If the following report is true, the Donald has now lost my support…
Breitbart: TRUMP OPEN TO IDEA OF CONTINUING TAXPAYER FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD
During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stated that he was open to the idea of continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars.
“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”
Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”
In other words Trump is open to a status quo many conservatives find unacceptable and immoral; also a typical federal government shell game to skirt around the law. If you give Planned Parenthood money for these so-called “other things,” the abortion provider can shift money from those “other things” to abortion.
Any money given to Planned Parenthood funds abortion. Period.
Trump also made clear that he was in favor of the rape, incest, and life of the mother exceptions for abortion.
For this voter, the defunding and criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood is non-negotiable.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Capitol.
Calling the Commandments “religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths,” the court said the monument must go.
Gov. Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached.
Fallin’s action seems a harbinger of what is to come in America — an era of civil disobediencelike the 1960s, where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law.
Only this time, the rebellion is likely to arise from the right.
Certainly, Americans are no strangers to lawbreaking. What else was our revolution but a rebellion to overthrow the centuries-old rule and law of king and Parliament, and establish our own?
U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been defied, and those who defied them lionized by modernity. Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the sedition act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.
Some Americans want to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, who, defying the Dred Scott decision and fugitive slave acts, led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad.
New England abolitionists backed the anti-slavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 Southern states had the same right to break free of Mr. Lincoln’s Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III’s England.
Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.
In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor.
Rosa Parks is a heroine because she refused to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus, despite the laws segregating public transit that relegated blacks to the “back of the bus.”
In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King, defending civil disobedience, cited Augustine — “an unjust law is no law at all” — and Aquinas who defined an unjust law as “a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”
Said King, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
But who decides what is an “unjust law”?
If, for example, one believes that abortion is the killing of an unborn child and same-sex marriage is an abomination that violates “eternal law and natural law,” do those who believe this not have a moral right if not a “moral responsibility to disobey such laws”?
Rosa Parks is celebrated.
But the pizza lady who said her Christian beliefs would not permit her to cater a same-sex wedding was declared a bigot. And the LGBT crowd, crowing over its Supreme Court triumph, is writing legislation to make it a violation of federal civil rights law for that lady to refuse to cater that wedding.
But are people who celebrate the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village as the Mount Sinai moment of their movement really standing on solid ground to demand that we all respect the Obergefell decision as holy writ?
And if cities, states or Congress enact laws that make it a crime not to rent to homosexuals, or to refuse services at celebrations of their unions, would not dissenting Christians stand on the same moral ground as Dr. King if they disobeyed those laws?
Already, some businesses have refused to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees.Priests and pastors are going to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Churches and chapels will refuse to host them. Christian colleges and universities will deny married-couple facilities to homosexuals.
Laws will be passed to outlaw such practices as discrimination, and those laws, which the Christians believe violate eternal law and natural law, will, as Dr. King instructed, be disobeyed.
And the removal of tax exemptions [from churches] will then be on the table.
If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.
Something like that is happening in the country.
A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural, and political views and values, is taking place.
America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 25 years ago.
And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of Eisenhower’s America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs, values?
The idea that the U.S. actually is ruled by a shadow unelected government is not new, but Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon is the latest person to say so.
Glennon calls the shadow government a “double government.” By that, Glennon isn’t referring to a conspiracy or the Illuminati or The Powers That Be, but what others have called by a less-loaded term, “the administrative state” — the vast federal government bureaucracies staffed by unelected, faceless officials who, in “administering” the U.S., make countless policy decisions every day that affect every facet of our lives.
Jordan Michael Smith, a liberal, writes for the Boston Globe, Oct. 18, 2014:
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer….
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
… Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department.“National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA….
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?
GLENNON: …. I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?
GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision….Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”
IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?
GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences….
There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded…that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change….policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON:The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions.That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here.The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
Where I disagree with Glennon, who is a liberal, are:
Glennon confines the “double government” to only the national security sector. But if we use his own argument, since it’s the unelected government bureaucrats who actually make policies, the “double government” would pervade every sector of government, not just the Pentagon.
Glennon‘s emphasis on the role played by the “double government” minimizes — and therefore excuses — actual decisions made by Obama (amnesty for illegals via executive orders), Congress (Obamacare), and the Supreme Court (gay marriage) which greatly impact every American’s life. Of course, once those policies are made, bureaucracies are created to implement and enforce the policies, and those bureaucracies will never go away. As an example, see the diagram below on the Byzantine labyrinth of government bureaucracies spawned by Obamacare.
It’s been 150 years since the end of the American Civil War that ended the Confederacy. But in the current anti-Confederate frenzy whipped up by politicians and the media, a Walmart store actually refused a customer’s request for a Confederate-flag cake, but assented to his request for a cake topped with the battle flag of ISIS or the Islamic State — the flag of jihadists who behead Christians.
On June 25, 2015, Herman Netzhammer went to the bakery department of a Walmart Supercenter on Northshore Blvd. in Sidell, Louisiana, and requested an Edible image cake printed with the confederate flag image on it.
Walmart denied his request.
The next day, Netzhammer returned to that Walmart and requested an Edible image cake with the ISIS battle flag image. As he recounts:
“They cheerfully did it. and sold me my ISIS cake. WTF Walmart! ISIS is beheading Christians, selling little girls into slavery, and is currently a terrorist org at war with the United States……..but you can’t buy the General Lee toy car at Wallmart? It’s a damn shame.”
Here is Netzhammer’s rejection letter for his Confederate cake request:
And here is his receipt for the ISIS cake that Walmart made:
Jay Root reports for the Texas Tribune that, by a vote of 102-44 in favor, the Texas House on Wednesday, May 27, 2015, gave final sign-off to SB 19, a far-reaching ethics reform package that would shine light on so-called “dark money” while heavily restricting undercover recordings in the state Capitol.
The bill’s language dealing with secret recordings sparked the most heated debate — and demonstrated the degree to which legislators have been rattled by activists who have been following them around and, according to published reports, capturing their movements and conversations.
The bill’s author, Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, didn’t name the American Phoenix Foundation, but it was clear he was referring to the group, which is supported in part by donations from conservative businessmen. Cook said its tactics represented an aggressive new strategy, ominously telling his colleagues that “this is a dark and evil force that’s on us now. This is the people’s House right here and everybody can watch and participate, but chasing people back and forth between offices, sneaking up on people — that’s not what this should be about. It’s never happened before.”
Before its final vote, the House added an amendment from state Rep. Morgan Meyer, R-Dallas, that describes the conditions under which someone can record conversations in the state Capitol. Under the amendment, those who fail to disclose or falsely disclose that they are recording a conversation would be opening themselves to civil lawsuits.
According to Clash Daily, SB 19 is a repeal of portions of the First Amendment, effectively ending citizen journalism in the Capitol. The new law is an attempt for legislators to shield themselves from scrutiny even in public areas of the Capitol building. Civil penalties for video reporting could now include $10,000 fines per occurrence.
Below are the 46 Texas State House Republicans who voted to repeal the First Amendment. Let them know what you think of them.
A false flag, as the term is used in contemporary parlance, is a traumatic public event of mass casualties which bears the marks of falsity, in part or in whole, as the public have been told by government and media. The objective of false flags is always to rally the public in an outburst of sympathy and support for the government and its agenda, e.g., gun control, opposition to an identified enemy, etc.
Robert David Steele, 62, is a former CIA clandestine services case officer and a 20-year Marine Corps Infantry Intelligence officer. A candidate for the Reform Party’s presidential nomination in 2012, Steele is known for his promotion of open source intelligence (OSINT). In the intelligence community, OSINT refers to overt, publicly available sources (as opposed to covert or clandestine sources), and is not related to open-source software or public intelligence. Here’s his website: www.robertdavidsteele.com.
The Keiser Report is a financial news and analysis show hosted by Max Keiser on RT UK and the RT network. On the show’s episode 731onMarch 13, 2015, Steele made a startling assertion that most terrorists are false flag terrorists created by the world’s intelligence services, and that every single terrorist incident in the U.S. has been a false flag. The interview with Steele begins at the 12:23 mark of the video:
Here’s a transcript of the interview beginning at the 15:08 mark:
Keiser: “There are several terror events in Europe by Europeans recently. Now, each one of the bad guys is already known to security services, a good example being here in the UK, they had somebody who was on MI5 radar, he went off to join ISIS and he became Jihadi John. So your thoughts: Is this because we have too much data or too many people on the terror watch list, or there’s not enough real intelligence? What’s going on here?”
Steele: “Well, Max, this may be too much for you guys, but let me give you the bottom line as I see it…. Most terrorists are false flag terrorists…created by our own security services. Now I have no direct access in England, but I will tell you that here in the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum. As far as Jihadi John, the best guess that I can give you is that this is funded by Saudi Arabia, trained by CIA. This destruction of ancient artifactsand so on, that’s a covert action influence operation; that’s not something they would normally do. This is, in one word, largely theater.”
Keiser then asks if a solution to all this “skullduggery” is open source, i.e., taking all the data and make it public, and mentions Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as examples. Steele replies that Assange “has” (i.e., takes) “no sides.” At the 17:47 mark, Steele said:
“[Edward] Snowden is a good thing, but right now all indications are that he’s a CIA op that was authorized by Obama to take Assange (?) down a notch, and the reason the State Department canceled his [Snowden’s] passport while he was en route to Russia was precisely to throw him in front of the Russians as a dangle.”
Steele is the founder and publisher of Public Intelligence Blog. An advocate of open source and the New Alternative Media of citizen bloggers, Steele once said:
“You are the Paul Reveres and Patrick Henrys of our generation. Bottom-up horizontal-connection is key. Sharing at all levels, not top down control. Public intelligence and influence is about to take off. We’re about to bury rule by secrecy. Civil affairs is the focal point….
If you bloggers self-organize and attach yourselves like leeches to specific issues, corporations, organization, challenges, whatever, you will be the intelligence minutemen of this century. The power is in your hands.
There aren’t enough guns to kill us all, and Halliburton can’t build jails fast enough to keep us down…. I think we’re at a turning point. We’re at the very beginning of a historic tidal shift in power, restoring the Constitution.”
That preachy, sanctimonious environmentalist is at it again, oblivious to the irony of him vacationing on a gas-guzzling, CO2 spewing, 450 ft. superyacht, anchored off the Mediterranean coast of France for the annual debauchery known as the Cannes Film Festival.
Here’s Leonardo DiCaprio is his off-camera scruffy Howard Hughes mode:
Heather Waugh reports for the Daily Mail, May 21, 2014, that the superyacht Rising Sun was custom built in 2004 by Lurssen Yachts and owned by David Geffen, the openly homosexual co-founder of Dreamworks Studio (with director Steven Spielberg), whom former Hollywood powerhouse Michael Ovitz calls the leader of Hollywood’s Gay Mafia. (See “The Gay Mafia and America’s aggressive homosexual agenda“)
The superyacht reportedly cost $200 million to build and is the 11th largest yacht in the world. It offers accommodation for up to 16 guests, a cinema, a wine cellar and is capable of carrying up to 45 crew members on board. It also boasts a basketball court which can be transformed into a helipad if necessary.
Superyacht Rising Sun
So how much of a carbon footprint does Rising Sun make?
In 2014, Leo borrowed another super yacht, the 482-ft. Topaz, to watch the World Cup in Brazil and party in style.
According to Monalisa Gangopadhyay of Liberty Voice, the $680 million Topaz is the 5th largest super yacht in the world, and belongs to billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. The super yacht is replete with luxurious features that include a top deck jacuzzi, opulent staterooms, a swimming pool, gym, movie theater, a large conference room, and two helipads.
But all these luxuries come at an environmental cost. A super yacht like the Topaz [and Rising Sun] can burn thousands of liters of marine diesel every houras it cuts an impressive swatch through the ocean waters, leaving behind trails of smoke and tones of carbon dioxide. Additionally, such crafts can use up to 1000 liters a day or more just for its air-conditioning and electrical systems, according to Yacht Carbon Offset, a company that provides carbon offsetting for its seafaring clients.
This is the same Leonardo DiCaprio whom another hypocrite, tax-dodger Secretary of State John Kerry, had invited to talk about conservation at the State Department’s Our Ocean conference on June 17, 2014.