Van Jones said that he and environmentalists stayed quiet during the BP oil disaster in 2010 because Barack Obama was president — and admitted he would have “been out there with a sign protesting” had George W. Bush or John McCain been occupying the White House.

Jones, Obama’s former green energy adviser, made the comments during a recent interview on C-SPAN’s Book TV:

“I’m critical of myself, first, and the environmentalists. When the oil spill that happened in the spring of 2010, there was another moment to say, ‘Hold on a second, let’s re-look at energy policy in America. Should we be subsidizing companies that are risking our health immediately and in the long-term?‘ We didn’t do it. You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil spill. I guarantee you, if John McCain had been president, with that oil spill, or George Bush had been president with that oil spill, I’d have been out there with a sign protesting. I didn’t, because of who the president was. Well, that’s a bad, uh, uh…that’s not good for the earth, it’s not good for the cause, it’s probably not good for the president. It’s certainly not the way we should conduct ourselves. And so, I’m very tough on progressive movements and leaders, including myself, who did not stand on principle, based on who we looked across and saw as president.” Source

By Russell Berman and Alicia M. Cohn

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) clashed during a White House meeting on Wednesday, with the Speaker telling the president that he was “not going to allow a debt-ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt,” Boehner’s office said.

The president convened the meeting of the bipartisan congressional leadership to discuss his “to-do list” for Congress, but an aide to the Speaker said the bulk of the meeting was spent on other issues, including a pile-up of expiring tax provisions and the next increase in the federal debt limit.

According to a readout of the meeting from the Speaker’s office, Boehner asked Obama if he was proposing that Congress increase the debt limit without corresponding spending cuts. The president replied, “Yes,” the Boehner aide said. At that point, Boehner told Obama, “As long as I’m around here, I’m not going to allow a debt-ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt.”
Shortly after the meeting, White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the president warned the leadership that he would not allow a repeat of last August’s debt-ceiling “debacle,” which led to a downgrade in the U.S. credit rating.

“You have to ask the Speaker of the House whether or not he intends or he believes that it is the right thing to do for the American people or the American economy to play chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” Carney said at his daily press briefing.

The meeting came one day after Boehner delivered a speech to a fiscal summit in Washington in which he said he would once again demand spending cuts and reforms that exceed any increase in the nation’s borrowing limit that Congress approves. Boehner also called out Obama in that address for showing a lack of “courage” in last summer’s debt talks.

Before Wednesday’s meeting, Boehner told reporters he planned to ask in the meeting, “Where’s the president’s plan to tackle our looming debt crisis?”

“He knows exactly where it is,” Carney shot back in the briefing, pointing to Obama’s budget proposal.

“The right thing to do to get something done is to agree that you’re not going to get everything you wanted,” Carney said, warning Republicans that their “absolute intransigence” over striking a deal on the debt ceiling would not be popular with their constituents.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) were also scheduled to attend the White House meeting.

Carney described the tone of the meeting, where the president greeted the congressional leaders with hoagies from a D.C. sandwich shop, as congenial.
“My sense was the tone was congenial, the discussion was productive, the sandwiches were delicious,” Carney said.

He downplayed that the back-and-forth centered on Boehner’s agenda, saying numerous items were raised in what was a “healthy and positive discussion” between the president and congressional leaders.

The readout from Boehner’s office suggested a more confrontational meeting. It said the Speaker also pressed the president to approve the complete Keystone oil sands pipeline and to encourage Attorney General Eric Holder to provide information that congressional investigators have sought on the “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation.

It concluded with the note that the Speaker “was very pleased with the sandwiches served.”

President Obama’s budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House’s rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama’s budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president’s plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president’s plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn’t actually match Mr. Obama’s budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president’s numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

“A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office,” Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.

The White House has held its proposal out as a “balanced approach” to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time.

By contrast the chief Republican alternative from the House GOP would notch just $3.1 trillion in deficits, and three Senate Republican alternatives would all come in below $2 trillion.

The Senate is holding votes Wednesday on Mr. Obama’s budget, the House GOP’s budget and the three Senate Republican alternatives. None was expected to gain the 50 votes needed to pass the chamber.

What does he know?
How can he think he’ll be re-elected running against the continually expressed views and will of the American people? Not just running against the white, non-Muslim people as he has been doing, but now running against blacks, Hispanics, and even Muslims!
What about his support for wealth redistribution, which Americans reject; his support for union thugs overriding the most basic of American rights and values, the secret ballot,; his support for keeping American companies from putting Americans to work unless they allow his union thug handlers to extort forced payments to the corrupt unions ; his support for stripping the Catholic Church, and, in effect, any religious organization from conforming to the rules of their religion(s); his plea for patience from the Russians, until after he is re-elected, for him to gut our missile defense; his blatant attacks on other supposedly co-equal branches of our government, in his quest to destroy a Constitution he despises,; and his forcing of Obamacare on an unwilling American populace?

I can, and will, go on.
These are just some of the issues on which Obama diametrically opposes the American voter. What is his plan? What will help him overcome the obvious obstacles between him and freedom loving patriotic Americans?
His campaign promise to cause energy rates to “necessarily skyrocket” has caused fuel prices to at least double, and his assault on the coal industry, which supplies most of our electricity, is completely out of line for someone looking out for American interests. His administration’s blatant lies and alterations to official documents led to an unwarranted moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf . We can give Brazil billions to deep-water drill, but we Americans can’t drill for our own oil.
As if that wasn’t enough to make anyone wonder how this man can expect to be re-elected, we still haven’t touched the subject of his purposeful destruction of the American capitalist system. His redistribution of wealth to the green energy scammers, mostly his friends and campaign fundraisers like Solyndra, has led to failures and bankruptcies from most of the companies to which he gave money.
It seems to me that there are a preponderance of issues President Obama supports that freedom loving Americans want no part of.
What is his plan?
Is he hoping for enough civil unrest from his personal army (SEIU, the UAW, and his foot soldiers in the Occupy movement) for him to rely on martial law and suspended elections?
What are Americans to think when the Army “accidentally” releases information regarding the treatment of freedom loving Americans pursuing happiness under the auspices and moral and ethical boundaries of the Constitution, who wind up in the Presidents re-education camps for “political activists,” and how their voices will be silenced by gags as they (WE, because I’m damn sure I’ll be there, too) are forced to do hard labor for our beliefs?

If we are trying to become independent of foreign oil, then why is the Obama administration allowing the Chinese government to buy up U.S. oil and gas deposits worth billions of dollars? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The United States desperately needs to maintain control over its own domestic energy resources so that we can end our addiction to foreign oil. As I have written about previously, the United States actually has plenty of oil. If we would simply use the resources that we already have, we would never have to import a single drop of foreign oil. But instead, we continue to be the largest importer of oil on the planet and we are allowing China to rapidly buy up oil and gas deposits inside the United States. This is fundamentally wrong and it is a serious threat to our national security. But apparently everything is for sale in the United States today, and that includes our precious energy resources.

The Chinese government is using two giant corporations to buy up these energy resources.

The first is the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). According to Wikipedia, this corporation is 100 percent owned by the Chinese government….

CNOOC Group is a state-owned oil company, fully owned by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) performs the rights and obligations of shareholder on behalf of the government.

The second is Sinopec Corporation. Sinopec Group is the largest shareholder (about 75% of the shares) in Sinopec Corporation. And as the Sinopec website tells us, Sinopec Group is owned by the Chinese government….

Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopec Corp., is a super-large petroleum and petrochemical group incorporated by the State in 1998 based on the former China Petrochemical Corporation. Funded by the State, it is a State authorized investment arm and State-owned controlling company.

So wherever you see CNOOC or Sinopec you can replace those names with the Chinese government. The Chinese government essentially runs both of those companies.

And both companies have been very busy buying up U.S. oil and gas deposits.

For example, CNOOC recently completed a 570 million dollar deal that gives it a one-third interest in huge oil and gas deposits in Colorado and Wyoming. The following is from Wyoming Energy News….

Chinese energy company Cnooc Ltd. has agreed to pay $570 million for a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy Corp.’s 800,000 leased acres in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming. The acreage is in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) and Powder River basins. Cnooc is China’s biggest offshore oil and natural gas producer.

In fact, according to a recent Business Insider article, this deal gives the Chinese government the right to a third of any new oil discovered by Chesapeake Energy in the entire region….

The Niobrara Shale formation stretches over Colorado and Wyoming, as well as Kansas and Nebraska. Chesapeake Energy’s position is in Wyoming and Colorado. If Chesapeake find any more oil in this region, CNOOC has the rights to 33.3% of what is found.

But this is not the only area of the country where China now owns energy rights. The following is an excerpt from a recent state-by-state breakdown that appeared in the Wall Street Journal….

Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.

Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.

Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third stake in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal.

Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.

Texas: Cnooc acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.

The Texas deal was particularly noteworthy. The following is how a San Antonio news source described that deal….

State-owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC is buying a multibillion-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields, potentially testing the political waters for further expansion into U.S. energy reserves.

With the announcement Monday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion for a one-third stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, CNOOC lays claim to a share of properties that eventually could produce up to half a million barrels a day of oil equivalent.

So why is the Obama administration allowing this to happen?

Are they so desperate to have China continue lending money to the United States that they would allow the Chinese government to pillage our precious energy resources?

Somebody needs to be asking our politicians that question.

But oil and gas are not the only U.S. assets that the Chinese have been buying up.

In a previous article, I detailed how the Chinese have been purchasing huge chunks of real estate all over the country as well.

For example, a recent Forbes article detailed some of the real estate deals that China has been doing in New York….

According to a recent report in the New York Times, investors from China are “snapping up luxury apartments” and are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on commercial and residential projects like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn. Chinese companies also have signed major leases at the Empire State Building and at 1 World Trade Center, the report said.

In addition, it was recently announced that the Federal Reserve will now allow Chinese banks to buy up American banks.

Where will all of this end?

Should all of us start learning to speak Chinese?

Meanwhile, our trade deficit with China continues to get even larger. Our trade deficit with China last year was $295.5 billion, which was the largest trade deficit that one country has had with another country in the history of the world. This year, we are already on a pace to break that record.

So thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars will continue to leave the United States and go to China.

And China will continue to use some of the money they are getting from us to buy up pieces of America.

Does anyone else out there see something very, very wrong with all of this?

by Jonathan Seidel – the Blaze

James O’Keefe has released yet another video in his series on the voter ID system, or lack thereof, in America.

As in many of the other videos, O‘Keefe’s people give the names of people other then themselves and are offered ballots to vote. They are also told they do not need any form of ID. But his latest episode — filmed in North Carolina — adds the twist that some may not even be citizens.

The group’s video description alleges:

In North Carolina we find people who are listed as non-citizens according to Jury refusal forms and who are also registered to vote. We get their comment and are offered their ballots. We are offered a ballot in the name of a dead man, and interview an election Judge who says he only wants to uphold parts of the state constitution.
You can watch it below:

Over the past few months, the Obama administration has come under intense criticism for its treatment of religious freedom issues. In addition to the president’s highly-publicized battle with the Catholic Church, The Blaze has covered angst among faith leaders over the administration’s faith advisory council, which critics claim has “gone dark.” Now, after progressive Christian leaders were beginning to express frustration with an empty campaign slot for a faith outreach manager, the Obama camp has finally selected someone for the role.

Among the more notable attributes possessed by the new religious outreach director, Michael Wear, is his youth. The 23-year-old, who interned during the president’s 2008 campaign, is an evangelical whose age could bring innovation and vibrancy to the campaign’s religious outreach projects.

Michael Wear, who graduated from George Washington University with a B.A. in political science last year, will turn 24 this Wednesday. He will also move to Chicago in the coming days to fulfill his duties. Wear’s official title in the campaign will apparently be “Faith Vote Director.” CNN has more:

Wear, who was raised a Catholic but now attends a nondenominational, evangelical-style church in Washington, has spearheaded White House outreach to evangelicals and has focused on policy issues like adoption throughout Obama’s first term Joshua DuBois, the executive director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, directed religious outreach for the Obama campaign in 2008. Before that, it was unusual for Democratic presidential campaigns to hire faith outreach staffers.
“It has been an honor working with Michael Wear to create positive faith-based and nonprofit partnerships to serve people in need,” DuBois said on Monday of his departing assistant.

The Post goes on to say that Wear is married and that he grew up in Buffalo, New York. The young evangelical worships at the National Community Church in Washington, D.C., the outlet reports.

Wear was — before taking his new role — an assistant in the White House office responsible for working with faith-based social service groups (Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships). His appointment this week will appease some religious progressives who have charged that faith concerns have not been a big enough priority for Obama’s re-election team.

The time that it took to fill the role as well as Wear’s youth are certainly factors worth considering. As for the former issue, some are questioning whether faith outreach truly is a priority for the Obama camp. Wear’s age, while it may serve as beneficial in terms of fresh perspective and better relations with younger people of faith, also comes with a potential price — a lack of contacts in the religious sphere.

“Michael has spent a number of years in the faith-based office so he knows the territory” political author Amy Sullivan told Religion News Service. “But the Republicans would put somebody senior with years and years of experience and a big Rolodex in that position. And I guess that tells you something about how Democrats still view faith outreach and its importance.”

Wear’s appointment comes at a difficult time for the president, as there’s no telling how his announcement last week proclaiming his support for same-sex marriage will impact his electoral prospects. As we’ve noted, Obama is already getting push-back from many African American faith leaders who previously supported him. The White House is denying that the timing of the announcement and Wear’s hiring are related.

As he has been doing for the past four years,Obama is criss-crossing the United States on the taxpayer dime in hopes of finding support for his failed policies and re-election. Unfortunately for him,the lack lustre of his last campaign has worn off. Now he speaks at half full venues and only to college age skulls full of mush who have no grasp of American history thanks to a liberal education.
He had to change his travel plans recently when he came to Albany, NY. He was scheduled to give a speech at the new Global Foundries chip plant in upstate New York,whom,by the way,had received millions of dollars in tax incentives to locate there. It was decided that Global Foundries was not a good venue because it is a foreign owned company and therefore,his speech was relocated to the State University at Albany nanotech campus. Upon his arrival in Albany,roads were shut down for miles around. Traffic was a nightmare,just so the NY Liberal elites could rub shoulders with him for an hour.
The funny thing about this was that there was barely a blip on the mainstream media radar. We often hear about his cronies fainting in the room when the “anointed one” is near,but I think it is due to the foul stench that he brings with him.
For someone who is constantly condemning the rich,he sure does not have a problem getting cozy with them when it’s time to raise money. He must be feeling the pinch when bumbling Joe Biden forces his “evolution” (flip-flopping) on the gay marrige issue. After Obama finally came out of the closet on this issue,he received one million dollars in ninety minutes for his campaign coffers.

My question is, can this president be bought? And how much does it take? It has become abundantly clear that Obama is not driven by a love for America and American exeptionalism,but by power and greed. This shift in the American elctorate is being realized by the regime and I think they are starting to sweat. Just as I called for in a previous article,the conservative talk show hosts are starting to all get on the same page and do what the media should have done back in 2007. The vetting of Barack Hussein Obama. Stay safe and always be aware of your surroundings.

In a blatant act of hypocrisy the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel but leaving unionized defense workers at current levels.

Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon, that Congressional Republicans are saying this is a blatant attempt to force military servicemen into Obamacare.

Gertz also said,

“The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.”

This is a plan that is sure to enrage Congressional Republicans and cause a big fight on Capital Hill.

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 – 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums “ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.”

Gertz added,

“According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048,”

Pharmaceutical benefits for military personnel would also increase under the proposed plan.

Although military families have long had to deal with low salaries and rough working conditions, solid health care benefits has always been a draw to career soldiers. The military is worried this is going to hurt recruitment and retention.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

“Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,”

Next month there are going to be hearings about the new health care rules and opposition to the policies is already building. The VFW, one of the largest military organizations in the country, has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel – who are not unionized – and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

According to a Congressional Aide,

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity. But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget. The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,”

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said,

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population. We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,”

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan “a breach of faith.”

Many of us believe that the Obama administration is in the White House illegally and is funded by and working for those that would destroy the American Constitution in order to create one world government. This story is just one more in a series of true events that shows that those who are in true power are willing to do anything to protect their agenda.

Key Witness In Passport Fraud Case Fatally Shot A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.

Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division. Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.

Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene. City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators. ”We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said. Police say a “shot spotter” device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris. A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing. The Washington Times reported April 5 that contractors for the State Department had improperly accessed passport information for presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, which resulted in a series of firings that reached into the agency’s top ranks.

In a vote hardly mentioned by the mainstream media, 142 House Democrats favored an amendment that in essence demands Obama Attorney General Eric Holder stop lying to Congress – as well as preventing the Obama Department of Justice from suing over voter I.D. laws.
The House Wednesday evening voted overwhelmingly to prevent the Justice Department from using taxpayer funds to lie to Congress.
The vote came in a Wednesday evening series of amendments to a bill, H.R. 5326, funding the Justice Department for 2013. Members approved the language in a 381-41 vote; all 41 “no” votes came from Democrats, although 142 Democrats voted with Republicans in support of the amendment.

Video shows Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) claiming that coal power and corn syrup are more deadly than terrorism.

The remarks will likely prove a headache for an administration that is trying to distance itself from its anti-coal image.

As Scribe reported on Friday, the Obama campaign adjusted its website to promote its work with “clean coal” in the wake of an embarrassing showing in the Democratic primary in coal-intensive West Virginia. Obama lost 41% of the vote there to federal prison inmate – a fact the state’s Democratic Party chairman attributed directly to the administration’s stance on coal power.

Moms in Minnesota are preparing to defy state dictates over when and how they can access food supplies for their families, with a rally scheduled Monday to coincide with the beginning of the trial of the manager of a farm buying club, according to the Farm Food Freedom Coalition.

WND previously has reported on disputes between farmers and consumers on one side and federal regulators on the other. They have involved the purchase by consumers of raw milk, the rights of consumers to access milk from their own cows, a radio program that offered natural products and a blogger who wrote about his battle with diabetes and was threatened with jail.

The newest development comes from the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, which is assembling a protest at the Minneapolis trial of Alvin Schlangen, a farm buying club manager.

The group said that mothers in the state who act as hosts for “drop sites” for farm buying club members now have been threatened with criminal charges.

The May 14 protest will be at 7 a.m. outside the Minneapolis courthouse where Schlangen’s trial is scheduled, officials said.

“At the rally supporters will sign a ‘Declaration of Food Independence’ and demonstrate non-compliance against what they deem ‘unjust’ regulations,” the organization announced.

Another supporting organization, the Raw Milk Freedom Riders, said that Schlangen founded the Freedom Farms Coop, which simply connects people with the foods of their choice from local producers.

“Over the past two years the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has illegally raided Alvin’s van, warehouse, and farm. The state has now brought four charges against Alvin related to food distribution; all are misdemeanors counts. If convicted, Alvin faces up to a year in jail and hefty fines … just for helping to connect consumers to the producers and foods of their choice.”

Organizers confirm that “several Minnesota mothers who organize community access to local fresh farm foods plan to risk criminal charges by openly and publicly defying warnings from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.”

“The MDA has threatened several mothers, conducted investigations against them and sent them warning letters that if they continue helping provide fresh food to their friends and neighbors, they will be subject to criminal charges and prosecution. The MDA alleges the mothers are violating food-handling regulations.”

Hundreds are expected to join the rally, organizers estimate.

“It is absolutely outrageous that during this time of economic crisis our state government is investigating and sending warning letters to mothers and putting farmers on trial who are helping provide communities with fresh foods. It is my right to contract privately with a farmer for the food of my choice just as it is the right of every American,” said Melinda Olson, a mother and recipient of one of the MDA’s warnings.

“The MDA’s harassment against mothers will not work. We plan to ignore this warning and continue operating as we are. MDA should not waste taxpayer money investigating, prosecuting and jailing peaceful farmers and mothers for helping their communities secure fresh foods. Our time to stand up against this tyranny is now!” she said.

Pete Kennedy of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, who tracks such issues nationally, said, “Nowhere in the country at this time is state action against food freedom and consumer choice more oppressive than in the state of Minnesota.”

Plans posted online for the event explain that the court has allowed three days for Schlangen’s misdemeanor trial.

The Farm-to-Consumer Fund also confirmed that once the Minneapolis trial for Schlangen is over, he’ll face six more charges of food rule violations in Stearns County.

“While this is going on, there is a pending administrative hearing in which MDA is seeking an order to suspend any further food sales by Schlangen,” the fund reported.

“In addition to selling poultry and eggs produced on his farm, Schlangen manages the Freedom Farms Coop (a private food club formed in July 2010, serving more than 50 families) and delivers raw dairy products and other nutrient dense foods to club members, most of whom live in the Twin Cities.”

The organization documented Schlangen’s perspective, who said: “It must be legal to privately support farms that grow quality food and provide for the health of our growing children and seniors. This should be a model for today’s agriculture. Connecting kids with natural food production is vital to their future.”

He explains he believes private arrangements to purchase such food are not under the jurisdiction of the state.

It was nearly two years ago when the MDA raided warehouse space Schlangen leased. In the warrantless search, state officials seized food at the facility.

Then in 2011 deputies accompanied state agency officials when they impounded his truck and goods while he was delivering farm eggs to students at Macalester College in in St. Paul.

He has argued he doesn’t need a state “food handler’s permit” because he delivers only to members of the buying club through private contract, not the public.

The organization also reports the state agency “has tried” to put farmer Mike Hartmann out of business in recent years, bringing charges against him, his wife Diana and others.

WND reported several months ago when protesters distributed an estimated 100 gallons of raw milk in front of the offices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration near Washington during a rally that prompted the federal agency to issue a statement defending its crackdown on the product.

The event was organized by the Farm Food Freedom Coalition. A spokesman for the rally, Max Kane, told WND that a caravan of vehicles collected the supplies of raw milk, then traveled to Silver Springs, Md., to the FDA offices for the protest.

The distribution there was in violation of a federal law that prevents people from moving raw milk across state lines for delivery to others. The rally participants were met by officers from the Department of Homeland Security and others.

But Kane said there were no conflicts, no arrests and no violence.

The FDA said there have been there have been reports of illnesses from raw milk, but a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.

Today, 30 states allow the sale of raw milk and 20 forbid it, but the federal government forbids it in interstate business.

In California, three people are facing trial following an investigation of the Rawesome buying club. In that case, one of the defense lawyers was stunned by the militancy of the prosecutor, declaring, “She doesn’t want raw milk. … She wants blood.”

The federal government has a long history of cracking down on those who produce raw milk and make it available to consumers – even when the consumers are the ones who own the cows and milk.

In that recent case in Wisconsin, a judge ruled that Americans do not have a right to choose their food, not even when they own the cows and the milk.

Kimberly Hartke of the Campaign for Real Milk, a project of The Weston A. Price Foundation, has told WND as the cases have developed the government’s “heavy-handed” tactics simply have gone too far.

“As more consumers seek greater access to local farm fresh milk to feed their families, our federal government is working overtime to curtail freedom to feed your family the way you deem necessary. Since most seek raw dairy for health reasons, this is a serious concern,” she said.

It was a ruling from Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in Wisconsin that said the families who reported they were boarding their cows for a fee and then getting the milk instead were running a “dairy farm.”

“It’s always a surprise when a judge says you don’t have the fundamental right to consume the foods of your choice,” said Kennedy.

Fiedler’s decision said, “Plaintiffs argue that they have a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property and therefore have a fundamental right to own a cow, or a heard (sic) of cows, and to use their cow(s) in a manner that does not cause harm to third parties. They argue that they have a fundamental right to privacy to consume the food of their choice for themselves and their families and therefore have a fundamental right to consume unpasteurized milk from their cows,” the judge wrote.

Bunk, he concluded.

“They do not simply own a cow that they board at a farm. Instead, plaintiffs operate a dairy farm. If plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin.”

He continued, “The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which means the following:

“(1) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a diary (sic) herd;
“(2) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
“(3) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
“(4) no, the Zinniker plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state’s police power;
“(5) no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
“(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker plaintiffs’ conduct.”

1. Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $40,000-a-plate campaign fund raising event.

2. Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and a federal workforce that is roughly 18% black when the black population is only 12%.

3. Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code — Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee — turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4. Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5. Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.

6. Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7. Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8. Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of what a company that manufactures sports shoes and apparel (Nike) makes.

9. Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending ($7 million PER MINUTE), and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

10. Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

by AWR Hawkins
During a trip through Colorado in December of last year, President Obama spoke of his intention to implement his economic policies with or without the approval of Congress. Said Obama, “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” It now appears that such a mindset applies not only to economic matters but to the distribution of foreign aid as well–in particular, foreign military aid for the Muslim Brotherhood, who now hold the reigns in Egypt.
Congress has restricted and, in fact, halted military aid to Egypt until and “unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.” After all, Christians and other practitioners of non-Islamic religions have had a tough go of it there. And of course, many Egyptian officials harbor such hatred toward the U.S. that one of the candidates for the Egyptian presidency has openly referred to America as the “infidel country” in media interviews.
Nevertheless, the news breaking now is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce that President Obama will “resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite Congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.”
Even Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), a man with whom I’ve never agreed on anything, sees the foolishness of this endeavor: “I believe [sending the aid] would be a mistake. The new [restrictions were] intended to put the United States squarely on the side of the Egyptian people who seek a civilian government that respects fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to clearly define the terms of our future relations with the Egyptian military.”
Who knows; perhaps the Obama administration can also circumvent Congress and give the Iranians some nuclear materials or give Hamas some advanced weaponry? I know both ideas sound crazy, but they’re no crazier than giving $1.5 billion in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama wants to help Indonesians get advanced degrees from the United States. Because Obama is from Indonesia. The problem? He will use your taxpayer money to do it.

This story was broken last month by TradeAidMonitor.com but the Statement of Work (SOW) is published on FBO.gov.

Here is a PRINT+Screen of the first paragraph.

Indonesian nationals will benefit from this proposal because they get free education! US educational institutions will benefit because they get a new flurry of funds. But how does the average Joe taxpayer benefit from this?

And to add further insult, these Indonesian citizens with Masters degrees will compete for the same jobs as Americans and have the potential to stay in this country after gaining employment. Would it be a stretch to say this proposal could wind up taking jobs away from the American people?

By Ronald Rodriguez

Constitution of the United States of America (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)
It does not take a casual observer much effort to realize that many people who have an anti religion agenda deliberately misinterpret American history. Thus, factual historical facts are simply “erased” to fit an ideology. This is an unfortunate practice of revisionist history as it is not an accurate approach to updating our known history with new facts.

There is a debate between two separate ideologies. The first ideology is the most accepted belief of American history, which believes that Christianity played no role in shaping the U.S. government. The second ideology, commonly accepted among-st Christians, insist on teaching ”traditional” history to their children.

The linchpin causing such debate around “traditional” history is that Christianity played a significant role in shaping the U.S. government and morals of the colonies and eventual young nation.

This is not an attempt to say that all the founders were devout followers of the Christian God or if they even believed in Him. It is not our right to judge the “walks” of our founders with God, but it is out right to defend what they did through their lives.

There are anti-religion quotes that revisionist’s find and use to argue that the founders were not christian. Thus, as a result, the U.S. is not a christian nation. The founders surely made statements that were critical of organized religion, but there is overwhelming evidence that almost all the founders believed in the Christian God and were members of established churches. Thus, it is not hard to believe that the founders used the principles of the Bible played help establish the U.S. government and a moral society

There is always a danger in history being interpreted with a broad brush of political activism today to fit an intellectual idea. Thus, it becomes important to dig deep into topics yourself and believe that history is best told by those that lived it and wrote about it. Considering this is the U.S. a nation under God or a nation not under God?

The Supreme Court was faced with the issue in 1892 with the case ”Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.“

The Court affirmed the religious nature of the U.S. This can be seen in opinion delivered by Justice David Josiah Brewer on the behalf of the Court that unanimously agreed. He stated the following:

[t]here is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic [legal, governmental] utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. … These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

The decision by the Supreme Court did not merely say that a majority of the American people were Christian, or that there were no Muslims, Hindus or other religious sects in America. Rather, Justice Brewer claimed it was the courts unanimous opinion that America is a Christian nation in “the domain of official action and recognition, [but not in regards to] individual acceptance.”

The Court’s decision demonstrates that our entire system of government was created with a responsibility to recognize the authority of the Christian God. Also, those who acknowledged the Christian God’s authority and committed to obey His commandments intended the government they created to acknowledge and obey God.

This decision is astonishing considering the nations rejection of Christianity’s role in its founding and government. As a result, it certainly is intriguing to consider how do we got from Supreme Court opinion to the doctrine of “separation of church and state.”

The “Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.” case was effectively overruled in 1931. As a result, the idea that government was “under God” was replaced with “separate” from God.

The doctrine of “separation of church and state” encompasses more than churches as it infers the separation of God and Government.

In 1989, the Supreme Court declared in its decision for “Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU” that “the Constitution mandates that the government remain secular.”

This is certainly a far stretch from any truth.

There is no piece of the Constitution that does or does not establish the U.S. government to ignore God’s authority.

The Case involving the Church of the Holy Trinity shows four points:

Each american colony was considered a Christian Theocracy from its earliest founding in the 1600′s.
The colonies had a universal agreement that the formation of civil government was a Biblical obligation – all the governments were Theocratic. The colonists formed governments with the belief that God commanded them to form them. Thus, the founding of a government was considered a religious act.
The federal government established under the U.S. Constitution were Christian Theocracies.
The ratification of the U.S. Constitution would never of occurred if the federal government had been given authority to prevent the U.S. from being “under God” and officially and legally acknowledging that they – the founders and colonies (states) – to be under His jurisdiction.
There are many statements by the founders in support of christian principles inclusion in the U.S. founding.
John Adams wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson (June 28, 1813) which stated:
[t]he general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” He also stated in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade, the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts that “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
In the Notes on the State of Virginia (Query XVIII), Thomas Jefferson wrote:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.
In “The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia,” Henry is quoted stating

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

I considered leaving concluding remarks to encompass my interpretation of these remarks, but I believe the best approach is to allow you to interpret what has been presented for yourself.

I hope you will take the time to dive into the history of this matter and voice what you find here for discussion.

A city in Maine has decided to enforce thousands of dollars in property taxes on a congregation because, its assessment board ruled, the church doesn’t qualify as a charity.

Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Rockland, Maine, filed suit in the Knox County Superior Court last month over a legal loophole that allows the city to charge taxes on the church’s driveway and parking lot, while exempting other non-profit organizations from the same costs.

“But the statute treats ‘houses of religious worship’ differently,” the ADF continues. “They are limited to the exemption of their church building, furniture, burial plots and a portion of the parsonage. No other not-for-profit is similarly limited.”

The inequitable treatment could be overlooked, the ADF claims, if the city would recognize the church as a form of charity and applied the broader exemption law. After all, the church serves many charitable functions, including the provision of religious and moral training, counseling, child-development services, volunteers for soup kitchens and homeless shelters and serves as the facility for a local orchestra, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and weddings, funerals, baptisms and so forth. The church even allows community groups to use the disputed parking lot for free.

But by a vote of 3-2, the Bangor Daily News reports, Rockland’s Board of Assessment Review rejected the church’s tax abatement request for the previous tax year.

The net result, according to calculations by the newspaper, is that Aldersgate United Methodist’s five acres of parking lot and driveway is being taxed $2,229 per year.

“Charities operate for the public benefit, train the hearts and minds of their hearers, relieve suffering, and, in sum, lessen the burden on the government. [Yet] the City insists that Aldersgate does not meet these qualifications,” ADF asserts. “But if this church does not qualify, the City would be hard-pressed to find an organization that does.”

The church’s lawsuit asks the court to declare that the way Rockland is implementing the tax law be found unconstitutional to the extent that it treats churches less favorably than secular organizations, an alleged violation of the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

ADF attorney Joel Oster makes the argument that a church shouldn’t be made to pay because its “charity work” isn’t secular.

“We think that because the city denied this church a charitable tax exemption, they are discriminating unfairly against this church,” Oster told OneNewsNow, “and they’re targeting this church because of its religion.”

“The law should be no respecter of persons, or charities,” ADF concludes. “Aldersgate should enjoy at least the same tax treatment and benefits granted to similar not-for-profit charitable organizations.”

Though Maine’s tax-law loophole may be unique, examples of churches facing cities with creative schemes to tax them are not.

As WND reported, the city of Mission, Kan., attempted to impose a “driveway tax” on the town’s churches based on an estimate of the number of people who would attend each church and use its parking lot in a given week.

Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel for ADF, said when the case over the $1,000 city fees being charged to churches based on the number of seats in their sanctuaries was brought, that it was no less than punishment for the churches.

He said the “driveway tax” was outrageous and openly speculated whether a city successful in imposing such a cost also would be interested in a “sidewalk tax” based on the number of people who walk to church.

ADF sued on behalf of First Baptist Church of Mission and the Archdiocese of Kansas City. The Baptist church had been billed nearly $1,000 and the Catholic diocese billed some $1,700.

After the City of Mission elected to settle the case, rather than pursue the “driveway tax,” Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued a statement, albeit in a non-binding opinion, concluding that the fee actually is an “excise tax” and said state law bars Mission from imposing such a tax.