This and That...

[Warph]

Milwaukee School Holding "Gender Bender" Day For Students To

Dress As Transvestites

(HOLY CRAP, this is INSANE!!!  What is wrong with these degenerates?
....and of course academia has no hidden agenda)

Read more at: http://eagnews.org/at-least-one-milwaukee-mom-wont-be-sending-her-child-to-school-on-switch-it-up-day/

'MILWAUKEE – Deidri Hernandez's seven-year-old son won't be in school today, after officials at Tippecanoe School for the Arts and Humanities confirmed they're still holding "Switch It Up Day" – a time for students to come dressed as members of the opposite sex.

Hernandez tells EAGnews the day was originally billed as "Gender Bender Day," but Tippecanoe officials made the name change after she called Principal Jeffrey Krupar to complain.

The Milwaukee mother was not impressed.

"I didn't have a problem with the title. I had a problem with the activity taking place," Hernandez says.

She says it's "ridiculous" and "creepy" to ask elementary boys to come to school dressed as girls, and vice versa, and predicts that having students dress as "transvestites" will distract from the learning process.

Hernandez knows of at least one other parent who shares her concerns and plans to hold her child out of class, too.

[Warph]

Friday, May 24, 2013

HOLDER PERJURY?? TWO JUDGES SAID NO
Before Holder Got James Rosen Warrant

This isn't going to go down well for Eric Holder and the administration.  Last night NBC News reported that it was AG Holder who personally approved the decision to go after Fox News' James Rosen. Today the Department of Justice told Reuters the NBC report is correct, possibly setting up the Attorney General to be indited for perjury.

The Justice Department said on Friday that officials up to Attorney General Eric Holder vetted a decision to search an email account belonging to a Fox News reporter whose report on North Korea prompted a leak investigation.

In a statement emailed to Reuters, the department said the search warrant for the reporter's email account followed all laws and policies and won the independent approval of a federal magistrate judge.
The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee called in Attorney General Eric Holder to testify last week on the AP reporters scandal. As Jim Hoft The Gateway Pundit wrote last night:

During testimony under oath Eric Holder told Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) that targeting journalists was bad policy and something he'd never been involved in.

This is what Holder told Congress:

"First of all you've got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material. This has not fared well in American history... In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy."

This is surprising for two reasons, firstly that Hank Johnson asked a question that did not involve Guam tipping over because of too many marines.  Even more important is that if you compare the statement released today with what he told Hank Johnson last week it looks like Eric Holder perjured himself to Congress.

But it gets much worse.  When asked,  Holder could always give the standard answer for both Steve Martin and anyone in the Obama administration, "HEY---I forgot!" Because of another piece of news reported by Ryan Lizza this afternoon, that answer would be hard to believe even for the Obama sycophants in the mainstream media.

You see, this was not just any search warrant, the Justice Department wanted permission to access James Rosen's communications without letting him know afterwards, which is very unusual its so rare that two judges said no before the DOJ found one who would approve.

Ultimately what this means is this wasn't any "rubber-stamp" type search warrant, they had to appeal twice to get their search approved. It is highly unlikely that even Eric Holder would forget an action against a major news organization which is rare enough, but one that took three tries to get a judges approval is even rarer.

As Lizza's report says:

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen's private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay.

Otherwise: "The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account," Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration's argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen's request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Once again Eric Holder has been caught in a lie, however this time there may be a smoking gun search warrant. Remember when this was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history? That didn't work out very well did it?

[Warph]

White House Guide to Surviving Obuma Drone Strikes

[Warph]

Claws come out as PETA goes after
anonymous online commenters
for shelter kill claims

Via NY Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/claws_come_kills_shelter_peta_goes_rkK9NKluuT53huumRp4L5K


The animal rights group PETA is hunting down personal information for anonymous commenters who allegedly defamed the organization by lambasting its pet euthanasia policy on the Huffington Post, according to a new Manhattan civil lawsuit.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the court to release names, email addresses, phone numbers, and other private details about three bloggers who reacted to an April 2 posting by a no-kill shelter advocate that's received almost 5,000 comments and 240,000 "likes" on Facebook.

The missive, "SHOCKING PHOTOS: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies," purportedly shows dead and dying pets at the group's Virginia headquarters.

The suit quotes "ambersomerville" on April 8 calling the group "animal Kevorkians."

PETA needs to identify the anonymous commenters to bring a lawsuit against them.

A spokesman for Huffington Post declined to talk about pending litigation.

[Warph]

Sen. "I luvz little girls" Menendez: We don't have 60 votes for immigration reform bill

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/menendez-votes-immigration-reform-bill-91884.html#ixzz2UKbzExW4

(Good, let's keep it that way)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/menendez-votes-immigration-reform-bill-91884.html

One of the chief authors of the Senate's Gang of Eight immigration bill is still hunting around for 60 votes in his chamber.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in an interview set to be aired Sunday that the Gang of Eight does not have the votes necessary to break a potential filibuster on the Senate floor — at least right now.

"We don't currently have 60 votes identified in the Senate," Menendez said on "Al Punto" with Jorge Ramos, according to an English-translated transcript provided by Univision. "We need to add more votes on the floor."

Menendez added, "That means that the community in your state, in every state, should be contacting your state's two U.S. senators saying that they want comprehensive immigration reform, that they are going to judge their political future based on this vote."

[Warph]

Why did British bystanders watch a
soldier get hacked to death?

                 

(According to the UK website, "Having an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse can also lead to a fine and/or up to four years in prison." 

And this is where POS Obuma wants to put America.  Think about it, people!

For over twenty minutes, the terrorists were able to parade around and pontificate before police who had guns were able to respond.  Women talked to the two terrorists to try to stop them which was extraordinarily brave, but nobody was able to respond with a weapon, so everyone there was completely at the terrorists' mercy. ...Warph)


Via Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/24/why-did-british-bystanders-watch-a-soldier-get-hacked-to-death/

The recent attack on a British soldier by assassins wielding meat cleavers while bystanders looked on raises the question: "Why didn't anyone try to help the victim?"

Because British citizens are prohibited from carrying objects that could be used as "offensive weapons."

While it is well known that Brits cannot carry guns, a lesser known law prohibits any subject of the Queen from carrying a knife of consequence, pepper spray or a stun gun.

According to the United Kingdom government website, the online storehouse of British government regulations,
it is illegal to:

◦sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under 18
◦carry a knife in public without good reason – unless it's a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, eg a Swiss Army knife
◦carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
◦use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife)
Folding knives, regardless of blade size, with a locking mechanism are illegal in the U.K. for carry in public and are referred to as "lock knives." According to British law, "The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000."
Pepper spray is also illegal under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, which prohibits "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing."

It is illegal to import pepper spray or a stun gun because British law expressly states that pepper spray and stun guns are classified as firearms. Blow guns are classified as "offensive weapons" and are prohibited to own, except for veterinarians or registered animal handlers.

[Warph]

"Out with the Old and in with the Nude"  "No Bullfighting allowed"

               


(I agree... first time I gone with PETA on something they want:  No Bullfighting!)

[Warph]

(The AP investigation demonstrates the urgent necessity to modernize laws that have been outpaced by technology and the ease of collecting massive amounts information about Americans.  We need to modernize the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 by requiring a warrant for surveillance involving communications, phone records, and movements.  We need to update the Espionage Act of 1917 to limit prosecutions to cases involving real harms to our national security.)



Mark Levin: Holder Lied Under Oath – "I Assume House Committee Will Charge Him With Perjury" (Audio)
May 24, 2013, 10:39 AM
On Friday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talked about Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony to the Judiciary Committee regarding the Associated Press. Mark pointed out that Holder lied when he said he didn't know about Justice targeting journalists.

Now we know that Holder signed off on the DOJ going after James Rosen of Fox News. Will Holder be held accountable for deliberately lying to Congress? Mark calls for a Special Prosecutor in the IRS case, the Associated Press case and others.
"I assume the committee will charge him with perjury."[/b]

HOLDER LIED TO CONGRESS On His Role in Investigating News Reporters (Video)

[Warph]

[Warph]

Obama Has His Head-in-the-Sand About Terrorism

Sunday, May 26, 2013
by Barry Rubin

President Barack Obama's speech at the National Defense University, "The Future of Our Fight against Terrorism" is a remarkable exercise in wishful thinking and denial. Here is basically what he says: the only strategic threat to the United States is posed by terrorists carrying out terrorist attacks.

In the 6400 words used by Obama....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/obama-drones-guantanamo-speech-text

....Islam only constitutes three of them and most interestingly in all three the word is used to deny that the United States is at war with Islam. In fact, that is what President George Bush said precisely almost a dozen years ago, after September 11. Yet why have not hundreds of such denials had the least bit of effect on the course of that war?

In fact, to prove that the United States is not at war with Islam, the Obama Administration has sided with political Islam throughout the Middle East, to the extent that some Muslims think Obama is doing damage to Islam, their kind of non-revolutionary Islam.

And how has the fight against al-Qaida resulted in a policy that has, however inadvertently, armed al-Qaida, as in Libya and Syria?

Once again, I will try to explain the essence of Obama strategy, a simple point that many people seem
unable to grasp:

***Obama views al-Qaida as a threat because it wants to attack America directly with terrorism. But all other Islamist groups are not a threat. In fact, they can be used to stop al-Qaida. This is an abandonment of a strategic perspective. The word Islamism or political Islam or any other version of that word do not appear even once. Yet this is the foremost revolutionary movement of this era, the main threat in the world to U.S. interests and even to Western civilization.

If one wanted to come up with a slogan for the Obama Administration it would be that to win the war on terrorism one must lose the war on revolutionary Islamism because only by showing that America is the Islamists' friend will it take away the incentive to join up with al-Qaida and attack the United States.


[Please take the two sections in bold above very seriously if you want to understand U.S. Middle East policy.]


According to Obama:
*If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

*If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Tunisia that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

*If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Syria that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

*If a regime whose viewpoint is basically equivalent to the Muslim Brotherhood—albeit far more subtle and culture—dominates Turkey that is not a strategic threat but a positive advantage because it is the best organization able to curb al-Qaida. And that policy proves that the United States is not at war with Islam.

These and other strategic defeats do not matter, says Obama in effect:

"After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda's leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress."


And yet the Taliban is arguably close to taking over Afghanistan in future. The group has spread to Pakistan. The rule of law in Afghanistan is a joke and soldiers there know that the Afghan government still uses torture.

"Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm's way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts."

Well, it is quite true that security measures within the United States have been largely successful at stopping attacks. But the frequency of attempted attacks has been extensive, some of which were blocked by luck and the expenditure of one trillion dollars. Country after country has been taken over by radical Islamists who can be expected to fight against American interests in future.

Obama continues:
"So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us..."

But he never actually defines it except to suggest that:
*1. Al-Qaida has spread to other countries (which does not sound like a victory for the United States) and
*2. That its affiliates and imitators are more amateurish than those who pulled off the September 11, 2001 attack. Yet they got away with the September 11, 2012 attack.

Indeed, rather than a movement and ideology like Communism and fascism, Obama sounds like a comic book superhero describing life in Gotham City:

"Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society."

Yet his advisor on this issue, CIA director John Brennan has said that the United States cannot be at war with terror because terror is merely a tactic.

So what is the problem: "the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings," as if the Taliban, al-Qaida, the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas are equivalent to the Newtown, Connecticut shooting?


Obama continues:
"What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend."

In other words, it is not a strategic problem but a law enforcement one.
And at another point he added:

Obama: "Deranged or alienated individuals...can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon."

Appears? So Fort Hood and the Boston bombing are still not considered by the American president as part of a war against America but perhaps due to that evil that lies in the hearts of men?

And what is the nature of that criminal conspiracy?

Obama: "Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we've seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda's affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland."

[Horse Shit]

One would never know, however, that al-Qaida was always basically decentralized. Al-Qaida in Arabic means "the base" and what Usama bin Ladin did was to create a focal point to start off a global jihad. Bin Ladin is dead but he accomplished his short-term objective. Moreover, al-Qaida's partner, the Taliban, is doing very well. Who cares whether they directed the attacks in Benghazi (apparently it wasn't a video) and Boston? They inspired those attacks.

"Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria," says Obama, a man who clearly need not fear the mass media turning his phrase against him. After all, it wasn't just unrest but Obama's policy that armed al-Qaida and helped it participate in a successful revolution. And the same point is true in Syria.


Indeed, if Bush was responsible for unintentionlly magnifying the appeal of al-Qaida in Iraq, Obama did the same thing in Syria, except Obama didn't fight them but helped supply the weapons!

At least he called Hizballah a "state-sponsored" terror network though it might have been nice if he mentioned that the state in question is Iran, which also supported terrorists who killed Americans in Iraq. That is another point that Obama left out and yet could easily have mentioned.

And of course he mentioned Oklahoma City, which happened just 20 years ago, in order to suggest that right-wing extremists were also involved in terrorism, even when Fort Hood and Boston are due to some vague cause.


But here's the kicker:
"Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don't arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts."

Yet clearly Obama has no notion—or will not admit to one—of what that "common ideology" might be, except for a misunderstanding, which presumably his outreach will correct, about American intentions.

In fact, though, in the sense that they speak of it, the United States is at war with Islam, the revolutionary sort of Islam of course. To help any country resist radical political Islam is, in their eyes, opposition to proper Islam. Perhaps this is why the Obama Administration seeks to help turn other countries toward Islamist regimes.

Of course, the United States is not at war with Muslims but not only al-Qaida but Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, the Taliban and dozens of other groups, ideologues, and militants know that America is their enemy. No matter what Obama does he will not persuade them and their millions of supporters that the United States is their ally. Even though Obama has often actually made America their ally.

It would be like helping Communism in the Cold War to take over countries in order to show that America is not at war with the Russian people, or to do the same with Nazism to show that America is not at war with the German people, or to help Gamal Abdel Nasser or Saddam Hussein to take over the Middle East to prove America is not at war with the Arab or Muslim people.


A more accurate picture is offered by a Saudi writer in al-Sharq al-Awsat:

"The most acute [aspect of] the problem is that [POS] Obama is laying down the systematic groundwork for the development of extremism and sectarian violence that will make us miss the Al-Qaeda of George W. Bush's era, while deluding himself that he eliminated Al-Qaeda when he killed Osama bin Laden!"