Monday, June 30, 2014

UN Takeover of America 
Meet the Man Who Will Be In Charge of the UN Takeover of America, 27 Jun, 2014 by Dave Hodges      
Meet the ultimate insider. Soon, every American will know his name.
In Part One, I detailed how the United Nations is posturing to seize American guns as a prelude to martial law. If you have not read Part One, it will be helpful to do so before reading the rest of this article.
Any police detective will tell you that it is sometimes necessary to look at the facts of an old crime in order to solve a new crime. If one wants to understand the forces at work which are posturing to enslave America, one has to first take a summary look at the forces behind the so-called Gulf Oil Spill because many of the players, one in particular, will prominently figure in what is coming.
The Genesis of Our Present Demise: Before we can solve the soon-to-be-crime in which the UN completes its pre-positioning of its assets and moves to seize American guns and impose martial law under the umbrella of a completely manufactured crisis, we need to take a retrospective peek at what happened in the Gulf Oil Spill.
Shortly following the Gulf Oil Spill, I wrote a seven part series which exposed the conspiracy, which in part, blew the lid off the event by demonstrating the money movement prior to the explosion was orchestrated. Yes, I am saying that this was a false flag event. Proving this assertion is as easy as counting 1-2-3. The players involved in the Great Gulf Coast Holocaust were the following:
1. British Petroleum was the owner of the oil being removed from the floor of the Gulf. BP CEO Tony Hayward sold 40% of his BP holdings in the weeks prior to the spill and paid off his mortgage on his estate in Kent, England, avoided staggering losses. And true to form involving the pattern of perpetuating a false flag event with media complicity, on June 8, 2010, less than six weeks following the oil spill, BP bought Google and Yahoo Search Terms, related to the oil spill, in an obvious attempt to conceal as much of the truth as possible from the public.
2. Halliburton was drilling at the base of the Deepwater Horizon. Very coincidentally, only 11 days before, on April 9, 2010, Halliburton purchased Boots and Coots for a quarter of a billion dollars. Just who is Boots and Coots? Coincidentally, they are the largest oil clean up firm in the world And when the explosion took place 11 days later, wasn’t it fortunate that Halliburton was there armed with Boots and Coots as they capitalized on their timely good fortune. Subsequently, Halliburton’s profits increased 83% in just 3 months following the Gulf Oil Crisis subsequent to the clean-up efforts. It was simply raining coincidences!
3. Goldman Sachs and Transocean instituted a “put option” on Transocean’s stock for preferred Transocean insiders the very morning of the explosion. Transocean boldly walked away with a $270 million dollar profit immediately following the explosion because they had doubly indemnified the rig only weeks prior to the explosion through Lloyds of London. This alone should have been enough to trigger a massive investigation. The subsequent cover-up for this event began in 2007, three years before the event, as Goldman Sachs reorganized Transocean, the owner of the destroyed oil rig, into a Cayman Island corporation. In doing so, it made Transocean virtually impossible for Congress to investigate and  subsequently discipline the perpetrators. 
Oh, and the President got his hands dirty as well. The late Bob Chapman, while appearing on the Alex Jones Show in June of 2010, revealed that Obama’s only asset holder, Vanguard I and Vanguard II, dramatically sold off BP stock only few weeks before Gulf oil explosion. Chapman also revealed that “According to this FSB report the largest seller of BP stock in the weeks before this disaster occurred was the American investment company known as Vanguard who through two of their financial arms (Vanguard Windsor II Investor and Vanguard Windsor I Investor) unloaded over 1.5 million shares of BP stock saving their investors hundreds of millions of dollars, chief among them was President Obama. The FSB further estimates in this report that through Obama’s three accounts in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund he stands to make another $100 million over the next 10 years as their largest stock holding is in the energy giant Exxon Mobil which they believe will eventually acquire BP and all of their assets for what will be essentially a “rock bottom” price and which very predictably BP has hired Goldman Sachs to advise them on.” Watch the entire interview below.
The top five dumping institutions of BP stock just prior to the spill included Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (-4,680,822),  Wachovia Bank National Association(-2,667,419) and it is important to note that Wachovia is a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, thus, making this one tight little family of co-conspirators. We also see massive dumping of Sanders Capital, LLC (-1,371,785) and PNC Bank, National Association (-1,177,413) brings noted globalist George Soros into the conspiracy as well. And we now know who orchestrated the entire event. 
Peter Sutherland: A Person of Strong Interest. Many have asked if there was a central figure who coordinated this conspiracy. If I were an unencumbered investigator and not operating under the umbrella of an agenda, I would want to look closely at a globalist named Peter Sutherland as the possible mastermind. But you see, Sutherland is not just the architect of the Gulf Oil Spill, as you will soon note, he will be behind what is coming with the United Nations take down of the United States.
Peter Sutherland
Peter Sutherland is an insider’s, insider.  He is on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, he is an Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (2010-present), he was Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) (2001–2010) and Sutherland was Vice Chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (2006–2009). Sutherland was also the former head of the World Trade Organization and the related GATT. Sutherland is the ultimate insider.
More to the point, from 1996-2009, Sutherland was the CEO of BP. In 2009, he resigned from BP and assumed a “non-executive” CEO position with Goldman Sachs, less than a year before the Gulf Event.
Sutherland was in position to know how to manipulate this event and further, he would have been the one at Goldman Sachs who was in charge of the dumping of BP assets prior to explosion and to have orchestrated the cover-ups of Transocean and Halliburton. Where was the FBI and the SEC through all of this?
As if this is not enough to raise eyebrows, here is where Sutherland becomes my primary person of interest in this conspiracy. In 2006, Peter Sutherland was appointed as the special representative (SRSG) on the United Nations International Migration and Development.
The UN’s International Migration and Development would be in charge of large scale population movements. At one time, I believed that the Gulf was going to be evacuated and that Sutherland, who helped his corporate cronies profit from the event, would be in charge of the UN mandated evacuation of the Gulf. That still might happen, especially considering that Jesse Ventura discovered an Army Corps of Engineers document granting the Corps $40 billion dollars to evacuate the Gulf. However, today, there is a much more pressing issue. I was correct when I stated that Sutherland is going to be in charge of a major UN population movement inside the United States, but it is going to be triggered by an influx of millions of illegal aliens who will unwittingly create a monumental catastrophe on our border with Mexico and that crisis is already underway.
The Overrunning of America’s Southwest Border by Illegal Alien Children On June 19, 2014, I wrote a story which detailed how America’s southwestern border is being overrun by illegal aliens, mostly children. Why just the children? That same day on my website, I published an article which contained an advertisement by the US government for escorts to help illegal immigrant children who were going to be illegally crossing the border. In other words, this immigration crisis was planned at least 7 months in advance by the United States government.
The national mainstream media is not yet covering the growing holocaust on our border with Mexico to the degree that it needs to be. People are soon going to be starving, dying of thirst from crossing the border in very hot 110+ temperatures and some of these immigrants are bringing diseases into the US because of the extremely unsanitary conditions on the border.
The local media in Arizona is covering this horrific event, but not the national media. Below is a picture of illegal immigrant children being held in very primitive conditions in Nogales, Arizona. A holocaust in the making which will require the intervention of the UN Migrant Council headed by Peter Sutherland. Make this picture go viral.
You know this is being orchestrated into a Hegelian Dialectic on the border. The children of Central America did not wake up this June and decide to hold their collective recesses on the border with the United States. They were encouraged and provided transport (see Part One). When Does This…..?…become this? Gun Confiscation and Martial Law Happen When “These Guys” Show Up
What Ties This All Together?
Question: When will the UN be called into play and take command of the “international crisis on the American border? Answer: When helpless children begin to die in the hot Arizona summer and America’s compassion for children, regardless of where they come from, is put into play. This will get the UN “relief workers” to be initially accepted.
Watch the news events in the coming days and weeks. Soon, every news item on this event will accentuate the suffering that these poor children are going through as they are herded into America without any adult supervision. And yes, God does command us to help these innocent ones. However, this will be the excuse that is needed to roll out these prepositioned UN assets.
The immigration/border crisis is at least one part of the plot to subjugate America. And when it comes to relocating the soon-to-be millions of children flooding here to safe havens, who will be in charge? It will be Peter Sutherland and the UN Migration Council. And once the UN troops are openly on our streets, the foothold will have been achieved. Gun confiscation and martial law will be a foregone conclusion as the next, yet undefined, false flag event will unfold.
When you see the blue helmets on your streets, it will be Peter Sutherland in charge. And I am certain that he will handle this crisis with the same demeanor and integrity as he handled the Gulf crisis.
Meet your soon-to-be new United Nations Governor. He orchestrated the Gulf crisis and now he will be “managing” the border crisis.
A Future Press Conference
“As President, I want to encourage all Americans to welcome with open arms, the Peacekeepers from the United Nations as they help us mitigate the crisis at the border. God Bless America”!
Take a look at Peter Sutherland, below, as he was video taped at Bilderberg this month. You can often tell a lot about the way a man carries himself.


$4 Trillion Global Warming Hoax

ROHRABACHER: Presidential snow job on global warming A congressman sets the record straight

Mr. President
My apologies for missing your commencement address at the University of California at Irvine, honoring the 50th anniversary of one of our fine academic institutions. Meetings with my constituents just seemed more pressing, and, of course, we can meet back in Washington whenever it’s convenient for you. In any case, between fundraisers and enjoying the “Zot! Zot! Zot!” chants of the graduating Anteaters, the questions I have raised about your “green” agenda clearly were on your mind. You evidently determined that ridiculing those, like me, who question your “settled” science would be the best way to make your case. To the laughing grads, you said: “And today’s Congress is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change. They will tell you it is a hoax, or a fad. There was one member of Congress who mentioned a theory involving ‘dinosaur flatulence’ — which I won’t get into.”
Mr. President, we both know I have referred to the theory of man-made global warming as a “hoax,” and, yes, I once used to the phrase “dinosaur flatulence” as a soft jab at what I considered to be climate alarmism. What I have learned is never to underestimate humorless zealots, especially those cloaked in the pretensions of “science.” My little attempt at lighthearted ridicule was reported and endlessly repeated as though it is something I seriously believe. The continuing misrepresentation of my humor underscores my observation that global-warming alarmists misrepresent what they portray as facts. One of the traits of a fanatic is the willingness to conduct personal attacks, to limit debate, to use questionable facts and to seek government to impose policy on others.
Sir, my congressional colleagues and I cannot ignore costs when making decisions. Simply put, no matter how apocalyptic the theory behind it, we cannot make this crony-capitalist concoction of yours into a policy priority. We’re also obliged to hold in check the coercive ambitions of a science-government complex, that with research grants, regulatory overreach and legislative conceit that corrals scientists into acquiescence and conformity.
That complex corrupts scientific method itself. When one of your top EPA administrators came before the Science, Space and Technology Committee, I asked her about the much-heralded claim that “97 percent” of scientists form a global-warming “consensus” — consensus being historically antithetical to scientific inquiry itself. Her stammered answer would have made any U.C. Irvine student blush, as would any such feeble research. Did anyone ever ask 97 percent of the world’s scientists? Seriously?
It turns out, the sampling that led to this preposterous 97 percent claim was a questionnaire of scientists predisposed to agree. Tautologies are commonplace in politics, but this kind of methodology has no place in academia. And those charged with regulating us should be disqualified when they resort to them. This dodge, Mr. President, was repeated when I asked the same question to the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as your own science adviser, John Holdren. None would defend the claim that 97 percent of all scientists support the theory of man-made global warming.
Moreover, reported land-based, near-surface temperatures have not increased in the past 17 years. Not one of the more than 70 different climate models predicted such a pause. Meanwhile, analyses and studies that disagree with the predetermined intergovernmental outcome, such as the recent study showing that Antarctic glacier melt is a result of volcanoes, are ignored by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by your administration. Despite our current severe conditions in California, there is less global drought now than “average.” All climate models predict a wetter California in a warming world, not a drier one. No aspect of the weather or climate currently being blamed on people is outside our planet’s recent natural variability. The same cannot be said for your suggested increases in America’s regulatory burden.
Current, credible calculations show that under the EPA’s carbon-dioxide mandates, by 2100, 19 million jobs will be lost and more than $4 trillion in U.S. tax dollars spent just to achieve a reduction in average temperatures of 0.032 degrees Fahrenheit.  That breaks down to 224,000 lost jobs every year (a bleak scenario for the graduates you addressed), a cost of an additional $51 billion annually, and $3,400 in higher energy costs to the average American family just to achieve a pointless reduction in warming — a warming that has not shown its face in 17 years. Mr. President, the word “hoax” does begin to define what you just tried to pass off on our university graduates.  Zot!
Yours faithfully, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, 48th District, California Dana Rohrabacher is vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Read more:

Hobby Lobby Wins

Supreme Court Rules on Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare: 5-4 decision in landmark battle over religious freedom

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Monday ruled that a “closely held” for-profit business can opt out of Obamacare’s controversial contraception requirement based on religious objections.

The case brought by Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based arts and crafts chain with about 13,000 employees, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet maker, challenged the Affordable Health Care Act requirement that employees provide free contraception coverage, including abortion-inducing drugs.

Hobby Lobby’s argument was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which protects the individual beliefs of citizens.

The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito dismissed the Department of Health and Human Services argument that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies. Alito said that “would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations.”

The opinion said the RFRA’s text “shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice.”

Alito said “the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.”

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of humans who own and control them.”

The opinion said while the dissent argues RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel, an affiliate company of Hobby Lobby, because they cannot “exercise religion,” the justices “offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion.”

“The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputable protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit-making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants.”

The court said that “business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the ‘exercise of religion.’”

While the court ruling was not a sweeping First Amendment freedom of religion ruling, it concluded: “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.”

“It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.”

The opinion made clear the priority of protecting religion.

“RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs. … It is not for the court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.”

Joining Alito were Chief Justice John Roberts, whose determination two years that Obamacare was a tax saved the law, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The opinion concluded that if the government is demanding free abortion-inducing drugs for women, it should pay for them.

The two justices appointed by Obama, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined in the minority opinion, which argued that “accommodations to religious beliefs or observances, the court has clarified, must not significantly impinge on the interests of third parties.”

It said the decision would deny “legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.”

The dissent said “logistical and administrative obstacles” for employees deprived of abortifacients required them “to take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new [government funded and administered] health benefit.”

The question presented in the case was whether any law, such as a nationwide health-care management system imposed by the government, can be so important that Washington can order people to violate their religious faith, on contradiction to the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The religious objections to the contraception mandate raised by the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, and the Hahn family, owners of Conestoga Wood, have been raised in nearly 90 other cases.

The Greens and Hahns said their Christian faith prevents them – under any circumstances – from enabling the deaths of unborn babies. Obamacare requires employers to cover abortion-inducing drugs in health-care plans for their employees on request.

The demands align with Obama’s longstanding support for abortion under any circumstances. He even argued, while a state senator in Illinois, against requiring doctors to provide live-saving help to babies who survive abortions.

Government attorneys have claimed they aren’t asking the people as individuals to violate their faith. But the family owners insist their businesses are inseparable from their personal faith.

The issue even drew a key Obamacare supporter into the dispute on the side of the religious families.

Former Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., provided the deciding vote for Obamacare, even though he had objected to the plan to have taxpayers fund abortions.

He gave up his opposition, drawing scorn from pro-lifers as a traitor, when Obama promised to issue an executive order separate from the law that would respect prohibitions on federal funding of abortion and freedom of conscience and religion.

Stupak wrote a commentary published by USA Today to support the Green and Hahn families.

“As a private citizen,” he wrote, “I’m proud to stand with the Green and Hahn families and their corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, in seeking to uphold our most cherished beliefs that we, as American citizens, should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act.”

He said his objection is to the Obamacare mandate that forces businesses and their owners to cover “methods of contraception that may cause the abortion of new embryos: new human beings.”

Stupak said that in the “battle over the ACA’s passage, pro-life Democratic members of Congress negotiated with the president to ensure that the act would not be employed to promote abortion.”

He “received an ironclad commitment that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored,” he said.

But the authors of the Obamacare law and subsequent regulations have fought back against the faith-based objections. The administration has granted hundreds of exemptions to various rules and regulations under Obamacare but steadfastly has refused to make an allowance for faith issues.

One of the most pointed cases against the contraception mandate was brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns who run homes for the elderly.

The nuns have argued in court documents their faith prohibits them “from participating in the government’s program to distribute, subsidize, and promote the use of contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion-inducing drugs and devices.”

The government has persistently demanded that the Little Sisters “give up” their position on abortion, a brief filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in their case charges.

“The government has fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and continues to fight in this court, to force the Little Sisters to execute and deliver its mandatory contraceptive coverage form. … If the Little Sisters refuse, the government promises to impose severe financial penalties,” the brief notes.

The district court that ordered the Little Sisters to sign a form authorizing a third-party promotion of abortifacients “essentially re-writes the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs for them.”

“Standard moral reasoning underpins the Little Sisters’ refusal to designate, authorize, incentivize, and obligate a third party to do that which the Little Sisters may not do directly,” the brief stated.

“And regardless of what the trial court and the government think the Little Sisters should believe, the undisputed fact is that they do believe their religion forbids them from signing EBSA Form 700. It was not for the district court to disagree with the line drawn by the Little Sisters.”

The Becket Fund has been representing Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, GuideStone, Wheaton College, East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, Colorado Christian University, the Eternal Word Television Network, Ave Maria University and Belmont Abbey College.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing a long list of other plaintiffs.

Hobby Lobby could face $1.3 million in daily fines for refusing to pay for abortion-inducing drugs as Obama demands. A number of other cases challenge Obamacare on additional allegations of unconstitutionality.

In one, attorneys for Matt Sissel – a small-business owner who wants to pay medical expenses on his own and has financial, philosophical and constitutional objections to being ordered to purchase a health plan he does not need or want – charge the Obamacare bill was unconstitutionally launched in the U.S. Senate and is therefore invalid.

They noted that the Constitution requires all tax bills in Congress to begin in the House of Representatives. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., they said, manipulated the legislation by taking the bill number for an innocuous veterans housing program that had been approved by the House, pasting it on the front of thousands of Obamacare pages and voting on it.

That means, they argued, that the entire law was adopted unconstitutionally and should be canceled, including its $800 billion in taxes.

The argument essentially makes the Constitution a silver bullet to kill Obamacare. The case, brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, is based on the Constitution’s Origination Clause. The eventual decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit likely will be advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PLF principal attorney Paul J. Beard II told WND after a recent court hearing that government attorneys claimed the U.S. House did not voice objections at the time of the votes to the fact the Senate had gutted a bill, inserted Obamacare and then approved it.

But Beard said the vote took place was at a time when no one was considering Obamacare as a tax-raising measure, because the Obama administration was arguing that the fees, payments and penalties weren’t taxes. In fact, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that labeled them as taxes, when the issue was before the court the first time.

Also, the attorneys argued, the Constitution allows the Senate to “amend” House bills, even though it requires tax measures to “originate” in the House. So exactly what do “amend” and “originate” mean?

Beard explained that the authors of the Constitution had different intents when they used different words, so it is unlikely the founders’ intent was the same when they allowed “amending” but not “originating.”

Whatever decision is reached, he told WND, it likely will be submitted to the court again, in a request for a hearing before the full court, and later, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It is our goal to get this before the Supreme Court again,” he confirmed. The first trip to the court was a challenge to Obama under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 Obamacare is a tax – likely the biggest tax increase ever in America – also was constitutional.




Sunday, June 29, 2014

UN Hiring Disarmament Police

UN Hiring Peacekeepers to ‘Disarm’ American Citizens?
‘It appears the United Nations anticipates economic collapse and armed revolt in the United States and they are looking for a few good Peacekeepers with “experience with small arms control, conflict/post-conflict crisis management, and economic recovery”. See job posting
The U.N. is hiring a “Disarmament, Demobilization, and Re-integration (DDR) officer” for the apparent purpose of disarming American citizens as the “duty station” is New York City, USA.
The U.N. defines “disarmament” as “the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.”‘
The U.N. is hiring a "Disarmament, Demobilization, and Re-integration (DDR) officer" for the apparent purpose of disarming American citizens as the "duty station" is New York City, USA
The U.N. defines "disarmament" as "the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population."
The U.N.s help wanted ad reads:
These positions are located in field missions of Peace Operations. The DDR Officer typically reports to the head of a work unit or to a senior official responsible for DDR operations in a field location, though this may vary depending on the mission structure. The focus of these jobs is to lead the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of DDR programmes, operations and other related activities in the country or region concerned
Thursday 26th June 2014 at 08:50 By [ DAVID ICKE ]( )
Read more: UN Hiring Peacekeepers to 'Disarm' American Citizens? ]( )

Texas Invasion Update

Militia Members Form Human Chain to Stop Illegals
(Newsmax) – Militia members and other concerned U.S. citizens are converging on the border town of Laredo, Texas, on Friday to create a blockade against illegal immigrants crossing into the United States, the organizer of the human chain and protest said on Newsmax TV’s “MidPoint.”
“This will continue for days and weeks to come” and spread “to other points” along the U.S.-Mexico frontier, Barbie Rogers, founder of the Patriots Information Hotline, said in a telephone interview.
Rogers declined to give an exact head count beyond “more than 50 people” or reveal whether participants are armed, citing worries about their security. 
But she said blockaders will follow the same rules of engagement as protesters in an April standoff between federal officials and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.
“Just like at the Bundy ranch, there will be no patriot out there on that line that will fire first,” Rogers said.
Her website on Wednesday posted a “call to ACTION for all Militia,  III%ers, Oathkeepers, and Patriotic support personnel.”
“We are trying to contact every person and every patriot in the United States to go down and help do something the government should have done a long time ago,” Rogers said.
As for whether blockaders are carrying firearms, she said, “The situation these men are walking into — they have a very good possibility of being shot by the drug cartels down there, the gang members down there, and also by our own government down there.”
A surge of migrants from Central America, many of them unaccompanied children, has caught border officials off guard and left federal and state authorities in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico scrambling to respond.
Rogers said her organization is stepping into the fray with a message: “We’re trying to say that we the people are fed up.”
“The government promised us a wall down there years ago,” Rogers said. “The money … was supposedly given to put this wall up, and it’s not there. Where is it at? Where’s the money at? The government needs to start having accountability to the people.”
Two political analysts appearing on “MidPoint” criticized the blockade as ineffectual and potentially dangerous.
“There really is nobody who I believe rationally … could think that about 50 or so people could really stop the influx of immigration via just a simple human chain,” said liberal commentator Justin Duckham, senior Washington correspondent for Talk Radio News Service.
“Plus, you also have a situation where, if there are any bad actors and somebody gets hurt, this is going to end up to be a disaster,” he said.
“It’s not a good idea,” said conservative commentator and political strategist Erica Holloway, “and probably not as wise as making sure the people that are supposed to be doing their jobs [in immigration enforcement] are doing their jobs.”
Source: June 28, 2014 10:14 am  
The first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired at Concord’s Old North Bridge.  The Bundy ranch near Los Vegas resulted in no shots fired.  We hope this Militia action is supported by the border patrol and local sheriffs and will result in some relief for embattled Laredo Texas.   
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader   

Cobb Braves’ Stadium Mess

Savage finding Braves’ Stadium deal questions an uphill fight by Dick Yarbrough

He has about as much of a chance of succeeding as I do getting a group hug from a bunch of liberal weenies, but give the man credit for making the effort.

Larry Savage, a retired businessman and former candidate for the Cobb County Commission chair, is fighting an uphill battle to get more public involvement into the financing of the new $672 million Atlanta Braves stadium deal, including the county borrowing up to $397 million without seeking voter approval. I had a cup of coffee recently with Savage to hear him out.

Savage has filed two complaints with the Cobb County Ethics Commission, charging that county commissioners have acted unethically in approving funding for new Braves stadium without the public’s input. Both complaints were summarily dismissed.

“The first complaint was dismissed with minimal discussion,” he says. “The second one seems to have been dismissed with no discussion at all. I was not allowed to speak and the members didn’t ask questions, which I thought was an unusual way to conduct an investigation.”

I found it strange Savage was denied the opportunity to speak when a couple of months later, Cobb attorney Gary Pelphrey was allowed by the ethics commission to make his case on nine separate allegations of ethical misconduct by Chairman Tim Lee. Then members spent time discussing each of the nine complaints before voting unanimously against them all.

I called the ethics board’s attorney, J. Lynn Rainey, for some

clarification. Rainey had recused himself from both hearings because he is the attorney for the Cumberland Community Improvement District, which has committed $10 million to the stadium project.

The Code of Ethics is a two-step process,” Rainey says. “The first is an investigative review to look at the substance of the complaint and see if the members form a reasonable belief there may be a violation. If so, they then set a time, date and place for a hearing.”

He concedes the board could have handled the two complaints more consistently. Rainey said that while Mr. Pelphrey was “more assertive” in asking to speak to his complaints and provided more input than that to which he was entitled, he believes the board considered both matters properly.

Rainey tells me that while the ethics commission is required to meet twice a year, this was only the third time the group has heard any formal complaints. Obviously, they are a bit new at this and it showed in the contrast between the Savage and Pelphrey hearings. The Cobb County Ethics Commission clearly needs to get its act together.

Undaunted, Savage continues on. He says the Georgia Constitution is clear the county cannot incur debt without the consent of the voters.

“They will claim the county is not incurring debt,” Savage says. “Their cover will be to have the debt issued by the Galleria Authority. However, the Authority doesn’t have any money to pay the debt because they have written into the agreement that their existing properties are not touchable. The only way they get the money is for the county to give it to them.”

Savage says there is also a provision in the state Constitution that the power of taxation cannot be used in servicing the debt of revenue bonds and that such projects are supposed to be self-funding. Revenue bond principal and interest can only be paid with revenue from the project.

“This project will yield about $6 million a year from the Braves in rent,” Savage claims, “and the debt will be about $25 million a year. The difference is going to have to come from the county.”

While the process is complicated, Savage says the issue is simple, “Cobb County either can or cannot take on $400 million in debt without the public’s approval. That is the essential issue. If office holders want to do these things and nobody wants to bear the burden of opposing them, we are setting a dangerous precedent.”

On July 7, Cobb Superior Court Judge Tain Kell will hold a hearing on validation of the bonds to finance the new Braves stadium. Will there be a legal challenge? Savage says, “I hear a lot of people talking about it. I couldn’t begin to afford it. County officials have put out word they have an ample war chest.” But don’t be surprised to see him pursue the issue

through until the end, which is likely to be in the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Larry Savage knows the odds are steep but that doesn’t stop him from trying. As we were leaving, I asked him if he felt like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. “No,” he says, “I feel like David fighting Goliath and Goliath has all the rocks.” I like this guy.


Source: Marietta Daily Journal, 06.27.14 - 10:23 pm

*You can reach Dick Yarbrough at

<>; at P.O. Box 725373, Atlanta, Georgia 31139; online at <> or on Facebook at <> *



Private sector companies are obligated to their shareholders to make their expansion plans, so that their future operations show a profit.  The Cobb County Commission doesn’t act that way.  They made a deal with the Atlanta Braves that will require heavy debt and subsidies payable by the taxpayers, who didn’t even get a vote on the Bond.  Making the deal without enough parking and extra roads to handle the expected game traffic would make heads roll in the real world. Grownups in the voter ranks need to demand a thorough, well thought-out plan to consider before contracts are signed.  This “ready-fire-aim” brand of private-public scam will lose its luster permanently. Do I hear “taxation without representation” from the voters ? 

The problem with fighting this through the courts is that the Gold Dome has been quietly passing “do whatever the hell you want” laws for decades that allow cities and counties to do “whatever the hell they want”.


Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader