This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history!
62 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.
Govt tells agents to ID which immigrants not to deport
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has ordered immigration agents to ask immigrants they encounter living in the country illegally whether they might qualify under President Barack Obama's plans to avoid deporting them, according to internal training materials obtained by The Associated Press.
Agents also have been told to review government files to identify any jailed immigrants they might be able to release under the program.
The directives from the Homeland Security Department mark an unusual change for U.S. immigration enforcement, placing the obligation on the government for identifying immigrants who might qualify for lenient treatment. Previously, it was the responsibility of immigrants or their lawyers to assert that they might qualify under rules that could keep them out of jail and inside the United States.
It's akin to the Internal Revenue Service calling taxpayers to recommend they should have used certain exemptions or deductions.
(AP) In this Nov. 20, 2014, file photo, Rosa Lozano, of Washington, left,... Full Image
The training materials apply to agents for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They instruct agents "to immediately begin identifying persons in their custody, as well as newly encountered persons" who may be eligible for protection from deportation.
One training document includes scenarios describing encounters between agents and immigrants with guidance about how agents should proceed, with a checklist of questions to determine whether immigrants might qualify under the president's plans. ICE officials earlier began releasing immigrants who qualified for leniency from federal immigration jails.
Obama in November announced a program to allow roughly 4 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to apply for permission to stay in the country for up to three years and get a work permit. The program mirrors one announced in 2012 that provides protection from deportation for young immigrants brought to the country as children.
A spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, Carlos Diaz, said immigrants caught crossing the border illegally remain a top priority for the agency. The training documents for border agents, he said, "provide clear guidance on immigration enforcement operations so that both time and resources are allocated appropriately."
Crystal Williams, executive director for the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington, said the training will help filter people the government said should not be a priority anyway. She said the training marked the first she has heard of officers being directed to screen immigrants for potential leniency before they were arrested.
"Just because it's a change doesn't mean it's anything particularly radical," Williams said.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat and vocal supporter of Obama's immigration plans, said having CBP officers screen immigrants out of the deportation line lets the government "move criminals and recent arrivals to the front of the deportation line. The emphasis now is on who should be deported first, not just who can be deported."
A former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department, John Malcolm, said the new instructions limit immigration agents.
"Agents are being discouraged away from anything other than a cursory view" of an immigrant's status and qualification for leniency, said Malcolm, who works as a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington.
Under Obama's plans, the government is focused on deporting immigrants with serious criminal records or who otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. For the most part, under the new policy, immigrants whose only offense is being in the country without permission aren't supposed to be a priority for immigration officers.
While the administration has estimated that as many as 4 million people will be eligible for protection from deportation, the Congressional Budget Office estimated about 2 million to 2.5 million immigrants are expected to be approved for the program by 2017. As many as 1.7 million young immigrants were estimated to be eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but since its 2012 creation only about 610,000 people have successfully signed up.
In a biting blog post on OAFNation.com, an apparent military veteran issued a definitive response to critics of “American Sniper,” the hit movie based on legendary Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle’s autobiography of the same name. Basically, the veteran asserted that those who have attacked Kyle and the film are completely missing the point.
The author, who signed the post “Grifter,” first praised “American Sniper” because it “finally depicts WHY coming home is the hardest part for most of us.” For him, portraying the reality of how coming home is “almost impossible” for combat veterans is the most significant message in the movie, and one that is being overlooked by many.
Grifter is reportedly a Marine Corps veteran and has served in the special operations community, requiring him to maintain anonymity. The post on OAFNation.com is titled, “American Sniper: The Voice of Veterans.”
Photo from upcoming “American Sniper” movie (Photo: Keith Bernstein, Warner Bros. Pictures)
Grifter also had strong words for Vox’s Amanda Taub, who accused the movie of “rewriting American history” by not getting into the politics of the Iraq War. He continued:
However, I read a piece by Amanda Taub (just google it if you care to) in which she bashes the film and accuses it of “rewriting American history.” Her point of contention was that the film was too black and white for her tastes. She calls the war in Iraq a grey area, which I agree. I also agree with her disdain at the treatment of the conventional troops in the film as cannon fodder or inferior to the SEALS in importance. However, she smashes on Eastwood’s flick by calling into question the lack of mention of G.W. Bush, WMD, or Saddam Hussein. She accuses the movie of inventing fictional characters for Kyle to fight. I’m taking this as she is mad the movie didn’t take a political stance or mention any of the media hype, hot buttons, or buzzwords normally associated with the war in Iraq. My answer to that: Yeah, no s**t.
The film wasn’t about any of that because for US, the war wasn’t about any of that. Do you think any of us gave a f**k about Saddam Hussein, WMD, Bush, Cheney, or any of that s**t that was being ejaculated by the news? The film wasn’t about grey areas, because to us it didn’t matter. All that mattered to us was the guy to our left, and the guy to our right…and especially the guy that still had a can of Skoal. It wasn’t that we were willfully ignorant of the issues surrounding the Iraq, or that we were in denial, but when your finger is on a trigger, when you’re face is covered in your friends’ brain matter, you aren’t thinking about “good and evil” or “grey areas.”
That is the entire point this civil rights attorney misses, the film was about a man on the ground and the struggle to come home with a head full of grief and regret, not the Iraq war itself.
The reason the movie doesn’t take a political stance because the film isn’t political, he said. “Yes, it mentioned 9/11, but it didn’t tie it to Iraq. It tied it to Kyle the way it was tied to all of us. 9/11 signaled to a generation that we are not safe, that there ARE people out there that want to kill us, on our own soil,” the author added. “Yet, here is the left, all up in arms about a movie about one man’s struggle in a war. They create paper tigers to go after in order to blackball these movies into oblivion. They refuse to see the good in this film as it pertains to veterans, because they don’t care about veterans.”
Former Navy SEAL and author of the book “American Sniper” Chris Kyle was shot dead Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013. (AP)
The veteran then delivered a parting message to those who saw the movie as “more of a ‘pro Bush/Iraq/Right Wing/anti-Muslim’ political statement and want to bash it and our military.”
“The movie wasn’t for you,” he concluded. “It was for the guy with mud on his boots and a hole in his heart, and for the families that are left to pick up the pieces. Go back to your latte.”
“This city is haunted by ghosts from broken homes.“ -Alexisonfire Well, it’s a new year. Welcome to 2015. This is the year we were supposed to have flying cars and hover boards. Color me disappointed. However, what 2015 HAS given us is a voice. I say this because I just saw American Sniper yesterday. I’m not going to get into Chris Kyle as a man. I never had the privilege of knowing him. I have a few friends that operated with him, and had nothing but great things to say about him. I’m not going to sit and bitch about any Hollywood inconstancies that arise when flash and pomp take precedence over authenticity. I am, however, going to talk about the precedence this film set for veterans and the direction I’m hoping the population of this country will take.
American Sniper, though being marketed as a hero movie, goes far beyond that. It isn’t an action movie. Yes, there IS action in the film; but it’s not the sole focus. I can see a lot of people leaving the movie disappointed because there wasn’t as much running and gunning as in say, Act of Valor or Lone Survivor.
What the movie accomplishes, for me and for US is that it finally depicts WHY coming home is the hardest part for most of us. So many movies in Hollywood either touch briefly on the subject, but miss the mark. The Hurt Locker, love it or hate it, has a very poignant scene in the grocery store where Renner’s character has returned from a tour in Iraq and life seems mundane and boring compared to the excitement and rush of defusing bombs. The premise is botched in that, most veteran’s aren’t missing the experience because they’re bored and need an adrenaline rush; they miss their brothers and that bond that frankly WILL NEVER be experienced here at home. THAT is the drug for which most of us are fiending. The flipside is the movie Brothers. The movie portrays Tobey Maguire’s character, a TBI inflicted Iraq war veteran, as a time bomb full of rage and insecurities. He lashes our violently against his brother, who didn’t serve and his wife who developed feelings for his brother. The movie rubbed me the wrong way in that, yeah the guy got pissed, but not all of us pull a gun out and start getting all stupid with it. The end of the movie was very condescending, I felt. It said to me, “be careful around these crazy dudes, they’ll lose their minds over perception.” All it did was reaffirm the stigma that we as a community are trying to distance ourselves from. American Sniper portrayed Chris Kyle as a guy trying to do the best he could in shitty situations, doing what he had to in order to protect American lives. It highlighted perfectly that coming home is almost impossible. There’s always an urge to go back and keep working, not for fortune or glory, but for each other. The way I always thought was, “if I don’t go, who will?” I couldn’t bear the thought of some 18-19 year old kid taking my perceived place in the long line of casualties. American Sniper showed the anguish at the bureaucracy of the Iraq war and the tough decisions that had to be made and later scrutinized by someone at home on the couch. He even said, “We’re at war, and I’m going to the mall.” It accurately shows the disillusionment of returning to a country that isn’t engaged in any capacity with what’s going on with their troops. It captures the essence of what it’s like to come home and try to assimilate into a society that is oblivious.
It’s most powerful statement was that it clearly shows the absolutely bitter loneliness a vet can experience coming home. I don’t mean loneliness as is synonymous with solitude. Kyle was surrounded by family and loved ones. He had reasons to celebrate his life, his wife and his babies. Yet, he still felt a void. He had the support structure of a family that needed him, yet he couldn’t relish in the love they gave. He could not sit back and enjoy being home, due to the longing for his brothers and a crippling grief for the men he could not keep from harm. These feelings, as I type them, could seem so trivial to a civilian reading this. “Guilt” and “loneliness” are emotions people go thru daily, yet no one is making a movie about them. That is the separation in our generation, even our emotions, though labeled the same, are so very different from the average straight. I’m sure there are doctors that grieve over losing a patient. However, that patient probably wasn’t their best friend. I’m sure people experience loneliness because they’re by themselves a lot, but true loneliness comes from being surrounded by your loved ones and still feeling alone. This is the strength of the movie and what lends itself to us as veterans and our struggle to find our place in the world. This resonates with us, and hopefully opens the eyes of the general public as to what we feel every day.
That’s the first direction I’m hoping the country will go. It’s sad that I live in a country where the only way to truly reach the members of society isn’t through literature or research, but with pop culture. But, them’s the breaks. The optimist in me says that people will have at the very least, a better insight into WHY we feel the way we do. It’s not always nightmares and outrage, sometimes, most of the time, it’s a silent suffering. It doesn’t stem from a need for adrenaline or bloodlust. It stems from a desire for a purpose that is bigger than ourselves - our yearning to be around people we would literally die for, no questions asked and a regretful grief for living when others whom we deem more worthy, died. We analyze and dissect every decision and action we made, wondering if we could have made a difference. Not a difference in foreign policy or winning a war single-handedly, but the difference between you coming home to an empty barracks room or your buddy coming home to his wife and kids.
The pessimist in me is starting to notice the seeds of a trend being sown. It’s that bashing our military, or at the very least, being anti-military is going to become “cool” again. I’m not going to comment on Rogen or Moore’s idiotic comments about American Sniper. I was once a Rogen fan and always thought he was more discerning than most in Hollywood, and Moore is irrelevant now, both as a film maker and a human being. Bush isn’t in office, therefore he lacks a villain at which to point fat, sausage-esque finger. The reviews are all over the place and a striking majority are calling the film pro-war and anti-Muslim...
However, I read a piece by Amanda Taub (just google it if you care to) in which she bashes the film and accuses it of “rewriting American history.” Her point of contention was that the film was too black and white for her tastes. She calls the war in Iraq a grey area, which I agree. I also agree with her disdain at the treatment of the conventional troops in the film as cannon fodder or inferior to the SEALS in importance. However, she smashes on Eastwood’s flick by calling into question the lack of mention of G.W. Bush, WMD, or Saddam Hussein. She accuses the movie of inventing fictional characters for Kyle to fight. I’m taking this as she is mad the movie didn’t take a political stance or mention any of the media hype, hot buttons, or buzzwords normally associated with the war in Iraq. My answer to that: Yeah, no shit.
The film wasn’t about any of that because, for US, the war wasn’t about any of that. Do you think any of us gave a fuck about Saddam Hussein, WMD, Bush, Cheney, or any of that shit that was being ejaculated by the news? The film wasn’t about grey areas because to us it didn’t matter. All that mattered to us was the guy to our left and the guy to our right…and especially the guy that still had a can of Skoal. It wasn’t that we were willfully ignorant of the issues surrounding the Iraq, or that we were in denial, but when your finger is on a trigger, when you’re face is covered in your friends’ brain matter, you aren’t thinking about “good and evil” or “grey areas.” That is the entire point this civil rights attorney misses. The film was about a man on the ground and the struggle to come home with a head full of grief and regret, not the Iraq war itself. The movie didn’t really take a political stance at all. Yes, it mentioned 9/11, but it didn’t tie it to Iraq. It tied it to Kyle the way it was tied to all of us. 9/11 signaled to a generation that we are not safe, that there ARE people out there that want to kill us, on our own soil. Yet, here is the left, all up in arms about a movie about one man’s struggle in a war. They create paper tigers to go after in order to blackball these movies into oblivion. They refuse to see the good in this film as it pertains to veterans, because they don’t care about veterans.
I fear the plaid shirt, hash-tagging, trust-fund protestors are going to start coming out of the woodwork. The people who have kept their mouths shut because the war was still ongoing, are going to come forward and start openly bashing on us. The war is “officially” over and, as a country, we are no longer engaged in combating terrorism with any sort of genuine commitment. That allows the dissenters to come out of their holes now that it’s less likely someone is going to say “Dude, my brother/ husband/dad is over there right now.” Because, at the end of the day, they still don’t want to offend the “victims” of veteran’s decisions, only the vets themselves.
To the people that saw the movie for what it was, it was a glimpse into our world. It offered up our collective hearts to you in a manner a typical, movie-going civilian would understand. That is powerful and, hopefully, opens a broader dialogue about our struggle to really come home. This is what we’re thinking and why we’re still fighting. As far as our silent war goes, this movie got it right.
To those that saw it as more “pro Bush/Iraq/ Right Wing/anti-Muslim” political statement and wants to bash it and our military, I say this: The movie wasn’t for you. It was for the guy with mud on his boots and a hole in his heart, and for the families that are left to pick up the pieces. Go back to your latte. -Grifter
In March 2011, a massive earthquake and an ensuing tsunami triggered the meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant. Almost 4 years later we’re still seeing repercussions of the disaster, and the effects will likely continue for decades. This disaster is contributing to untold health concerns and environmental damage.
Five Things You Should Know About Fukushima
While you may have heard information about Fukushima in the news, there are some stories the mainstream media isn’t covering. Let’s dive into 5 things you’re not being told about the Fukushima situation.
1. Two Trillion Becquerels of Radioactive Material Escaped Reactor 1
A recent report from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) says 2 trillion becquerels of
radiation may have flowed into the Fukushima power plant bay in a short
amount of time. From August 2013 to May 2014, documents estimate that
the No. 1 reactor leaked more than 10 times the limit of radioactive
material TEPCO set before the meltdown. [1] That’s a lot of radiation
drifting out into the Pacific Ocean!
2. US West Coast Will Experience Peak Radiation in 2015
Scientific reports suggest levels of Cesium-137 will peak
in water supplies on the US West Coast and in Canada by the end of this
year. [2] Cesium-137 is a radioactive isotope that presents a strong
danger to human health. After drinking contaminated water, your body’s
tissues can be exposed to low levels of gamma and beta radiation which
could increase your risk for certain types of cancer. [3]
3. Thyroid Cancer is Spreading in Japan
Radiation in water is just one concern; thyroid cancer, often linked to radiation exposure, is on the rise among youth in the Fukushima Prefecture. Local government
officials want to downplay a connection to radiation from the triple
meltdown and these new cases of cancer. While it’s still too soon to
determine an actual cause, experts agree that the rate of incidence is
disturbingly high. [4]
4. Japan is Planning to Build More Nuclear Plants
After
the natural disasters that led to the Fukushima meltdown, all of
Japan’s nuclear reactors were suspended. In 2012, the Japanese
government created a regulatory agency to restore public confidence in
nuclear power. Recently, the agency approved the reopening of 2 of
Japan’s 48 reactors. [5] There are many that believe the safety
certification of the two reactors at Sendai Power Plant was pushed by
the current government. The current prime minister is unashamedly
pro-nuclear and wants to reopen and build more reactors. But, in an
earthquake-prone country, is this really the best idea?
5. Experts Can’t Agree on the Health Dangers
With
a pro-nuclear government in power, Japan is seeing something similar to
what happened in Ukraine after Chernobyl. Nuclear authorities tend to
deny the negative results reported by researchers in an attempt to
further their goals; in this case, a return to nuclear power. [6] Many
scientists are rather miffed with a watered-down UN report that came out
in late 2013. [7] They argue it ignored negative scientific studies and
lacked documentation for certain claims, leaving some worried that
authorities won’t acknowledge the radiation threat until it’s too late. [8]
Fukushima is a Bad Situation
The
Fukushima disaster has left us a terrible legacy we can’t give back.
Unfortunately, the Japanese—especially those in the Fukushima
Prefecture—can’t even drink their sorrows away. The sake brewers there
are finding no one wants to buy their products due to reports of
contaminated rice and water.
What do you think about the Fukushima disaster? Please tell us your thoughts and/or concerns in the comments.
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM Article References
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2013 Report. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
For months now families are complaining about black and smelly water pouring from their faucets, toilets, and showers in a Southern California community just south of Los Angeles.
“We don’t want to drink our water, because our water is black,” said Emy Sebastian, a citizen of Gardena California. “My daughter says, ‘Mommy the water is black and it stinks. Why does the water stink?’ She doesn’t want to wash her clothes.”
The phenomenon has been going on too long for residents and they don’t feel that enough is being done to correct the situation. Diane Morita, disgusted by the smell, told NBC4 SouthernCalifornia, that the water “has an odor of rotten eggs or sewer smell. I’m concerned because it’s getting worse, if it’s even safe.”
Morita explained that she has been told by Golden State Water Company, the utility that services Gardena, that the water is safe to drink. Yet, she said that she doesn’t know anyone who will drink it. The utility has told NBC4 that that they are investigating the situation and insist that the black water is an isolated occurrence.
Kate Nutting, general manager for Golden State said that “the water is clear right now we will continue to investigate to determine what caused it last Wednesday, what has caused it in the past so that we can prevent it from happening again.”
Residents complain that the putrid water costs them extra money because they have to stock up on bottled water and replace grimy water heater filters contaminated by the sludge. One person said that a Golden State official told her he would credit her account $10 for the expense. She says it’s not enough.
Have we reached 'peak food'? Shortages loom as global production rates slow
Staples such as wheat, chicken and rice are slowing in growth – with dire consequences
The world has entered an era of “peak food” production with an array of staples from corn and rice to wheat and chicken slowing in growth – with potentially disastrous consequences for feeding the planet.
New research finds that the supply of 21 staples, such as eggs, meat, vegetables and soybeans is already beginning to run out of momentum, while the global population continues to soar.
Peak chicken was in 2006, while milk and wheat both peaked in 2004 and rice peaked way back in 1988, according to new research from Yale University, Michigan State University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.
What makes the report particularly alarming is that so many crucial sources of food have peaked in a relatively short period of history, the researchers said.
“People often talk of substitution. If we run out of one substance we just substitute another. But if multiple resources are running out, we’ve got a problem. Mankind needs to accept that renewable raw materials are reaching their yield limits worldwide,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, of Michigan State University.
“This is a strong reason for integration ... rather than searching for a one-for-one substitution to offset shortages,” he added.
Peak production refers to the point at which the growth in a crop, animal or other food source begins to slow down, rather than the point at which production actually declines. However, it is regarded as a key signal that the momentum is being lost and it is typically only a matter of time before production plateaus and, in some cases, begins to fall – although it is unclear how long the process could take.
“Just nine or 10 plants species feed the world. But we found there’s a peak for all these resources. Even renewable resources won’t last forever,” said Ralf Seppelt, of the Helmholtz Centre.
The research, published in the journal Ecology and Society, finds that 16 of the 21 foods examined reached peak production between 1988 and 2008.
This synchronisation of peak years is all the more worrying because it suggests the whole food system is becoming overwhelmed, making it extremely difficult to resurrect the fortunes of any one foodstuff, let alone all of them, the report suggested.
The simultaneous peaking of the world’s basic foodstuffs is largely down to the competing demands of a mushrooming population, which is putting ever-greater strain on the land for housing, agriculture, business and infrastructure. At the same time, producing more of any one staple requires the use of extra land and water, which increases their scarcity and makes it harder to increase food production in the future.
Finally, increases in production tend to push up pollution, which exacerbates shortages of resources and slows the growth in output.
The simultaneous peaking of crops and livestock comes against a backdrop of a growing population, which is expected to reach nine billion by 2050, requiring the world to produce twice as much food by then as it does now, according to a separate study by the California Academy of Sciences. The problems caused by the growing population have been compounded by the growth of wealthy middle-class populations in countries such as China and India which are demanding a meatier diet. This is problematic because meat and dairy use up a lot more resources than if a comparable level of nutrition were provided by crops, grown direct for human consumption.
“That trajectory [of needing to double food production] is not a given but more of a warning. It means we have to change how we eat and use food,” said Jonathan Foley, the director of the California Academy of Sciences.
While the peak production study suggests a doubling of food output could well be impossible, Dr Foley points out that, since 30 to 40 per cent of the food grown globally for human consumption never gets eaten, eliminating waste would go a long way to feeding the growing population.
Among the basic foodstuffs examined, only the relatively undeveloped farmed fish – or aquaculture – industry has yet to reach peak production.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Challenged by Republicans, Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch on Wednesday defended President Barack Obama's decision to shelter millions of immigrants from deportation though they live in the country illegally. But she said they have no right to citizenship under the law.
She told her Senate confirmation hearing that under the administration's policy, the Department of Homeland Security focuses its efforts on the removal of "the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us." That emphasis, she said, "seems to be a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem" of illegal immigration.
On another controversial topic, Lynch, the top federal prosecutor for parts of New York City and Long Island, said that current National Security Agency intelligence-gathering programs are "constitutional and effective." She said she hopes Congress will renew three expiring provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which allows the FBI to obtain search warrants and communications intercepts in intelligence cases.
Lynch made her remarks at a generally cordial Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, a likely prelude to her swift approval as the nation's first black female attorney general. The event was the first confirmation proceeding for any of President Barack Obama's nominees since Republicans took control of the Senate this month.
Lynch, a daughter of the segregated South, was accompanied at the hearing by about 30 family members and friends. Among them were her father, who is a retired minister, her husband and several members of her college sorority, Delta Sigma Theta, wearing their trademark red.
Settling into the witness chair for what promised to be a long day of questioning, Lynch promised a fresh relationship with law enforcement and Congress."I pledge to all of you and to the American people that I will fulfill my responsibilities with integrity and independence," she told a panel led by Republicans who say Attorney General Eric Holder has been too willing to follow President Barack Obama's political agenda.
"You're not Eric Holder, are you?" said Texas Republican John Cornyn, one of the current attorney general's most persistent critics.
"No, I'm not, Sir," she responded with a smile.
Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican and committee chairman, made a similar point in the opening moments of the hearing. He said the department is "deeply politicized. But that's what happens when the attorney general of the United States views himself, in his own words, as the president's 'wingman."
Grassley asked first about immigration, and he said the president's actions amounted to rewriting the law rather than enforcing it.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., returned to the subject and asked Lynch if a person who entered the country illegally would have a civil right to citizenship, a claim he said Holder has asserted.
She said that for someone not born in the country, citizenship is a privilege to be earned, and that for immigrants entering the country illegally it is not part of a "panoply of civil rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, is widely expected to win confirmation easily, if only because Republicans are so eager for Holder's tenure to end. He has been a lightning rod for conservative criticism, clashing with Republicans and becoming the first sitting attorney general held in contempt of Congress.
In testimony delivered before she was questioned, Lynch said that if confirmed she would focus on combatting terrorism and cybercrime and would protect the vulnerable from criminal predators.
And she was at pains to promise what Republican critics demanded in advance.
"I look forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the United States Senate and the entire United States Congress, a relationship based on mutual respect and constitutional balance," she said.
Holder also battled the perception from critics that he aligned himself more with protesters of police violence than with members of law enforcement, a charge he and the Justice Department have strongly denied — but one that resonated in the aftermath of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers.
In her prepared testimony, Lynch promised a fresh start in that relationship, too.
"Few things have pained me more than the recent reports of tension and division between law enforcement and the communities we serve," Lynch said, pledging to "work to strengthen the vital relationships" if confirmed.
Lynch's hearing comes amid a nationwide spotlight on police tactics in the wake of deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers, as well as the slaying last month of two officers in New York City. It's an issue Lynch, 55, is deeply familiar with.
Lynch helped prosecute the New York City police officers who severely beat and sexually assaulted Haitian immigrant Abner Louima in 1997. Her office in New York is currently leading a civil rights investigation into the police chokehold death of Eric Garner in Staten Island last summer.
Panicked super rich buying boltholes with private airstrips to escape if poor rise up
Hedge fund managers are buying up remote ranches and land in places like New Zealand to flee to in event of wide-spread civil unrest
Getty
Escape: Rich financiers have put plans in place to getaway from rioters
Super rich hedge fund managers are buying 'secret boltholes' where they can hideout in the event of civil uprising against growing inequality, it has been claimed.
Nervous financiers from across the globe have begun purchasing landing strips, homes and land in areas such as New Zealand so they can flee should people rise up.
With growing inequality and riots such as those in London in 2011 and in Fergusonand other parts of the USA last year, many financial leaders fear they could become targets for public fury.
Robert Johnson, president of the Institute of New Economic Thinking, told people at the World Economic Forum in Davos that many hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes.
He said: “I know hedge fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway."
Getty
Hideaway: Rich people are plotting to escape to remote parts of the world
Mr Johnson, said the economic situation could soon become intolerable as even in the richest countries inequality was increasing.
He said: "People need to know there are possibilities for their children – that they will have the same opportunity as anyone else.
"There is a wicked feedback loop. Politicians who get more money tend to use it to get more even money."
His comments were backed up by Stewart Wallis, executive director of the New Economics Foundation, who when asked about the comments told CNBC Africa: "Getaway cars the airstrips in New Zealand and all that sort of thing, so basically a way to get off. If they can get off, onto another planet, some of them would."
He added: "I think the rich are worried and they should be worried. I mean inequality, why does it matter?
"Most people have heard the Oxfam statistics that now we’ve got 80, the 80 richest people in the world, having more wealth that the bottom three-point-five billion, and very soon we’ll get a situation where that one percent, one percent of the richest people have more wealth than everybody else, the 99."
I
love the “newspeak” that the mainstream media sometimes uses when
discussing the liberal agenda. A good example took place this past week
after President Obama’s State of the Union address when Wolf Blitzer
said that the President was on “questionable ground” with the claims he
was making about his foreign policy victories. Blitzer (and on NBC Richard Engel) then went on to strip those claims down bare, and showed them to be complete and utter fabrications.
So, “questionable ground” in this case actually meant OUTRIGHT LIES.
Which
begs the question… why not just call them what they are? Watch Wolf
throw a little cover Obama’s way. (Seriously, after you watch Wolf, go and watch Richard Engel to see how a journalist really takes down a liar.)
So Wolf thinks Obama was on questionable ground with his foreign policy claims – what about the domestic issues?
This is where I really hope that the media remembers the 2015 State of the Union address in the coming months.
In most regards, the 2015 SOTU was nothing to write home about. President Obama just rehashed the same old tired speeches he’s been giving for the last 6+ years, added some current commentary and laid his standard nothing-burger of an egg. (Mixed in with a boatload of lies, of course.)
However, there was one thing pretty extraordinary about this years’ SOTU. President Obama couldn’t help himself, and he just kept repeating how he wouldn’t work with Republicans… OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
On issue after issue the President made it clear that Republicans (who were just over whelmingly handed back the reins of leadership in Congress) would get vetoed on all of their major campaign issues. Sure, the American people may have just demanded change through the 2014 midterm election… but shoot, Obama is king and he does what he wants! (Wait… he’s not a king?)
“I don’t remember a State of the Union Address where I heard a President issue so many veto threats… to the opposite Party in the US Congress.”
I’ll tell you why you don’t remember this ever happening before Wolf… it’s because it hasn’t!
He actually set the record for veto threats in a State of the Union address! The media better remember this the next time they feel the urge to talk about Republican intransigence or obstruction. The truth is, obstruction works both ways and it’s usually the Party who’s not in control of the legislature that is doing the obstruction. President Obama was kind enough to illustrate that for us perfectly in the State of the Union.
He doesn’t care if Congress passes the Keystone XL Pipeline – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress issues harsher Iranian sanctions – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress works to fix Obamacare – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress gets rid of Obamacare – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress cuts taxes, spending and waste – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress gets rid of regulations and makes doing business easier – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress passes stricter abortion laws – he’s vetoing it. He doesn’t care if Congress finds a way to bring world peace – he’s vetoing it…
You get the point. Hopefully the media finally does, too.
'We will cut off your head in the White House': ISIS threatens to behead Obama and turn the U.S. into a 'Muslim province' in new execution video
Footage shows masked jihadist standing over kneeling Kurdish soldier
Militant tells U.S. President: 'Know, oh Obama, that we will reach America'
Fighter also threatens terror attacks in France and 'it's sister' Belgium
Warns Kurdish leader he will be beheaded before executing soldier
Islamic State militants have threatened to behead Barack Obama and turn the U.S. into a Muslim province in the latest gruesome video to emerge from their self-styled caliphate.
The footage shows a black-clad jihadist standing over a Kurdish soldier who, in a sickening climax to the video, has his head cut off.
Before the hostage is executed, the ISIS fighter warns the U.S. president: 'Know, oh Obama, that we will reach America.
'Know also that we will cut off your head in the White House and transform America into a Muslim province.'
Scroll down for video
+3
Threats: Islamic State militants issued a direct threat at the U.S. president in their latest video
+3
Sickening: The militant warns the Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barazani: 'Every time you launch a missile, we will send you back the head of one of your soldiers'
The militant's threats do not stop at America, but also include a message for France and 'sister' Belgium.
He says: 'We advise you that we will come to you with car bombs and explosive charges and will cut off your heads'.
Earlier this month, jihadist gunmen killed 17 people in a terror attack in Paris. Days later Belgium intelligence services smashed a suspect Islamist plot to kill a police officer or judge.
The militant then saves his most personal attack for the Kurdish leader Masoud Barazani, who is currently leading the fight against ISIS in Iraq.
'As for you, oh Masoud (Barazani), you dog, we are going to behead you and throw you into the trash bin of history.
'Know that we are men who fear no-one. We will institute the laws of Allah, may he be exalted and praised.'
+3
Gruesome: Memri TV discovered the latest video and translated it from Arabic. The threats do not stop at America, but also include a message for France and 'it's sister' Belgium
Referring to the Kurdish hostage, he continues: 'This is the fate of one of your soldiers, and every time you launch a missile, we will send you back the head of one of your soldiers.
'You are killing children and bombarding civilians while claiming that this is forbidden in your constitution.'
The video, which ends with the hostage being beheaded, was discovered by Memri TV which translated it from Arabic.
It emerged two days after Kurdish fighters expelled ISIS from the strategic Syrian town of Kobane on the Turkish border after months of fierce fighting.
The news prompted celebrations among residents who fled across the frontier into Turkey, with thousands gathering at the border in the hope they will be able to return home more than four months after the fighting first started.
The town's recapture marked a key symbolic and strategic blow against ISIS, but officials warned massive reconstruction was needed and the fight would continue for the surrounding villages.
Are you in doubt that the real original jurisdiction De Jure Republic is being restored? Do you have Questions that you want answered? Do you want to get involved? Visit https://national-assembly.net/ for more information and to participate. Check out the forums as the national assembly is 100% transparent to the public and welcomes public participation. This is the real deal folks. This is our last chance to do it right and nullify the 1871 contract that employed the U.S. Corporation to provide 19 governmental services to the people. This is our right under Article 1 of the Bill of rights. This also nullifies General Order 100 of 1863.
Search This Blog "if this search box is working"
Donation to assist in efforts to restore our republic
The DUKE - Patriot!
Born in 1948 Died in 2015
National Assembly of the people returning to self governance
Join the forums and introduce yourself so your state coordinator can connect with you.
Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?
Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle
11
Followers
The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.
