong opposition to the apartheid state of Israel. At his trial, jurors were swayed by graphic footage of Israelis maimed by suicide bombers. The prosecution implied that al-Arian was responsible for these acts of violence simply because he was Palestinian, Muslim, and opposed to Israeli apartheid.

Another American Muslim leader, Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah of Detroit, Michigan, was murdered by the FBI in 2009 in reprisal for his statements criticizing US imperialism and injustice. His body was riddled with 19 bullet holes in an FBI raid reminiscent of the FBI murders of Fred Hampton and other Black Panthers in the 1960s.

Imam Abdullah is not the only American Muslim killed by US authorities for his political views. Among the better-known cases is that of scholar Anwar al-Awlaki, who, along with his son and grandson, were murdered by cowardly drone strikes in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was imprisoned, tortured, mischaracterized as a “terrorist,” and finally murdered by US authorities due to his outspoken opposition to the 9/11-triggered war on Islam.

Another influential, politically-engaged American Muslim, the scientist Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, was kidnapped, raped and tortured by US authorities who disapproved of her political views. Like so many other American Muslim leaders, she was tried in a kangaroo court on ridiculous trumped-up charges in order to silence her eloquent voice.

The FBI and other secret police agencies, along with Israeli Mossad spin-offs such as the ADL, have used both federal agents and hired criminals to infiltrate, surveil, and terrorize mosques since 9/11, chilling Muslims’ rights of free speech and free association. A key FBI goal has been to entrap young, naive Muslims into appearing complicit in FBI-concocted “terror plots.”

As of 2006, the US had already kidnapped and tortured more than 80,000 Muslims worldwide, according to the UK Guardian. Today, that number has undoubtedly grown into the hundreds of thousands. Virtually all are innocent of any acts of violence. Many have been targeted because they are the most charismatic and outspoken leaders, or the best organizers, in the Muslim community.

Faced with a reality reminiscent of the Jews’ situation in 1930s Nazi Germany, most American Muslims have been terrorized into silence. But today, more than a decade after 9/11, more and more are finding the courage to speak out.

Last year, AMPAC founder MD Rabbi Alam was targeted by the Zionist-dominated media for raising questions about Israel’s role in 9/11. Alam refused to be intimidated. Instead, he responded by founding AMPAC and launching plans for next year’s 9/11/2013 Million Muslim March on the White House.

Obama Signs NDAA 2013 Without Objecting To Indefinite Detention of Americans

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, giving his stamp of approval to a Pentagon spending bill that will keep Guantanamo Bay open and make indefinite detention for US citizens as likely as ever. The president inked his name to the 2013 NDAA on Wednesday evening to little fanfare, and accompanied his signature with a statement condemning a fair number of provisions contained in a bill that he nevertheless endorsed.

The NDAA, an otherwise mundane annual bill that lays out the use of funds for the Department of Defense, has come under attack during the Obama administration for the introduction of a provision last year that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. Under the 2012 NDAA’s Sec. 1021, Pres. Obama agreed to give the military the power to arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus, although he promised with that year’s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege. In response to the controversial indefinite detention provision from last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would have forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain Americans without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although that provision, dubbed the “Feinstein Amendment,” passed the Senate unanimously, a select panel of lawmakers led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped it from the final version of the NDAA two week later before it could clear Congress. In exchange, Congress added a provision, Sec. 1029, that claims to ensure that “any person inside the United States” is allowed their constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, but supporters of the Feinstein Amendment say that the swapped wording does nothing to erase the indefinite detention provision from the previous year.

“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said after the Feinstein Amendment was removed.

“Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury,” Sen. Paul added.

Although the Pres. Obama rejected the indefinite detention clause when signing the 2012 NDAA, a statement issued late Wednesday from the White House failed to touch on the military’s detainment abilities. On the other hand, Pres. Obama did voice his opposition to a number of provisions included in the latest bill, particularly ones that will essentially render his promise of closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison impossible.

Despite repeated pleas that Gitmo will be closed on his watch, Pres. Obama failed to do as much during his first term in the White House. Thanks to a provision in the 2013 NDAA, the Pentagon will be unable to use funds to transfer detainees out of that facility and to other sights, ensuring they will remain at the top-secret military prison for the time being. “Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the president the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one,” Pres. Obama writes.
Congress, claims the president, designed sections of the new defense bill “in order to foreclose my ability to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.” “I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and strengthening our enemies,” he says.

Elsewhere, the president claims that certain provisions in the act threaten to interview with his “constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch” of the United States.

Before the 2013 NDAA was finalized, it was reported by the White House that Pres. Obama would veto the legislation over the provisions involving Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, the White House originally said the president would veto the 2012 NDAA over the indefinite detention provisions, although he signed it regardless “with reservations” on December 31 of that year.

Since authorizing the 2012 NDAA, the president has been challenged in federal court by a team of plaintiffs who say that the indefinite detention clause is unconstitutional. US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA violated the US Constitution and granted a permanent injunction on the Obama administration from using that provision, but the White House successfully fought to appeal that decision. Commenting on the latest signing, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero says, "President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day.”

“His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended,” adds Romero. "He also has jeopardized his ability to close Guantanamo during his presidency. Scores of men who have already been held for nearly 11 years without being charged with a crime--including more than 80 who have been cleared for transfer--may very well be imprisoned unfairly for yet another year. The president should use whatever discretion he has in the law to order many of the detainees transferred home, and finally step up next year to close Guantanamo and bring a definite end to indefinite detention."
Source: rt.com

THE GAYING OF AMERICA: HOW WILL HOMOSEXUALITY CHANGE THE BOY SCOUTS?

THE GAYING OF AMERICA
HOW WILL HOMOSEXUALITY CHANGE THE BOY SCOUTS?
Exclusive: Linda Harvey envisions replacement group if in-troop 'dating' is allowed
Via wnd.com

So your 11-year old Boy Scout may go on that camp out next summer with a new Scout leader, one allowed to declare himself “gay” to his troop under a permissive rule change being unveiled by the Boy Scouts. What happened to their oath to be morally straight? It’s apparently being discarded in the new progressive Boy Scouts of America (BSA).

This whole new ballgame will come with many surprises. It’s about more than the adults in charge and potential abuse. The kids themselves bring a whole new threat level, mostly to other kids. Does the BSA have a grasp on how serious this could become? Parents and churches are likely to flee in droves.

On network news, James Dale said he doesn’t think the proposed new policy goes far enough. He lost his case to force this deviance on the Boy Scouts at the Supreme Court in 2000. Not satisfied that each local troop may be able to decide about “sexual orientation” for itself, Dale would prefer a mandate – in other words, no tolerance and no choice for families with traditional values. They can choose to leave the BSA, which no doubt many will.

Well, at least the lawyers in the country will get more business.

What might this mean for your son? First, there’s the long-standing concern about pedophilia. The Boy Scouts have a policy against adult abuse, and, of course, the U.S. has laws in all states against child molestation. So the BSA may foolishly think this removes the threat. Apparently they are being persuaded inaccurately that homosexuality is a neutral, inborn orientation. And as we’ve heard the argument many times, there are supposedly more child molesters of both males and females who identify as heterosexual than homosexual.

The Scouts’ undisclosed files may show many cases where boys were molested by adult males who did not identify openly as homosexuals.

But this begs the questions of defining “homosexual,” defining “pedophilia,” defining “heterosexual” and defining “consent.” Labels aren’t always adopted to fit one’s behavior, and definitions are squishy in an America of unstable sexual mores. Because of that, the BSA has really stepped in it.

It’s one thing to violate a known standard. It’s quite another to take advantage of a redefined standard with blurred lines, giving potential abusers much more ready access to boys, no matter what they have to call themselves to do so.

This new policy introduces homosexual attraction into the troop environment where previously sex separation kept that complication out of the character development of these young men. If homosexual identity is allowed, you also open the door to same-sex flirting, innuendo, “dating.” What about the 25- year-old homosexual Scout leader and a 14-year-old Scout? What about the 14-year-old Scout and a 12-year-old? What about two openly homosexual adult leaders who display their attraction for each other in front of all the boys? And so on. And with males, attraction quickly goes to the sexual level. But now, that’s OK.

The developing young man is often vulnerable, some more than others. A now openly homosexual Scout leader may show special interest in your son and become a hero in his eyes. The confusion your son may feel could be enormous. In spite of the first aid knowledge, camping experience, coaching ability or leadership qualities this “gay” leader shows, all the boys will still know him by this identity: “I’m a guy attracted to other guys.” It’s something the Bible (along with our common sense) tells us is immoral and unnatural. But your son is going to be manipulated emotionally by the huge lie of its seeming respectability.

Christian parents better decide: Do you really want your son to believe the word of God on this, or is God’s law dispensable? It’s one level of values-assault for your child to sit in the class of the openly homosexual sixth-grade teacher. But the guy who takes your son on a camp out is a whole other level of intimacy.

And then there are the other kids. No doubt the BSA assault files show evidence of boy-on-boy episodes, but now there will be a flood of new incidents. Some high school and middle school boys will declare themselves openly “gay” to their troop, and if the troop isn’t cool with that, here comes the brutal “gay” activist mob to arm-twist them into compliance.

After all, for over a decade, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, GLSEN, has been pushing kids at school to “out” themselves at younger and younger ages and form clubs to encourage this atrocity. GLSEN is likely to adopt this issue as its next attempt at legitimacy: Tell your Scout troop “who you are!” (i.e., you think sodomy among boys is a good thing.) And don’t let them get away with silence on this element of social justice, this “civil right” in your troop! Report those troops that don’t comply! After all, it’s a “discrimination” issue.

And so the vulgar and unhinged hordes from the Internet will be unleashed on the unprepared local United Methodist church-based troop leader, who will in most cases cave, grossly violating the protection he should be giving to the boys in his charge.

Like the ejection of the military ban on homosexual conduct, all this brings up new challenges, explosive ones. But unlike the military, these are children. God help us.

So will two 13-year-old boys in a troop who “like” each other be allowed to hold hands at meetings? To sleep in adjacent sleeping bags at a camp out? And then, what happens when inevitably some newly empowered homosexually declared youth puts the moves on a boy who finds it disgusting? Fights? Division, as friends take sides? Of course! These are boys.

Unlike school, that boy and his parents have the option to leave. But he may still have to encounter these same abusive kids at school. It’s not a fun thing to be labeled a “hate-filled bigot” or whatever new iteration of tradition-bashing is rolled out. Institutionalized intimidation and bullying, all in the name of sodomy, will be even more damaging than it currently is in the military.

Once again, children are sacrificed on the altar of progressive values.

My prayer is that the BSA will re-think all of this, that there are more of us with sense and real concern, than there are callous liberals, even those in powerful BSA board positions.

If not, it may be time for a new national replacement group of authentic grown-ups guiding boys into lives of genuine character. May God turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children and stop this nonsense.

Here We Go Again: Houston Residents Rattled by Government Gunfire and Helicopters

Houston Residents Rattled by Government Gunfire and Helicopters Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

The federal government is so brazen and arrogant it no longer bothers to inform civilians when it conducts questionable military exercises in residential neighborhoods. KTRK-TV in Houston reported that the U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the Carnegie Vanguard High School in Houston on Monday. Alarmed residents called police and complained about gunshots and helicopters. The Army did not give any details on what the training was for, according to the news station, and a Google News search produced no announcement of the exercise. The latest military drill follows an outrageous training exercise in Florida last week. On Thursday, military helicopters simulated combat over a freeway in downtown Miami. Federal troops rappelled down on buildings and mass transit platforms as stunned residents hit the deck in response to machine gun fire echoing across the city.

Missouri Law Will Force Gun Owners to Register with Schools

Missouri Law Will Force Gun Owners to Register with Schools Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com

A Missouri Democrat wants to force parents to inform school officials of firearms ownership.

“We are not trying to take away anyone’s gun, period,” State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal told KMOV in St. Louis. “We’re not even asking what kind of gun you have. We want the school district to be able to say, ‘you know what, there are some really terrible things going on right now,’ and we need to be able to talk to the parent that we know they have a gun and make sure that there is security, that this gun is stored securely.”

The proposed law would criminalize and impose a $100 fine on parents who fail to inform public and private school officials and $1,000 if they are found guilty of “negligent storage of a firearm” and fail to notify a school that they own a firearm. "It’s the next idea in a long list of proposed ideas for gun control: Making it mandatory for parents to notify their children’s schools about their gun supply," reports KCTV in Kansas City.

Timothy Birdnow, writing for the American Thinker, believes the proposed law “is intended to be as broad as possible, to open the door for more and stricter regulations down the road. Were Chappelle-Nadal putting forth a serious bill she would have specific definitions and a very circumscribed legal requirement. It is open-ended for a reason.”

Birdnow argues the law is part of a larger effort to brainwash children and turn them against the Second Amendment and the idea of gun ownership. “The fact is the Left has wanted all vestiges, indeed, all thoughts of firearm ownership washed away,” he writes. Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, told the Woman’s National Democratic Club in 1995 he wanted to use a national anti-smoking campaign as a model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about the Second Amendment.

Chappell-Nadal’s bill, however, faces an uphill battle. Earlier this month, Missouri Republican state Sen. Brian Munzlinger introduced legislation designed to nullify any federal law restricting semiautomatic firearms in the Show Me State. The law would make it a felony for federal agents to impose restrictions on firearms. Republican Casey Guernsey introduced a similar bill in the Missouri House.

Claim: Obama Hid 'Gay Life' To Become President

Claim: Obama Hid 'Gay Life' To Become President by JEROME R. CORSI WND.com

“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan. DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.” “If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.” Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims. “It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND. WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club, which has some 10,000 members, is not a “gay” facility. But it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym,” where homosexuals meet and engage in sexual activity. In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.” WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers. In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation. WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School. DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama. “People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said. “Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said. ‘Obama’s secrets’ DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.” He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004. “Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said. DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.” “I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said. He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright. “Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said. DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show. Man’s Country Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.

A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House. “It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator. “President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote. He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’” Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars. DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street. Writing in HillBuzz.org Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.” DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.” “Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”

Machine Gun Fire From Military Helicopters Flying Over Downtown Miami Fl. AGAIN!

"THIS IS ONLY A DRILL"....for now
Notice how in this video, the reporter said it was a "joint training exercise between the military and the police to prepare for overseas drills and to make sure their equipment is in check." I don't remember the last time U.S. police were used in overseas operations, do you? It's clear what's going on here. The U.S. will soon have unrest as most of the Middle East has. All it will take is an economic disaster. Prepare yourselves. Interesting how this is happening right after we learned that Obama's new litmus test for the top brass military is if they would fire on U.S. citizens. It's time to Wake UP, America! A watchman

Police Will Have New "T-Ray" Scanners On The Street Within 6 Months

By TAMER EL-GHOBASHY  WSJ.com

A T-Ray Machine

The New York Police Department is testing a new device it says can detect firearms concealed beneath layers of clothing, a high-tech crime-fighting tool seemingly torn from the pages of science fiction. The so-called T-Ray machine detects terahertz radiation, a high-frequency electromagnetic natural energy that is emitted by people and can penetrate many materials, including clothing. Enlarge Image NYPD The T-Ray machine. "If something is obstructing the flow of that radiation, for example a weapon, the device will highlight that object," said Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who described the device Wednesday in a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. News of the device prompted concerns from privacy advocates, though they also saw a potential benefit: It might render unnecessary the legally disputed police policy of stopping and frisking people who haven't been first identified as suspects in crimes.

 In an image displayed by Mr. Kelly, the T-Ray scanner highlighted the body of a plainclothes officer in neon green—with a gun clearly visible as a black shape. The image was captured with the officer standing about 30 feet away. Enlarge Image NYPD An image captured with a T-Ray scanner of a plainclothes officer in neon green?with a gun clearly visible as a black shape. "You get a sense of why we're so hopeful about this tool," Mr. Kelly told the audience, which was mostly members of the New York City Police Foundation, a nonprofit group that raises money for the department. Another photo showed the machine, tripod-mounted and about the size of an old-style projection television and housed in blue plastic. Officials said in its current form, the machine could be mounted on a truck and deployed to sites identified as prone to gun violence. Mr. Kelly said the department had been working with a security-and-surveillance systems manufacturer based in Britain, along with the London Metropolitan Police, to develop the device. The NYPD received its machine last week, he said. Representatives of the company, Digital Barriers, DGB.LN 0.00% could not be reached for comment. The program is being paid for by the U.S. Department of Defense, said Paul Browne, chief spokesman for the NYPD. Mr. Browne described the machine as a "multimillion" dollar device but wouldn't specify its cost. Mr. Browne said the police aimed to get the T-Ray technology in a device small enough to carry on an officer's gun belt. The police provided no timetable for when any version of the device would be deployed. Last month, the California Institute of Technology developed a terahertz microchip, raising the possibility the technology could one day be packed into hand-held devices.

 As part of the Bloomberg administration's stance against the flow of illegal weapons into the city, Mr. Kelly has promoted the seizure of guns as a primary reason New York City's murder rate reached record lows this decade. He said on Wednesday that since 2002, 800 illegal guns had been taken off the street. Toward that end, the NYPD has employed its stop-and-frisk policy, which has been the target of legal challenges and assailed by critics as discriminatory for targeting minorities overwhelmingly. Critics said the prospect of a no-hands T-Ray search raised general privacy concerns and fears over so-called false positives—where an object on a person's body could be misread to be a weapon. "Any technology that allows police to peer into a person's body or possessions raises a lot of questions...," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in an email. "But to the extent that this technology reduces the abuse of stop-and-frisk that harms hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers every year, we're intrigued by the possibilities." Mr. Kelly said the department was working with its lawyers to assess "how we can utilize [the new machine] and how we can deploy it" in light of due-process protections under the U.S. Constitution and to guard against possible litigation that could arise from its use. Separately, Mr. Kelly said that a pilot program in which the NYPD videotaped interrogations of suspects in felony assaults has been expanded to include sex crimes and murders. He said 23 out of a targeted 61 department facilities have been equipped with the cameras and lighting to implement the program. Write to Tamer El-Ghobashy at tamer.el-ghobashy@wsj.com

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”

Shock claim purported to come from “one of America’s foremost military heroes” (Prison Planet) – 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens. Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Don’t Let The Government Take Your Guns! Protect Your Second Amendment Rights! He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing. “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.” Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny. It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.” Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question. The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens. In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations. The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law. On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.” Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets. Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America. http://www.prisonplanet.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens.html

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Calls for Ban of Over 150 Different Firearms – Click to See List

By BERT ATKINSON JR. via ijreview.com
Flanked by 10 weapons, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – California) unveiled legislation that would prevent the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacture over 150 types of rifles, pistols, and shotguns.Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.
“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that — but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said in literature handed to reporters at the Thursday event.Uphill battle may be an understatement; House Republicans seem quite unlikely to pass any legislation of the sort. Here is the list of guns, via the Daily Caller:

Feinstein in 1995 on her concealed carry permit.

SSI Checks Now Known As "Federal Benefit Payment"

Pay attention to your next Social Security income, whether you or someone you know receives a check or an electronic deposit.... note what it is now called. The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.” This isn't a benefit – its earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employer’s contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration (Google it - it’s a fact).

Your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65). I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts. Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and loaned it to offshore banks, and lined their pockets with the rest. They somehow “forgot” that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them, and they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they've told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. Now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. They borrowed the money from us, stole the interest off the principal, devalued the currency, and are now giving us a small pittance of what's left and calling it government charity. Maybe we should start our own fundraising campaign and call it "Bullets for Bankers". One round would be collected for every dollar they stole from you, to be returned to them with interest at high velocity when the economy collapses.