Martial law is the imposition of military power over designated regions on an emergency basis.
Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services). In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).
The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
At least two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States. Senator Mark Udall stated “These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect…Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil.”
There is also a 2012 Executive Order signed by Obama that gives him ultimate power in the event of a national emergency. This includes control over our military. Also, under the Obama reign, he has substantially ramped up the militiary-like capabilities of an internal military force through DHS (the Department of Homeland Security).
Throughout United States history are several examples of the imposition of martial law, aside from that during the Civil War.
There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the civil rights crises, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.
This term has been used for over 400 years to describe militaries not sanctioned or funded by the government. This doesn’t mean they are illegal. In fact, they are very legal in the US. (See Wiki)
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment
The “unorganized” or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation. It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution; Title 10 Section 311 USC; The Dick Act of 1903; The National Defense Act of 1916; and affirmed by numerous court decisions.
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.” — John F. Kennedy
What a militia is NOT:
There is no ambiguity; the “unorganized” citizens militia is not:
the National Guard
the state “select” militia under the governor
part of the “organized” armed forces of the federal government.
It is literally the entire body of the armed citizenry.
Also, it is NOT a white supremacy group, anti-government, nor anarchist. Its the complete opposite of all of these. The liberal, anti-gun fanatics unfairly and untruthful call it these various names to stir up hate and discontent against these groups.
Most states have a state organized militia that you can join. Sometimes called the State Guard and falls under the state’s National Guard. Its usually a one day a month commitment. However, there are some rogue militias of extremists. So do your homework before you join.
This is how the militia is LEGALLY designed to respond and act.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
Although the “unorganized” militia can be called up for lawful (Constitutional) purposes, it is not under the direct control of any state or political jurisdiction. It represents the authority and power of the people over the government and stands as the last defense of the citizens of this country against any domestic tyrants.
Purposes and Authority of the Militia: The purpose of the militia as defined by the Constitution is to:
Enforce the laws of the Union (The Constitution)
Repel invasions foreign or domestic
These provisions affirm the right of the people to defend themselves and their republican form of government from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That means that the people, as the militia, have the right to fight, if necessary, an oppressive government to prevent the usurpation of the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) by anyone, including the federal government.
The authority, duty, and obligation of the citizens, acting as the militia, is clearly expressed in our Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…, ” further “… it is the right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,…” Together these provisions codify the natural rights of all citizens to defense of self, family, and country. (Read for yourself – see: Declaration of Independence)
Founding Fathers and Early US Leaders: We have forgotten.
We have forgotten our roots. We have forgotten 9/11.
We have forgotten WWII, the Jews, and the German atrocities. We have forgotten the reason the US was formed.
The reason we have the Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms as the FIRST and the SECOND amendments to the US Constitutions is because they were very important back then…as they are today. Our Founding Father were oppressed by the King of England, a tyrannical government enslaving them. That’s why our Constitution was worded and organized the way it is…to insure we don’t become like England in those days.
Our Found Fathers and countrymen had arms to defend themselves. And they did. This is why the US exists today…because we had arms and the ability to defend ourselves.
In the words of our Founding Fathers and earlier leaders…to remind us of why we have militias and armed citizens:
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” — George Washington
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.” — Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
“Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.” — From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi
Complete History on the IRS Targeting Scandal – What is it?
In 2012 Congress first became aware that the IRS might be targeting conservative non-profit groups for intrusive and illegal investigations. We now know this did happen and started as early as 2010.
First,what is this IRS Targeting Scandal? You have likely heard or read about this in the news. We will give you a brief run down.
“Targeting” activity by the IRS involved very detailed, intrusive, illegal, and drawn out investigations on individuals wanting to start a non-profit organization. Keep in mind the “IRS Targeting” also included investigations of these individuals by the FBI, the ATF, OHSA, and other agencies. A coordinate attack between Federal agencies.
These intrusive audits and investigations were an attempt to stop the non-profit groups from forming and also uncovering who their supporters are (which we’ll see later is illegal). They were bullying the people: trying to scare them away from opening a non-profit.
A non-profit organization 501(c)(4):
The Internal Revenue Service is responsible for approving 501(c) non-profit organizations. “501(c)” is the IRS tax code section that describes the rules and regulations for someone to own a non-profit organization such as the Red Cross, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), or the Tea Party.
A person, you for example, completes the 501(c) application and sends it into the IRS for approval. Once they approve it, you can begin operating as a non-profit organization.
The 501(c)(4) non-profit is a subcategory, called a Social Welfare Organization, setup for groups like the Tea Party or even volunteer fire departments. This application is what the IRS was specifically targeting (more).
During the IRS’s approval process is where this Targeting Scandal begins. IRS personnel screen the applications to ensure the organizer’s group meets the legal requirements. The scandal is over the IRS doing special screenings, very lengthy screenings, on applications that appeared to be conservative (i.e any Tea Party groups).
IRS’s Targeting of Conservative groups:
Many Republicans/Conservativeindividuals have become disheartened over the direction America is headed economically, financially, and politically. People who once never involved themselves with politics or our countries direction started getting involved. Some started their own non-profit organization.
One such person, Catherine Engelbrecht, started TrueTheVote.org. She sent in a 501(c)(4) form to the IRS. Cathy was a “soccer mom” who was raising kids, had a small business, and dealing with life events like most of us do day-to-day.
Then all hell broke lose on her immediately after sending her 501(c)(4) form to the IRS. The IRS audited many years of her personal and business tax returns and harassed her over her non-profit application. Then the FBI, OHSA, and several other Federal government agencies came knocking too. Harassing and intimidating her.
This harassment was intended to scare her. But she dug in! And now is fighting back. Hear her story in her own words in front of a Congressional hearing:
She is not the only one. Hundreds of people were harassed like this. Now Congress is investigating. The FBI is also investigating.
Additional testimony videos:
Law on political targeting:
Political targeting is illegal. The IRS sharing a person’s information with other Federal agency is also illegal.
The Internal Revenue Service rules also protect groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) as nonprofit organizations dedicated to social welfare from having to reveal the names of their donors or the amount of funds the individual donors have contributed. This protection dates back to the United States Supreme Court’s 1958 ruling in NAACP v. Alabama when the Court held that disclosure of names could render private donors vulnerable to retaliation.
This is VERY important: The IRS requiredorganizers to provide a list of their donors and the contributions that were being made. From the above paragraph, this is ILLEGAL per the US Supreme Court!
List of questions the IRS asked organizers:
Only for conservative group applications the IRS asked many detailed and invasive (and illegal) questions such as:
Per the Supreme Court, this is totally illegal. And there are many IRS letters documenting these questions. So, there is NO DOUBT the IRS was involved in targeting. The question is: Who ordered the IRS to do the targeting?
Great compilation of Congressional testimonies:
Here are some important statistics about how the IRS handled conservative applications:
81 percent of conservative applications were held open by IRS for over 365 days
Some groups waited up to 1,138 days (over 3 years)
The Inspector General found “inappropriate criteria” was in place for over 18 months at the IRS for processing applications
Senate democrats wrote the IRS in 2010 and again in 2012 asking for MORE scrutiny with tax-exempt groups.
Congress became aware of the targeting due to conservative voters contacting their congressional representatives’s offices. In March 2012 and again in May, the IRS officials denied the existence of targeting saying it is not happening.
Documents now show that the senior level IRS personnel knewabout the targeting as early as June 2011. However, the IRS’s Determination Unit specifically asks for a search of “tea party or similar organizations’ applications” in 2010.
Senate democrats wrote the IRS in 2010 and again in 2012 asking for MORE scrutiny with conservative tax-exempt groups.
In August 2010 The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issues a fundraising email warning about “Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups” asking the IRS to look closer at conservative groups. In September 2010 Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations. In October 2010 Obama calls conservative groups “a problem for democracy.”
The White House denies that Obama had any knowledge of this targeting but does admit that “senior” White House personnel did:
Obama in February 2014 stated there’s “not even a smidgen of corruption” just “boneheaded decisions”. This was AFTER several investigations proved there is corruption:
So, its pretty apparent that senior level IRS officials were very aware of targeting conservative non-profits as early as 2010.
Lois Lerner: Right now, Lois Lerner is the primary target of the investigation. She is the former Director of the Tax Exempt Organizations division of the IRS and has refused to answer questions and has even not shown up at Congress for Congressional inquiries required by law.
Most believe that she knows how this started, where it started, and who started the targeting. However, she’s hiding the truth to protect those above her. The trail beyond her likely leads to the White House, definitely democrats in Congress, and most likely the President. There are powerful people in these groups who do not want the truth to be discovered due to the consequences they would suffer.
Documents clearly showed the IRS Targeted conservative groups. Many witnesses who the IRS and other Federal agencies harassed have testified to this. Like so many other White House scandals such as Benghazi and Fast & Furious, this investigation is moving extremely slow because those who know, such as Lerner, are dragging there feet in responded to inquiries by investigators.
Eric Holder is the current US Attorney General appointed by Obama after his first election. There are numerous controversies surrounding his leadership, or lack there of, as the top justice official of our country.
Some of which are very significant in enforcing the laws of our nation. The major ones include the attack on Benhazi, the IRS Targeting scandal, Fast and Furious, several First Amendent (freedom of speech) violations, and Fort Hood shooting (2009). Congress even has charges pending against him for Contempt of Court for his withholding crucial evidence into the Fast and Furious Scandal. This might happen again with the IRS Targeting Scandal.
Many believe that Holder is just a puppet for Obama and the White House as Holder has been able stall, avoid, and cover-up various pending legal issues or in some cases like Treyvon Martin, illegal immigration, and investigations into the press, Holder has been able to make his department push political agendas and make up charges against these people.
Here is a list of the many issues Holder is responsible for and has been held unaccountable:
1 – Discriminatory Hiring Practices
On August 8, 2011 documents were released by the DOJ, subsequent to a court battle, which revealedthe DOJ’s Civil Rights Division had been engaging in politicized hiring in the career civil service ranks. According to PJ Media, the politicized hiring practices of Holder’s DOJ are nearly unprecedented in scope.
In June 2008, Holder admitted to the American Constitution Society (an organization started as a liberal counterweight to the Federalist Society) that the Justice Department was “going to be looking for people who share our values.”
Following the Fort Hood attack on November 5, 2009 not one of the post-attack reports issued by the DOJ mentioned Nidal Hasan’s Islamist ideology. And, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) refused to call the attack an act of terrorism on its report on the attack. Instead it was labeled as “workplace violence.” The Gloria Center elaborates:
“This official “blindness” to Major Hasan’s motivations are unquestionably the consequences wrought by the Obama administration’s outreach policies. Not just content with not pursuing terror investigations, as in the case of Major Hasan and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Obama administration has taken a more proactive approach to shutting down terror investigations–especially when those investigations involved their Muslim outreach partners.”
3 – AP Surveillance
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of the telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press (AP). President and CEO Gary Pruitt has described the DOJ’s actions as a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls of individual reporters’ work andpersonal phone numbers and AP office numbers in D.C., New York and Hartford, CT. Also listed was the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives’ press gallery, according to the AP’s lawyers.
Pruitt has commented that, “there can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”
4 – DOJ Secretly Targets Fox News Reporter, James Rosen
In the James Rosen case, the Justice Department claimed it did not violate the press freedom of theFox News Correspondent as he isn’t press. Instead, the DOJ argued, he was an “aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in a spy ring, for having receiving classified information about North Korea from an intelligence analyst.
Evidence of Rosen’s spying consisted of an e-mail to Rosen’s source stating he wanted to break “news ahead of my competitors” and that they could “expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible.”
The Department of Justice knew Rosen had not committed a crime by simply asking Stephen Jin–Woo Kim for his opinion on the expected North Korean response to the then-pending U.N. condemnations of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile tests. By making the claim, however, to a federal judge, that Rosen was criminally complicit in the release of classified information, by the manner in which he posed questions to Kim, the DOJ deluded the judge into signing a search warrant. The warrant, when executed, allowed the feds to read Rosen’s private emails. By way of the emails, the feds were led to Fox News telephone numbers in New York City and in Washington, which they since have admitted to monitoring.
5 – Marc Rich Pardon
Eric Holder played an important role in what was arguably the most infamous of President Clinton’s 176 pardons. Marc Rich, a billionaire financier and fugitive oil broker, who illegally bought oil from Iran during the American trade embargo, attempted to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Following that, he renounced his American citizenship and made a hasty retreat to Switzerland in order to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.
But, President Clinton signed the pardon, later crediting Holder’s recommendation as one of the factors that had convinced him to issue the pardon.
6 – Weather Underground Pardon
Holder, as Deputy Attorney General, “was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Two of the recipients of Holder’s pardons were former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans.
The Weather Underground, a far-left organization, was founded in the late 1960′s. It’s main objective was to overthrow the American government. Several bombing attacks were initiated by the group and were mostly against government buildings and banks. There were also exhortations for white radicals to join with black radicals in the overthrow of the government. The Weather Underground opposed what they described as “American imperialism.” Former members of the group robbed a Brinks bank truck in 1981, resulting in the deaths of a Brinks security guard and two policemen. One of the killers, Kathy Boudin, is now an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of Social Work.
7 – Holder’s DOJ Threatens Free Speech
The American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) of Tennessee sponsored an event on June 4, called “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society.” The main speakers for the event were DOJ official Bill Killian, who is the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and FBI Special Agent of the Knoxville Division, Kenneth Moore. What is troubling about the event is that Killian addressed how social media posts and documents deemed inflammatory toward Muslims can be considered a violation of civil rights laws. Killian described the event as, “an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play intofreedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion.” He also said that the event would serve, “to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
This is a blatant attempt at subverting First Amendment rights, but the DOJ’s Killian is espousing views that apparently have the support of President Obama who has said: ”The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
Killian went on to quote the law, showing a slide of Title 18, U.S. Federal Code, Section 241, which states: ”If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States…they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both…”
“Conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities.”
Conservatives have “made a mockery of the rule of law.”
Conservatives try to “put the environment at risk for the sake of unproven economic theories, to play to the fears of our citizens, and not to their hopes, and to return the nation to a time that in fact never existed.”
Conservatives are “breathtaking” in their “arrogance,” which manifests itself in such things as “attacks on abortion rights,” “energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective,” and “tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation.”
The hallmarks of the “conservative agenda” include “social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer.”
“The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people. In the short term this will not be an easy task. With the mainstream media somewhat cowered by conservative critics, and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner, and you know what I mean there, the means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible.”
9 – Opposition to Second Amendent Rights
In 2008, Eric Holder claimed that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, but only applied to government militias. Political commentator and scholar, John Lott, was unable to “find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed.” Lott remarked that, “on every gun control regulation [Holder] has discussed, he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.”
On top of that, in a 1995 address to the Woman’s National Democratic Club, Holder apprised the crowd of the launch of a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” “What we need to do,” Holder explained, “is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”
10 – Treatment of Terrorists as Criminal Defendants Instead of Enemy Combatants
In 2004, Holder filed an amicus brief on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla, who had been commissioned by Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to carry out a post-9/11, second wave of terrorist attacks in the US. In the brief, Holder held that President Bush lacked the constitutional authority to determine the parameters of the battlefield in the war on terror. Padilla was arrested in the U.S., upon his return from Pakistan where he met with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to make plans for the attack on U.S. interests. In Holder’s opinion, Islamic terrorists had a right to betreated as criminal defendants and not enemy combatants. The only exception, according to Holder, is if the capture of the terrorist occurs on a traditional battlefield.
Upon analysis, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy reported that Holder’s Padilla brief was “a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief).”
“In May 2009, Holder announced that Ahmed Ghailani—who had been indicted by a federal grand jury for the 1998 bombings (which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans) of two U.S. embassies in Africa—would be transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to New York City for trial. This would make Ghailani the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court. Said Holder:
‘By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya….This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer.’
On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that his Justice Department would likewise try five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, in a civilian court—the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and 9/11 mastermindKhalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM).”
11 – Arizona Immigration Law
On April 23, 2010, Arizona’s GOP governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill authorizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals they stop for a legitimate reason–if the behavior of those individuals, or the circumstances of the stop, cause the officers to suspect they might be in the U.S. illegally. But, following the bill being signed into law, Holder vehemently spoke out against the bill and suggested the federal government might challenge it. He also warned that the law could lead to racial profiling and might cause Latinos to stop cooperating with police.
After accusing Arizona of trying to “second guess” the federal government and the Justice Department he filed a lawsuit, challenging the state’s immigration policy. This was done on the grounds that the “invalid” law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and “must be struck down.” The lawsuit urged the U.S. District Court in Arizona to “preliminarily and permanently” prohibit the state from enforcing the law, but later on down the road, the law wasoverturned by the Supreme Court.
12 – New Black Panther Intimidation
On Election Day, 2008, a couple of members of the New Black Panther Partyintimidated white voters with racial slurs and threats. This took place at a Philadelphia polling place and the two culprits were Jerry Jackson and King Samir Shabazz. Former civil rights attorney and campaign aide to the late Robert F. Kennedy, Bartle Bull, observed the Panthers’ antics and described them as “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation, coercion and threats to voters or those aiding voters, so the Bush Justice Department fileda civil-rights lawsuit against Jackson and Shabazz and against the New Black Panther Party and its national chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz.
However, in 2009 the Obama administration inherited that lawsuit and when the defendants failed to answer the lawsuit, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a default judgment against them. The Holder Justice Department responded by abruptly dropping the charges against the Panthers and two of the defendants. The third defendant was simply barred from displaying a weapon near a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years.
13 – Opposition to Voter ID Laws
Eric Holder has consistently opposed efforts to pass voter ID laws, which are designed to minimize voter fraud. He believes these laws have the effect of disenfranchising nonwhite minorities. In a May 2012 meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus and black church leaders, Holder said that during the preceding two years, the Justice Department had challenged “two dozen state laws and executive orders from more than a dozen states that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.″
“A U.S. government gun-trafficking investigation gone horribly wrong has resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol officer, some 2,000 firearms in the hands of criminals, and the dismissal of a 24-year veteran law enforcement official. This is the story of Fast and Furious, and yesterday the latest chapter unfolded when two top officials associated with the operation were removed from their positions, while a third individual resigned.
The story begins in the fall of 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona, began selling weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Their efforts failed, the number of arms unaccounted for numbers around 1,500 as of late July, and about two-thirds of those guns ended up in Mexico, according to congressional testimony.
Tragically, the botched operation has had serious consequences. On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed during an effort to catch several bandits targeting illegal immigrants in Arizona near the border. When law enforcement rushed to the scene, they discovered two of the killers’ assault rifles that were among those sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, 57 Fast and Furious weapons have been connected to at least an additional11 violent crimes in the U.S.”
16 – Holder Purges References to “Radical Islam”
In February 2012, Islamist groups in the United States were found to have repeatedly met with high-ranking Obama administration officials in order to voice their concerns regarding the use of the term “radical Islam” in FBI training materials. Because these groups felt the term was both “offensive” and “racist,” Holder, along with FBI director Robert Mueller, issued an order requiring all such language to be removed from the FBI training content. The Gloria Center reports that, “among the more than 1,000 items destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were PowerPoints and articles that defined jihad as ‘holy war,’ and presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization which seeks to establish Islam’s dominion over all the world — a goal the Brotherhood has candidly and publicly declared for decades.”
16 – Islamist Outreach
Much of the recent Muslim outreach policy was developed at a June 2011 workshop at Georgetown University. The workshop was sponsored by the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding. In attendance were leaders from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and other Islamic organizations. These groups, all of which are considered to be radical, met with senior Obama administration officials. Additionally, a workshop was held which included officials from the Department of Justice. The workshop was entitled “Workshop on Police-Community Engagement and Counter-Terrorism.” The Obama administration has a history of radical Muslim outreach. These outreach efforts have been employed by the highest levels of Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, resulting in decisions which significantly impact the potential prosecutions of terrorists and Islamist leaders.
Complete History on the Benghazi US Embassy Attack
by ANC Staff
It has been 19 months since the attacks on September 11, 2012 so we wanted to provide you with a complete history on the Benghazi US Embassy attacks in an abbreviated form. There are tens of thousands of articles and blogs on this event so we will summarize the events of this on-going story.
The Congressional investigation is still on-going as to what really happened to determine if there is a cover-up by the White House. So far it has been 19 months after the attack and we still do not have all the answers especially to the Talking Points Memo. On an almost weekly basis, Congress hears testimonies from people involved but they still have not concluded the exact events even though there are many people with heavy involvement with the attacks and reporting of the event.
The purpose of the Congressional hearings are: 1) do determine exactly what happened during the attack, 2) determine if the US could have responded quicker and possibly saved more lives, and 3) is there a White House Scandal as to the reporting of events.
On September 11, 2012 the US Embassy, including the CIA Annex, was attacked by heavily armed and large group of men around 10pm Benghazi time. It is estimated that over 150 attackers hit the compound. The weapons used included the standard AK-47 rifle, machine guns, RPGs, grenades, and mortars. The RPGs, grenades, and mortars are not “spontaneous protest” weapons (see more on terrorist weapons). They are used for planned, coordinated attacks.
The attack begin at 10pm Benghazi time (4pm EST). (See the complete timeline of events here.) The compound consisted of several main buildings in a nice, picturesque setting surrounded by a large concrete wall for protection and security. The attack began by blowing out the main gate and a portion of the concrete wall. “Spontaneous protesters” would not have the this type of explosives.
There was an intense fight between the compound personnel and the attackers. The fight lasted for over 6 hours. We lost four Americans in the fight including the terrorist intended target, Christopher Stevens, the US Ambassador. It was estimated by the local officials that the attackers lost over 100 people.
Immediately after the attacks, the White House and State Department when on record saying this was a “spontaneous protest” started by a riot by protesters in response to an anti-Muslim video circulating on the internet.
We know now that both the White House and the State Department knew this was a terrorist immediately from the onset. First, as the 6 to 7 attack was still occurring a Muslin group, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility on the attack and the State Department notified the FBI, the White House, and the Pentagon. Next, the locals knew who this group were and also notified the local forces include those at the Embassy compound engaged in the fight. (Local Libyans were fighting along side our American forces.)
Our military quickly assessed this was a coordinated and organized attack to the sheer numbers of attackers, the types of weapons, and how the surgically attack the compound. A “spontaneous” attack would not have been organized and would not have had all the heavy weapons that were used (RPGs, heavy machine guns, explosives, mortars, and grenades).
Finally, at 8:30pm Stevens and a Turkish diplomat step outside as the diplomat is leaving to say goodbye. All is quite. No protesters and almost no activity. Later a State Department official would say “There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.” An hour later, the explosions begin. Cameras at the compound show the large mass of attackers approaching rapidly toward the compound.
On September 16, Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance, and further stated that “the idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”
Many hours later that same day, Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson, spoke on several TV shows stating this was a spontaneous riot over a film. President Magariaft was furious as it made him look like a fool in front of the whole world.
The controversy is over the cover-up from the White House and State Department who we now know, from various testimonies and declassified documents, that the White House, including Obama, as well as the State Department were aware this was not a “spontaneous protest” but a terrorist attack. The reason for the cover-up, most believe, is to protect the President’s re-election bid which is only two months away. Also to protect Hillary Clinton in the event she runs for President in 2016.
In 2011 a multi-national coalition of NATO military forces sought to intervene in the civil unrest that Libya. Rebel forces had begun fighting the long-time dictator, Gaddafi. But Gaddafi had airplanes, tanks and heavy artillery. Gaddafi was defeated and a new government put in place. However the country was not stable as various militia had formed to fight Gaddafi and now were wanting as much power under the “new” Libya.
Ambassador Chris Stevens was aware of the instability including intelligence reports that showed the US Embassy was a likely target for anti-US militias. Stevens repeatedly asked the State Department more security but was denied on every request. Various US intelligence agency were keenly aware of the hostile situation in Benghazi and had briefed the White House and State Department.
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an independent republic of Ukraine. The Crimea peninsula is located in the Black Sea just to the south of Ukraine. To the East it is separated from Russia by only 3 miles of seas.
Under Ukraine laws, Crimea is considered an autonomous republic within Ukraine. They have their own parliament, constitution, and other government functions.
As Soviet territories, in 1992 Crimea and Ukraine became an independent country after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In February 2014 during the uprising in Ukraine, Russia sent troops into Crimea and seized control of the government. After the seizure, a special referendum was held where voters overwhelming agreed to secede to Russia. However, Ukraine and the international community do not recognize this as a legitimate succession for Russia.
For more information on Crimea including its history, tourism and demographics, click here.
Today there is an existing Keystone Pipeline that runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a new, proposed pipeline that would be a more direct route to Oklahoma and also extend the pipeline to refineries in Port Author, TX. (more on Wiki). It will carry
836,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the US. Today most of that oil is carried on 18-wheeler trucks, trains, barges or a combination of all. The destination for most of this oil is the East Coast but there is so much oil a huge bottleneck has been created in trying to get it there. The pipeline will alleviate most of this
bottleneck. However, the best solution is for a pipeline to run to the East Coast but this is not planned for currently.
Brief History of the Pipeline:
The initial application to build the pipelines was submitted in September 2008 in Canada’s Energy Board and final approval received March 2010. Since part of the pipeline runs through South Dakota, it approved the application in Feb 2010.
At the point the US Federal government gets involved (July 2010) and from that point forward, there have been continual delays that require new applications to be submitted by Keystone and new impact studies to be re-done. Four years later (March 2014) the US Government is still saying they need time to evaluate the environmental impact. Mainly the stalling is coming through the EPA, the Department of Interior (who approves oil and gas pipelines), and the Department of State.
Now, Why Is this Important to you?
First, this project will bring many, many jobs to US citizens in the way of engineering, construction, housing, etc. Its anticipated that up to 42,000 jobs will be created during this phase. Once the pipeline is finished and fully operational, there will likely be significantly less jobs which is topic of debate. Reports as low as 35 permanent jobs and up to 10,000. We expect around 2,500 to 3,500. Regardless, our economy and our citizens need these good paying jobs to help them and to stimulate our economy.
Next, is the reduction in carbon emissions. Remember all the trucks, trains, and boats being used to transport all this oil? They all emit lots of carbon exhaust while hauling the oil. The pipeline will have Zero emissions. So, its much cleaner. An added benefit is Safety: with less trucks on the road, it makes driving much safer; but also there is less chance a truck, train, or boat has a wreck and spills their load. This happens almost on a daily basis; most of which we never hear about.
Next, all of these trucks, trains, and boats take a long time to transport the oil. With the pipeline, it will transport much quickly reducing the time it takes to get to the refiners and the end users (us for our cars and electricity).
Finally, fuel prices. This is a topic of much debate. Democrats (Liberals) believe gas prices will go even higher once the pipeline is online while Republicans (conservatives) believe there will be a price drop in gasoline due to the large supply being brought into the country. Looking at this from an Economics 101 class, the supply of oil will increase while the demand stays the same, so Economics 101 says prices will go down, which is what we believe will happen.
Timeline of Events for Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet
A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 239 people lost contact with air traffic control and was still missing many hours after it had been scheduled to land in Beijing. Here is a timeline of the incident:
12:41 a.m. —The Boeing 777-200 — carrying 227 passengers from 14 countries along with 12 crew members — takes off from Kuala Lumpur.
2:40 a.m. —Air traffic control in Subang, a suburb of Kuala Lumpur, loses contact with the plane about two hours after takeoff. According to the Vietnamese military officials, the plane was just about to enter Vietnam’s airspace when its communications systems went silent.
6:30 a.m. Saturday— The flight is scheduled to land in Beijing.
7:24 a.m.— Malaysia Airlines announces it had lost contact five hours earlier with the flight.
11:14 a.m.— Malaysia Airlines holds a news conference confirming the loss of contact with its aircraft. Four Americans, including an infant, were aboard, a spokesman said. “Our focus now is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support,” he added. Most of the passengers — 153, including one of the infants — were Chinese, the airline said Saturday. The other infant was an American, one of four on the plane. Thirty-eight people were from Malaysia, and 12 were from Indonesia.
All times are local Kuala Lumpur (EST plus 13 hours)