Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘crime’

AFTER YOU HAVE READ THE B.S. – DIRTY HARRY REID IS BEHIND THIS -Harry Reid, Son’s Solar Power Scheme Linked to Bundy Ranch Standoff

Follow the money and you’ll inevitably find out what’s really going on.
In the case of Clark County, Nevada, rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with federal agents from the Bureau of Land Management, the leading explanation has been that he hasn’t paid grazing fees and his cattle threaten endangered desert tortoises in the Gold Butte area.

Harry and rory
But the fact of the BLM bringing in hundreds of armed rangers with trucks and helicopters seemed over the top for protection of a tortoise that has clearly survived despite more than a century of ranching by the Bundy family, and which the BLM had previously been slaughtering with the excuse that it lacked funding to care for the animals.
As reported by the Associated Press in August, the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center in Southern Las Vegas, funded by the BLM, was looking at killing half of its 1,400 tortoises because it could not afford to keep its doors open since the housing collapse resulted in less income from developers.
So why does the BLM profess to care so much about the fate of tortoises, who seem to be doing fine, in the Gold Butte area?
Certainly it’s not all of the answer because the BLM dispute with Bundy goes back to 1993, but part of the answer may be that Gold Butte also lies inside what the BLM has called the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, part of the federal government’s plan to put solar power plants and factories on BLM-controlled lands in six Southwestern states.
As part of the plan for the Dry Lake solar zone, any solar developers are expected to pay into a fund to “mitigate” the Gold Butte area. However, the “mitigation” activities can’t take place with cattle grazing in the area. If the mitigation doesn’t take place, no money for the BLM.
One of the companies interested in building a solar plant on BLM-controlled land is the Chinese firm ENN Energy Group, which wants to build a $5 billion solar facility in the Nevada desert near Laughlin. ENN is represented by lawyer Rory Reid, Sen. Harry Reid’s son. The Chinese firm also wants to build on a 9,000-acre plot in Clark County, where rancher Cliven Bundy is holding off the BLM, and where Rory Reid used to be the chairman of the County Commission.

According to Reuters, the County Commission voted to sell ENN the public plot of land for $4.5 million, a fraction of its appraised value of $38.6 million.
Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid has been one of ENN’s most prominent supporters. According to Reuters, he recruited the company for the project during a trip to China in 2011. Reuters also reports that Reid has tried to pressure the state’s largest power company, NV Energy, to become ENN’s first customer.
Sen. Reid has had other links to dubious power projects, including Amonix, a company with no record of success that received huge tax breaks then collapsed. There was also Nevada Geothermal, which received $98 million in federal loan guarantees but in a recent filing with the SEC revealed that it is undergoing substantial problems that threaten its ability to continue as a company.
Both Reids have denied ever discussing the ENN project or working together in any way on it, but the paper trails suggest otherwise.
A Clark County commissioner recently said that supporters of Cliven Bundy “better have funeral plans,” and the situation seems primed and ready for violence, with hundreds of federal rangers on one side, and ranchers and militia members on the other.
If blood ends up being shed over a desert tortoise, the trail of gore may lead straight to Harry Reid’s desk in the Senate chambers.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15161/harry-reid-sons-solar-power-scheme-connected-bundy-ranch-standoff/#mHSVdchd0cMU08Gk.99

Hillary Clinton Pushes to Make Criticism of Islam a Crime in the US.

Are Hillary and Barack in a race to see which one can destroy this Country first? May God protect the United States of America from these two Marxist thugs!

One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander

,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person
[a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary
Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization
adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda
item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking
to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter
Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it,
including deterrent punishments.” The word “Islamophobia” is a
completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of
Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC
adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship
between the OIC and the Ikhwan.

Six years later, Secretary of 

State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the
United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of
Islam
. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,”
that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC
three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss
legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only
religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous
resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such
bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi
Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA),
where it was passed in March 2011.

The Resolution was presented to the UNGA

by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and
“blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about
“combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to
violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only
partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S.,
whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s
Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.

Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to
Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world
with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial
system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to
criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his
host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full
compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.

Political Assassination: Ineffictiveness of Laws

There have been at least 20 attempts to assassinate a US president, president-elect, or past president. Of these four succeeded, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. Two other presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were wounded in assassination attempts. There has been speculation since their deaths that Zachery Taylor and Warren Harding were assassinated by poisoning.

Fifteen of these were by gunfire, including all six of those in which a president was harmed. Three attempts were by bomb; in one case, the perpetrator changed his mind but was caught driving the car bomb, in another the disguised hand-grenade was prevented from detonating by the bandana being tied too tightly around it, and the third was disrupted when the plot was discovered by Saudi Secret Service.

Three times attempts were made to crash airplanes into the White House; one actually succeeding in crashing into the lawn, killing the pilot, one ended when the perpetrator killed the pilots then committed suicide, and one was stopped by brave passengers who refused to allow terrorist to carry through with their plot.

Only three attempts were motivated by domestic politics and three were attempts by foreign enemies. The attack on FDR’s party in 1933, was most likely not actually targeting the president, but was a successful mob hit on the Mayor of Chicago who was giving Al Capone trouble. In all other instances those attempting to assassinate the president were mentally troubled men (only two women in the whole group), often delusional, unemployed or marginally employed. Four attempts have been made by members of a cult or a domestic terror group, including the two attempts by women – one a Manson devotee and the other a Symbionese Liberation Front sympathizer.

These attacks have included sixteen against Republicans, ten against Democrats, and one against Theodore Roosevelt, former Republican running unsuccessfully on the New Progressive Party ticket. (He was shot in the chest prior to giving a speech, got up dusted himself off and gave the speech before going for medical attention. The bullet was never removed.)

In most cases the perpetrators used weapons that were illegal, transported them in a way that was illegal, and of course the act of attempting murder of itself was also illegal. A number of them were prohibited from possessing a gun, because they had criminal records. None of these laws in any way deterred them from moving forward with their plan. It is logical that this would be true, for once a person has settled on killing someone, any lesser law becomes irrelevant.

Beyond the ineffectiveness of laws another problem with trying to reduce violence by outlawing guns is that those who are set on violence have many options, as well as many illegal sources of obtaining weapons. For example, almost anybody can make a powerful bomb with simple readily-available ingredients. If a person is crazy enough to shoot a public figure and as many people around them as possible, wouldn’t they also be crazy enough to take a bomb or incendiary device into that same crowd and set it off, or drive a car, with or without explosives into the crowd? The result will be at least as bad as an armed shooter.

The difference is if the shooter uses a gun he must target each individual and if there is a policeman or an armed citizen present they can stop his attack by shooting the murderer; with the other options the slaughter is over before anyone can react.

My opinion is that we need to work on the root of the problem: 1) How do we keep people from concluding it is alright to murder someone, and 2) Why do we allow those who are unstable and unpredictable in their emotional and mental control to run freely in society?

I think that the trend toward an ethic where nothing is really wrong depending on the circumstances and away from traditional family and religious mores has created an environment that allows monsters to develop. There have always been psychotic and emotionally troubled people, but we have not always allowed them the freedom to make the terrible choice of bloodshed.

Safety: Cars vs. Gun Control

Read the rest of this entry »