Today Egon von Greyerz told King World News that going forward the world is going to witness, “...unprecedented wealth destruction.” Greyerz, who is founder and managing partner at Matterhorn Asset Management in Switzerland, also said to KWN that gold will soar but in the midst of the rise, “There will be failing economies, higher unemployment, more QE, and extraordinary levels of social unrest.”
I would say that from now on, any economic number being released which is showing an improvement is probably either a fluke or a phony figure. We are not going to see growth in the next few months or even the next few years. If you look at the US, home sales are down 8%, durable orders are down, and debt is continuing to increase.
I believe that in the autumn of 2012 we are going to see real problems in the world, and there will be a series of negative events. There will be failing economies, higher unemployment, more QE, and extraordinary levels of social unrest. When QE is announced, I see a temporary rally in stocks. But at some point stocks will collapse. I’m not talking about mining stocks, but common stocks outside of the mining sector.
Read Full Interview @ King World News
Friday, July 27, 2012
Foreign Troops to Confiscate American Guns Under UN Treaty
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” -Attributed to Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting
For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.
Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.
Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.
Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:
Article 15
International Assistance
In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.
Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.
In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops:
Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans
American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.
Infowars Nightly News co-host Rob Dew underscored the history of training to take American guns in his recent viral report:
Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns
Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes, the mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.” The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bank burned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.
Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.
Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.
Read the treaty text for yourself and see our report from yesterday: Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns
Source With Multiple Links: Infowars.com
Infowars.com
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” -Attributed to Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting
For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.
Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.
Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.
Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:
Article 15
International Assistance
In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.
Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.
In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops:
Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans
American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.
Infowars Nightly News co-host Rob Dew underscored the history of training to take American guns in his recent viral report:
Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns
Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes, the mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.” The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bank burned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.
Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.
Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.
Read the treaty text for yourself and see our report from yesterday: Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns
Source With Multiple Links: Infowars.com
DOJ to Colorado Family: Give Up Your Religion or Your Business
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com
The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.
At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment—the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.
The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius--a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.
The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since—growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.
The Newlands’ lawsuit challenges a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized earlier this year that requires virtually all health plans to cover--without cost-sharing--sterilizations and all Food-and-Drug Administration approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius's rule.
The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”
While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.
In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands' church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius's regulation.
In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.
“The Newlands sincerely believe that the Catholic faith does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,” says the complaint. “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work."
“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”
The Justice Department responded by arguing that if the Newlands’ Roman Catholic faith prevented them from following the Obama administration’s command that they provide their employees with cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, the Newlands could simply give up their business entirely.
The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.
“Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.'”
“The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” the Justice Department told the federal court. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”
“By definition,” the Justice Department claimed, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” DOJ told the court. “Any burden is therefore caused by the company’s choice to enter into a commercial activity.”
In its brief responding to the Justice Department on behalf of the Newland family, the Alliance Defending Freedom forcefully rebutted the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations let alone to family-owned businesses.
“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.
“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.
If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.
“The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”
If they refuse to sell their businesses, families like the Newlands are trapped by the Sebelius regulation. They can stop providing health insurance to themselves and their employees through the business, but then they and their employees would still be required, under Obamacare's individual mandate, to buy health insurance, and under the Sebelius regulation all the health insurance plans they would be able to buy would still be required to cover sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Their premiums would then contribute to those "services," and the business owners would still be required to pay a penalty to the government of about $2,000 per year for each employee they did not insure.
If businesses like the Newlands' try to simply flout the Sebelius regulation and continue providing insurance to their workers that does not cover the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefits that the Obama administration demands, they will be hit with confiscatory financial penalties.
“PPACA also imposes monetary penalties if Hercules were to continue to offer its self-insured plan but continued omitting abortifacients, contraceptive and sterilizations,” said the Newlands' complaint. “The exact magnitude of these penalties may vary according to the complicated provisions of PPACA, but the fine is approximately $100 per day per employee, with minimum amounts applying in different circumstances.
With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands' would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.
Source With Links: CNSNews
CNSNews.com
The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.
At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment—the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.
The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius--a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.
The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since—growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.
The Newlands’ lawsuit challenges a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized earlier this year that requires virtually all health plans to cover--without cost-sharing--sterilizations and all Food-and-Drug Administration approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius's rule.
The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”
While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.
In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”
The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands' church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius's regulation.
In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.
“The Newlands sincerely believe that the Catholic faith does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,” says the complaint. “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work."
“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”
The Justice Department responded by arguing that if the Newlands’ Roman Catholic faith prevented them from following the Obama administration’s command that they provide their employees with cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, the Newlands could simply give up their business entirely.
The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.
“Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.'”
“The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” the Justice Department told the federal court. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”
“By definition,” the Justice Department claimed, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” DOJ told the court. “Any burden is therefore caused by the company’s choice to enter into a commercial activity.”
In its brief responding to the Justice Department on behalf of the Newland family, the Alliance Defending Freedom forcefully rebutted the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations let alone to family-owned businesses.
“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.
“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.
If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.
“The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”
If they refuse to sell their businesses, families like the Newlands are trapped by the Sebelius regulation. They can stop providing health insurance to themselves and their employees through the business, but then they and their employees would still be required, under Obamacare's individual mandate, to buy health insurance, and under the Sebelius regulation all the health insurance plans they would be able to buy would still be required to cover sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Their premiums would then contribute to those "services," and the business owners would still be required to pay a penalty to the government of about $2,000 per year for each employee they did not insure.
If businesses like the Newlands' try to simply flout the Sebelius regulation and continue providing insurance to their workers that does not cover the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefits that the Obama administration demands, they will be hit with confiscatory financial penalties.
“PPACA also imposes monetary penalties if Hercules were to continue to offer its self-insured plan but continued omitting abortifacients, contraceptive and sterilizations,” said the Newlands' complaint. “The exact magnitude of these penalties may vary according to the complicated provisions of PPACA, but the fine is approximately $100 per day per employee, with minimum amounts applying in different circumstances.
With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands' would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.
Source With Links: CNSNews
Public vigil red alert: Raw milk advocate James Stewart seized by armed bounty hunters driving unmarked vehicles with no plates
Mike Adams
Natural News
James Stewart, the 65-year-old raw "milk man" and founder of Rawesome Foods, was assaulted near his home today by three armed men driving unmarked luxury vehicles with no license plates. Carrying firearms on their hips and dressed in gangster-style street clothes, Satanic T-shirt imagery and tattoos, they claimed to be making an "arrest" and verbally assaulted James, forcing his head against a car and screaming, according to witnesses, "You better listen to me or you're gonna have a bad f*ckin' day!"
James Stewart's cell phone was on the entire time, and a phone witness told NaturalNews the arrest was conducted "Nazi style." Meanwhile, James was screaming to anyone who would listen, "HELP ME! HELP ME! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?"
A partial video of the incident was captured by a witness. That video link is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYTP9C7jtrI
James was wanted on $130,000 in bail by Ventura County, which had originally put him on $1 million bail -- an amount usually reserved for murderers, rapists or serial killers. James, accused of selling "unpasteurized milk" through Rawesome Foods, was made the target of an FDA-funded and politically motivated attempt to destroy the raw milk industry in California. He has been charged with financial crimes by Ventura County even though there is literally no legitimate evidence whatsoever linking James to any such crimes, and the entire case is already in the process of being unraveled.
In the Ventura case, there is no crime, no evidence, and not even any justifiable reason to arrest James and put him on bail in the first place! The entire thing was utterly fabricated as a publicity stunt to attempt to intimidate would-be raw milk producers.
Bounty hunters drive cars with no plates, carry weapons, intimidate witnesses
In the arrest video, James clearly says, "Sir I was trying to give you the information that I thought Mr. McAfee was giving to me." James is referring to Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures, California's largest organic milk producer. NaturalNews has confirmed that Mark McAfee, among several other people, had helped fund James Stewart's bail bond.
At that point, the bounty hunters demand, "Head down. Stop making it worse!"
Later in the so-called "arrest," one of the bounty hunters attempts to verbally intimidate the person filming the video, threatening them by saying, "You're interfering with an arrest, you're blocking traffic." In reality, the bounty hunter never identified himself, never read James any rights and was not involved in any legal arrest whatsoever. The whole thing was a charade carried out by what might appear to a rational person to be armed thugs driving stolen vehicles while impersonating undercover police officers.
In the video, what appears to be a firearm can be seen on the hip of one of the men wearing a pink shirt. At no point during the assault did these men show any badges or identification of any kind. According to California law, "All bounty hunters must carry with them a certification of completion of required courses and training programs."
According to witnesses, these armed men did not produce any certificates at all. Instead, they verbally intimidated the people filming the incident. One of the bounty hunters called the camera person a "retard" for daring to film him.
We can hear on the video another bounty hunter saying, "You're in a lot of trouble, you better get an attorney!" During all this, they are rifling through James' pockets and apparently stealing all his personal belongings. "You are in a lot more trouble than anybody up here," one of them says to James. "You are in a lot of trouble."
Over raw milk? Really? Is this what California has come to now? If you sell unpasteurized milk, you get accosted by three armed men driving unlicensed (stolen?) vehicles, working for the state?
"We are not the police..."
When the witnesses filming the incident asked for the badge numbers of the individuals who claimed to be making an "arrest," they were told, "We're not the police so we're not gonna give you badge numbers."
Later in the video, a close-up image appears for one of the license plates of the luxury vehicles used by the armed assailants. It is clearly an Infinity car dealership plate number KMA-367. The vehicle is a white Infinity luxury sedan.
The other vehicle, which also has no California license plate, is a black sports car. While James is being stuffed into one of the vehicles, one of the bounty hunters calls him a "scumbag."
Public vigil needed
James is currently residing in the Ventura county jail. As NaturalNews previously reported, James was tortured in the Los Angeles jail system for a period of eight days (http://www.naturalnews.com/035208_James_Stewart_torture_county_jail.h...).
James has privately told me, the editor of NaturalNews, that he fears if he is taken back to jail, he will be tortured, subjected to starvation or even murdered by the authorities there. This may be more likely than you think, because the outright criminality of California officials who persecuted James Stewart is now being exposed.
For example, NaturalNews has already exposed Michelle LeCavalier and L.A. district attorney prosecutors for illegally signing search warrants and conducting armed raids on Rawesome Foods even though they had never taken an oath of office as required by California law (http://www.naturalnews.com/036523_Rawesome_District_Attorney_imperson...).
This means the armed raid against Rawesome Foods, the arrest of James Stewart and all the actions taken against him were illegal. Furthermore, James now has a potential multi-million-dollar civil case against Los Angeles County -- and possibly individuals in Ventura County -- for false arrest, kidnapping and violating his civil rights while they were "impersonating" officials.
Given these circumstances, James has legitimate reason to fear that county authorities there -- who almost certainly staged the armed bounty hunter interception of James last night -- may quite literally be trying to kill him.
James told me on the phone many times, "I love live, I will not give up. If they say I committed suicide, it means they killed me, Mike. They're gonna try to kill me."
That James was stuffed into unmarked, unlicensed cars driven by intimidating-looking men carrying weapons and verbally threatening witnesses at the scene only further supports the legitimacy of James' fear.
Let Ventura County know we are watching and that we demand the charges against James be dropped
Here, I ask for your support to let the Ventura County DA's office know we are watching them, and we hold them responsible for the treatment of James.
Call the main DA's office at 805-654-2500 and let them know that you are joining tens of thousands of other people who are watching this and carefully scrutinizing their behavior. The Ventura County case against James Stewart is, I can assure you, utterly fabricated and completely without merit. It should be immediately dropped and James set free.
Here's the full contact information for the Ventura County DA's office:
http://da.countyofventura.org/contact_information.htm
Ventura County has been waging a "war of personal vengeance" against Stewart (http://www.naturalnews.com/035197_James_Stewart_Sharon_Palmer_Ventura...). Both Ventura and L.A. counties have spent millions of dollars in taxpayer money in an attempt to incarcerate a raw milk man! A senior citizen! The man is 65 years old, utterly non-violent in every way, and yet has been targeted in the most vicious manner by district attorneys who apparently don't have any real criminals to go after.
Questions remain about the "arrest" of James Stewart
Some serious questions emerge tonight from the "hunting down" of James Stewart by Ventura county:
• What crime has James allegedly committed that is so serious it justifies $130,000 in bail bonds?
• Where is the evidence of such crimes? (It doesn't exist!)
• Why are armed individuals who claim to be working for the county running around Ventura with unlicensed vehicles that appear to be stolen off the new car lot of an Infinity dealership?
• Why were these "bounty hunters" dressed in Satanic imagery and sporting gang-style facial hair and tattoos while driving high-dollar luxury cars?
• Why were they so verbally abusive to James Stewart, calling him a "scumbag" if they were just bounty hunters looking to earn a paycheck?
• How were these bounty hunters able to locate James Stewart in the first place? Were they tipped off by someone?
• What will happen to James Stewart in Ventura county jail? Will they torture him? Will they silence him? Will they drop the charges and apologize?
This story is developing here on NaturalNews.com. We will continue to bring you details as we speak with witnesses and investigate more deeply. Share this story. Spread the word: No one who sells real food in California is safe from the "authorities" there. You can and will be targeted, kidnapped, robbed at gunpoint by the police, then tortured in the jail system.
Watch the bounty hunter "arrest" video here:
Source With Links: NaturalNews.com
Natural News
James Stewart, the 65-year-old raw "milk man" and founder of Rawesome Foods, was assaulted near his home today by three armed men driving unmarked luxury vehicles with no license plates. Carrying firearms on their hips and dressed in gangster-style street clothes, Satanic T-shirt imagery and tattoos, they claimed to be making an "arrest" and verbally assaulted James, forcing his head against a car and screaming, according to witnesses, "You better listen to me or you're gonna have a bad f*ckin' day!"
James Stewart's cell phone was on the entire time, and a phone witness told NaturalNews the arrest was conducted "Nazi style." Meanwhile, James was screaming to anyone who would listen, "HELP ME! HELP ME! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?"
A partial video of the incident was captured by a witness. That video link is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYTP9C7jtrI
James was wanted on $130,000 in bail by Ventura County, which had originally put him on $1 million bail -- an amount usually reserved for murderers, rapists or serial killers. James, accused of selling "unpasteurized milk" through Rawesome Foods, was made the target of an FDA-funded and politically motivated attempt to destroy the raw milk industry in California. He has been charged with financial crimes by Ventura County even though there is literally no legitimate evidence whatsoever linking James to any such crimes, and the entire case is already in the process of being unraveled.
In the Ventura case, there is no crime, no evidence, and not even any justifiable reason to arrest James and put him on bail in the first place! The entire thing was utterly fabricated as a publicity stunt to attempt to intimidate would-be raw milk producers.
Bounty hunters drive cars with no plates, carry weapons, intimidate witnesses
In the arrest video, James clearly says, "Sir I was trying to give you the information that I thought Mr. McAfee was giving to me." James is referring to Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures, California's largest organic milk producer. NaturalNews has confirmed that Mark McAfee, among several other people, had helped fund James Stewart's bail bond.
At that point, the bounty hunters demand, "Head down. Stop making it worse!"
Later in the so-called "arrest," one of the bounty hunters attempts to verbally intimidate the person filming the video, threatening them by saying, "You're interfering with an arrest, you're blocking traffic." In reality, the bounty hunter never identified himself, never read James any rights and was not involved in any legal arrest whatsoever. The whole thing was a charade carried out by what might appear to a rational person to be armed thugs driving stolen vehicles while impersonating undercover police officers.
In the video, what appears to be a firearm can be seen on the hip of one of the men wearing a pink shirt. At no point during the assault did these men show any badges or identification of any kind. According to California law, "All bounty hunters must carry with them a certification of completion of required courses and training programs."
According to witnesses, these armed men did not produce any certificates at all. Instead, they verbally intimidated the people filming the incident. One of the bounty hunters called the camera person a "retard" for daring to film him.
We can hear on the video another bounty hunter saying, "You're in a lot of trouble, you better get an attorney!" During all this, they are rifling through James' pockets and apparently stealing all his personal belongings. "You are in a lot more trouble than anybody up here," one of them says to James. "You are in a lot of trouble."
Over raw milk? Really? Is this what California has come to now? If you sell unpasteurized milk, you get accosted by three armed men driving unlicensed (stolen?) vehicles, working for the state?
"We are not the police..."
When the witnesses filming the incident asked for the badge numbers of the individuals who claimed to be making an "arrest," they were told, "We're not the police so we're not gonna give you badge numbers."
Later in the video, a close-up image appears for one of the license plates of the luxury vehicles used by the armed assailants. It is clearly an Infinity car dealership plate number KMA-367. The vehicle is a white Infinity luxury sedan.
The other vehicle, which also has no California license plate, is a black sports car. While James is being stuffed into one of the vehicles, one of the bounty hunters calls him a "scumbag."
Public vigil needed
James is currently residing in the Ventura county jail. As NaturalNews previously reported, James was tortured in the Los Angeles jail system for a period of eight days (http://www.naturalnews.com/035208_James_Stewart_torture_county_jail.h...).
James has privately told me, the editor of NaturalNews, that he fears if he is taken back to jail, he will be tortured, subjected to starvation or even murdered by the authorities there. This may be more likely than you think, because the outright criminality of California officials who persecuted James Stewart is now being exposed.
For example, NaturalNews has already exposed Michelle LeCavalier and L.A. district attorney prosecutors for illegally signing search warrants and conducting armed raids on Rawesome Foods even though they had never taken an oath of office as required by California law (http://www.naturalnews.com/036523_Rawesome_District_Attorney_imperson...).
This means the armed raid against Rawesome Foods, the arrest of James Stewart and all the actions taken against him were illegal. Furthermore, James now has a potential multi-million-dollar civil case against Los Angeles County -- and possibly individuals in Ventura County -- for false arrest, kidnapping and violating his civil rights while they were "impersonating" officials.
Given these circumstances, James has legitimate reason to fear that county authorities there -- who almost certainly staged the armed bounty hunter interception of James last night -- may quite literally be trying to kill him.
James told me on the phone many times, "I love live, I will not give up. If they say I committed suicide, it means they killed me, Mike. They're gonna try to kill me."
That James was stuffed into unmarked, unlicensed cars driven by intimidating-looking men carrying weapons and verbally threatening witnesses at the scene only further supports the legitimacy of James' fear.
Let Ventura County know we are watching and that we demand the charges against James be dropped
Here, I ask for your support to let the Ventura County DA's office know we are watching them, and we hold them responsible for the treatment of James.
Call the main DA's office at 805-654-2500 and let them know that you are joining tens of thousands of other people who are watching this and carefully scrutinizing their behavior. The Ventura County case against James Stewart is, I can assure you, utterly fabricated and completely without merit. It should be immediately dropped and James set free.
Here's the full contact information for the Ventura County DA's office:
http://da.countyofventura.org/contact_information.htm
Ventura County has been waging a "war of personal vengeance" against Stewart (http://www.naturalnews.com/035197_James_Stewart_Sharon_Palmer_Ventura...). Both Ventura and L.A. counties have spent millions of dollars in taxpayer money in an attempt to incarcerate a raw milk man! A senior citizen! The man is 65 years old, utterly non-violent in every way, and yet has been targeted in the most vicious manner by district attorneys who apparently don't have any real criminals to go after.
Questions remain about the "arrest" of James Stewart
Some serious questions emerge tonight from the "hunting down" of James Stewart by Ventura county:
• What crime has James allegedly committed that is so serious it justifies $130,000 in bail bonds?
• Where is the evidence of such crimes? (It doesn't exist!)
• Why are armed individuals who claim to be working for the county running around Ventura with unlicensed vehicles that appear to be stolen off the new car lot of an Infinity dealership?
• Why were these "bounty hunters" dressed in Satanic imagery and sporting gang-style facial hair and tattoos while driving high-dollar luxury cars?
• Why were they so verbally abusive to James Stewart, calling him a "scumbag" if they were just bounty hunters looking to earn a paycheck?
• How were these bounty hunters able to locate James Stewart in the first place? Were they tipped off by someone?
• What will happen to James Stewart in Ventura county jail? Will they torture him? Will they silence him? Will they drop the charges and apologize?
This story is developing here on NaturalNews.com. We will continue to bring you details as we speak with witnesses and investigate more deeply. Share this story. Spread the word: No one who sells real food in California is safe from the "authorities" there. You can and will be targeted, kidnapped, robbed at gunpoint by the police, then tortured in the jail system.
Watch the bounty hunter "arrest" video here:
Source With Links: NaturalNews.com
Government, Military To Fly Predator Drones Over North Dakota
Local pilots protest use of blinding lasers in their airspace.
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
July 27, 2012
In conjunction with The Federal Aviation Administration, the Air National Guard plans to fly unmanned Predator aircraft over North Dakota and have them aim lasers at ground targets in the latest development in the ongoing mass expansion of the use of drones in US skies.
North Dakota news website INFORUM reports that the Air National Guard’s 119th Wing, based at Fargo’s Hector International Airport, will begin operating the drones by early October.
According to the report, the FAA has officially established eight blocks of restricted airspace over National Guard base Camp Grafton South near New Rockford. The airspace will be from 500 to 9,999 feet above sea level and commercial aircraft will be prohibited from using it.
The training will focus around target practice for laser-guided bombs and missiles. Targets will be located on small buildings or on the ground.
“People may hear airplanes flying above, but there will be no lights visible and no explosions,” Col. Rick Gibney commented.
“The laser itself is not used much during the flight,” he said, “less than a minute per simulated engagement.”
Gibney added that North Dakota was chosen owing to its sparsely-populated skies and that the area could become the nation’s centre for all military drone training activity.
However, local pilots with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association have objected to the move, noting that the use of lasers in their flight paths could be hazardous.
The Department of Defense has been less than forthcoming with information on its use of drones over the US.
Indeed, the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), part of the DoD, recently denied operating surveillance drones in two different states, issuing statements that have since been proven to be completely false.
Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, USSOCOM is the Unified Combatant Command charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
As reported by the open information advocacy group Public Intelligence:
Following our publication of a map of current and proposed Department of Defense drone activities within the U.S., several journalists with local publications around the country wrote articles regarding drone activities that were listed in their area. David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph wrote about the listing of New Hampshire’s Mt. Washington as the site of a USSOCOM drone activity involving small unmanned aerial vehicles including the Raven and Wasp. Corey Pein of the Willamette Week wrote about a planned USSOCOM drone activity in Portland that was listed as utilizing the same types of drones.
Public Intelligence notes that when the reporters contacted USSOCOM for clarification and further details, they were told that the information on the map was inaccurate and that USSOCOM does not operate drone bases in either area.
However, further investigation revealed that activities and exercises using surveillance drones in both areas were indeed carried out under the authority of USSOCOM in 2010 and 2009 respectively.
Furthermore, the use and storage of drones was confirmed by the offices of Senators in both states:
In New Hampshire, a local newspaper has now confirmed with the office of Senator Kelly Ayotte that in 2010, Navy Special Operations Forces utilized areas around Mt. Washington to conduct training operations using Wasp and Raven drones. David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph was further able to confirm via Army Lt. Col. James Gregorythat similar exercises were also conducted in 2009 using the same types of drones.
In Oregon, the Willamette Week was able to confirm with the office of Sen. Ron Wydenthat drones are currently stored in Portland for several military units in the area.
“If the military wishes to counter controversy from the increasing integration of drones into domestic airspace, then it may help to not make statements to press that are inaccurate or disproved by publicly available congressional reports.” the group notes, adding that USSOCOM “denied or misrepresented” its involvement in domestic drone activities and actively sought to shut down any exchange of information on the matter.
A recently uncovered Air Force document also raised alarms over military use of spy drones in US skies. The document outlines how to circumvents privacy laws and clears the way for the Pentagon to use drones to monitor the activities of Americans.
Source With Links: Infowars.com
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
July 27, 2012
In conjunction with The Federal Aviation Administration, the Air National Guard plans to fly unmanned Predator aircraft over North Dakota and have them aim lasers at ground targets in the latest development in the ongoing mass expansion of the use of drones in US skies.
North Dakota news website INFORUM reports that the Air National Guard’s 119th Wing, based at Fargo’s Hector International Airport, will begin operating the drones by early October.
According to the report, the FAA has officially established eight blocks of restricted airspace over National Guard base Camp Grafton South near New Rockford. The airspace will be from 500 to 9,999 feet above sea level and commercial aircraft will be prohibited from using it.
The training will focus around target practice for laser-guided bombs and missiles. Targets will be located on small buildings or on the ground.
“People may hear airplanes flying above, but there will be no lights visible and no explosions,” Col. Rick Gibney commented.
“The laser itself is not used much during the flight,” he said, “less than a minute per simulated engagement.”
Gibney added that North Dakota was chosen owing to its sparsely-populated skies and that the area could become the nation’s centre for all military drone training activity.
However, local pilots with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association have objected to the move, noting that the use of lasers in their flight paths could be hazardous.
The Department of Defense has been less than forthcoming with information on its use of drones over the US.
Indeed, the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), part of the DoD, recently denied operating surveillance drones in two different states, issuing statements that have since been proven to be completely false.
Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, USSOCOM is the Unified Combatant Command charged with overseeing the various Special Operations Commands of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
As reported by the open information advocacy group Public Intelligence:
Following our publication of a map of current and proposed Department of Defense drone activities within the U.S., several journalists with local publications around the country wrote articles regarding drone activities that were listed in their area. David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph wrote about the listing of New Hampshire’s Mt. Washington as the site of a USSOCOM drone activity involving small unmanned aerial vehicles including the Raven and Wasp. Corey Pein of the Willamette Week wrote about a planned USSOCOM drone activity in Portland that was listed as utilizing the same types of drones.
Public Intelligence notes that when the reporters contacted USSOCOM for clarification and further details, they were told that the information on the map was inaccurate and that USSOCOM does not operate drone bases in either area.
However, further investigation revealed that activities and exercises using surveillance drones in both areas were indeed carried out under the authority of USSOCOM in 2010 and 2009 respectively.
Furthermore, the use and storage of drones was confirmed by the offices of Senators in both states:
In New Hampshire, a local newspaper has now confirmed with the office of Senator Kelly Ayotte that in 2010, Navy Special Operations Forces utilized areas around Mt. Washington to conduct training operations using Wasp and Raven drones. David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph was further able to confirm via Army Lt. Col. James Gregorythat similar exercises were also conducted in 2009 using the same types of drones.
In Oregon, the Willamette Week was able to confirm with the office of Sen. Ron Wydenthat drones are currently stored in Portland for several military units in the area.
“If the military wishes to counter controversy from the increasing integration of drones into domestic airspace, then it may help to not make statements to press that are inaccurate or disproved by publicly available congressional reports.” the group notes, adding that USSOCOM “denied or misrepresented” its involvement in domestic drone activities and actively sought to shut down any exchange of information on the matter.
A recently uncovered Air Force document also raised alarms over military use of spy drones in US skies. The document outlines how to circumvents privacy laws and clears the way for the Pentagon to use drones to monitor the activities of Americans.
Source With Links: Infowars.com
The Attack On Chick-Fil-A Is An Attack On The Freedom Of Speech Of Every American
Michael Snyder
The American Dream
July 27, 2012
If you are an American, your freedom of speech is under attack. Over the past week, remarks made by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy defending traditional marriage have sparked controversy all over the nation.
Many Americans have expressed support for his remarks and many have expressed disdain for his remarks. And all of that is fine, because in the United States people are supposed to be able to express their opinions. But in Chicago, Boston and other U.S. cities, politicians are actually promising to keep any more Chick-fil-A stores from opening because their CEO does not support gay marriage, and that crosses the line. When politicians threaten to ban a business from their cities just because the CEO does not hold the “politically correct” position on a social issue that is an attack on the freedom of speech of every American. You see, the truth is that the enforcers of political correctness in America are very “tolerant” except when somebody disagrees with them. The politically correct control freaks that are trying to ban Chick-fil-A from their cities would try to ban Chick-fil-A from opening any more restaurants in the entire country if they had the power to do so. The goal of these politically correct control freaks is to intimidate. They want to end debate on these social issues by shutting down the free speech of the opposition. In the end, if America continues to go down this path it will end up looking just like many of the other totalitarian regimes throughout history where free speech has been banned.
Once again, in America everyone has the right to say whatever they want to about Chick-fil-A.
However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the “correct” political view about an issue that is a major problem.
This week, Chicago alderman Joe Moreno wrote a piece for the Chicago Tribune in which he explained why he is going to refuse to allow Chick-fil-A to open a new restaurant in his ward….
There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.
Apparently he has the power to single-handedly block the new restaurant that Chick-fil-A was hoping to open up….
Home Depot in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue wants to sell a piece of its land so that a Chick-fil-A restaurant can open in the 1st Ward, where I am alderman. It would be the fast-food chain’s first “stand-alone” Chicago restaurant. But to subdivide the land, the companies need my approval.
Because the CEO of Chick-fil-A will not conform to Joe Moreno’s social values, Chick-fil-A is now essentially banned from that entire section of Chicago.
Not that Chick-fil-A will be able to open up new stores in other areas of Chicago either.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is promising to do what he can to keep Chick-fil-A from expanding any further in Chicago….
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values”
Apparently anyone that does not believe in gay marriage does not “reflect Chicago values”.
But this is just the beginning. One group is trying to have Chick-fil-A kicked off of college campuses all over America. The following is from a recent CBS News article….
The gay rights group Equality Illinois is launching a campaign against Chick-Fil-A – petitioning universities and lawmakers to evict the fast food restaurant from their campuses and planning a “kiss-in” campaign by gay and lesbian couples outside Chick-Fil-A restaurants.
The message is clearly one of intimidation.
Either conform or suffer the consequences.
Sadly, politicians all over America are reacting just like politicians in Chicago have done.
The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, has pledged to do all that he can to keep Chick-Fil-A out of the entire city of Boston. The following is what he told the Boston Herald on Thursday….
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion”
But Chick-fil-A does not discriminate.
They serve anyone that wants a chicken burger and they are open to hiring anyone.
It is just that the CEO of the company does not think gay marriage is a good idea (along with half of the rest of America) and this absolutely infuriates the politically correct crowd.
On Thursday Mayor Menino also added the following….
“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
In addition, he penned a furious letter to Chick-fil-A headquarters that you can read right here.
The town of Mountain View, California has also blocked a new Chick-fil-A restaurant from opening up.
In the months to come we will probably see much more of this.
And Chick-fil-A is probably going to get booted off of a whole bunch of college campuses.
In February, Northeastern University refused to allow a Chick-fil-A store to open on their campus, and student groups around the country are already mobilizing to oppose Chick-fil-A on more campuses.
This is the kind of religious fervor the politically correct crowd has. You are either with them or you are dog manure.
For example, Roseanne Barr wished cancer on those that eat at Chick-Fil-A on Twitter the other day.
So what were these supposedly “bigoted” comments that started this uproar in the first place?
The following is what Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy recent said during an interview with the Baptist Press….
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that”
Wow, that is some pretty controversial stuff, eh?
Certainly this could not be enough to spark a nationwide protest.
Perhaps it is what he said recently on “The Ken Coleman Show”….
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Is that statement really worth going crazy over?
To the politically correct crowd it is.
They simply cannot tolerate a major public figure such as the CEO of Chick-fil-A saying that gay marriage is wrong. Plus they are always looking for more ways to chill the free speech of others that would speak out against gay marriage. The following is what John Hayward of Human Events said about all of this recently….
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game.”
The politically correct crowd does not want a debate about gay marriage.
What they want to do is to completely intimidate the other side and shut down the debate completely so that they can win by default.
Wednesday, August 1st, has been designated as “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”. I encourage all of you to go out and buy a chicken burger that day to show your support of free speech.
If we don’t stand up for free speech now, soon it will be totally gone.
Already, the name of Jesus is becoming a forbidden word all over America. Just consider the following examples….
-All over the United States chaplains are being banned from praying in the name of Jesus.
-You can say just about anything you want in U.S. public schools these days except for anything having to do with Jesus. In fact, if you are a public school student and you try to talk about Jesus with your fellow classmates there is a good chance that you will be suspended from school.
-In many areas of America today, if you want to go out on a public sidewalk and discuss your faith with others there is a good chance that you will be arrested.
-If you are anti-abortion, if you have “radical theology” or if you are against “the New World Order”, there is a chance that you will be labeled as a “potential terrorist” by the Department of Homeland Security.
In the end, we will end up just like North Korea if we are not very careful.
In North Korea, if you say something that is not “politically correct” you and your entire extended family could literally be on the next train to a concentration camp.
Today it is estimated that 70,000 Christians are being held captive in concentration camps in North Korea. Many of those believers are likely to spend the rest of their lives toiling in conditions that are absolutely nightmarish simply because they believe the “wrong thing”.
If you don’t think that such a thing could ever happen in America, you are dead wrong.
We are moving a little bit more in that direction every single day, and this latest attack on Chick-fil-A is another example of this trend.
When you attack the freedom of speech of one group of Americans, you attack the freedom of speech of every American.
Once our freedom of speech is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to ever get back.
Stand up for freedom of speech while you still can.
So what do you think about the attacks on Chick-fil-A? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….
Source With Links: The American Dream
The American Dream
July 27, 2012
If you are an American, your freedom of speech is under attack. Over the past week, remarks made by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy defending traditional marriage have sparked controversy all over the nation.
Many Americans have expressed support for his remarks and many have expressed disdain for his remarks. And all of that is fine, because in the United States people are supposed to be able to express their opinions. But in Chicago, Boston and other U.S. cities, politicians are actually promising to keep any more Chick-fil-A stores from opening because their CEO does not support gay marriage, and that crosses the line. When politicians threaten to ban a business from their cities just because the CEO does not hold the “politically correct” position on a social issue that is an attack on the freedom of speech of every American. You see, the truth is that the enforcers of political correctness in America are very “tolerant” except when somebody disagrees with them. The politically correct control freaks that are trying to ban Chick-fil-A from their cities would try to ban Chick-fil-A from opening any more restaurants in the entire country if they had the power to do so. The goal of these politically correct control freaks is to intimidate. They want to end debate on these social issues by shutting down the free speech of the opposition. In the end, if America continues to go down this path it will end up looking just like many of the other totalitarian regimes throughout history where free speech has been banned.
Once again, in America everyone has the right to say whatever they want to about Chick-fil-A.
However, when politicians try to ban a company from doing business in their areas because one of the company executives does not hold the “correct” political view about an issue that is a major problem.
This week, Chicago alderman Joe Moreno wrote a piece for the Chicago Tribune in which he explained why he is going to refuse to allow Chick-fil-A to open a new restaurant in his ward….
There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.
Apparently he has the power to single-handedly block the new restaurant that Chick-fil-A was hoping to open up….
Home Depot in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue wants to sell a piece of its land so that a Chick-fil-A restaurant can open in the 1st Ward, where I am alderman. It would be the fast-food chain’s first “stand-alone” Chicago restaurant. But to subdivide the land, the companies need my approval.
Because the CEO of Chick-fil-A will not conform to Joe Moreno’s social values, Chick-fil-A is now essentially banned from that entire section of Chicago.
Not that Chick-fil-A will be able to open up new stores in other areas of Chicago either.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is promising to do what he can to keep Chick-fil-A from expanding any further in Chicago….
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values”
Apparently anyone that does not believe in gay marriage does not “reflect Chicago values”.
But this is just the beginning. One group is trying to have Chick-fil-A kicked off of college campuses all over America. The following is from a recent CBS News article….
The gay rights group Equality Illinois is launching a campaign against Chick-Fil-A – petitioning universities and lawmakers to evict the fast food restaurant from their campuses and planning a “kiss-in” campaign by gay and lesbian couples outside Chick-Fil-A restaurants.
The message is clearly one of intimidation.
Either conform or suffer the consequences.
Sadly, politicians all over America are reacting just like politicians in Chicago have done.
The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, has pledged to do all that he can to keep Chick-Fil-A out of the entire city of Boston. The following is what he told the Boston Herald on Thursday….
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion”
But Chick-fil-A does not discriminate.
They serve anyone that wants a chicken burger and they are open to hiring anyone.
It is just that the CEO of the company does not think gay marriage is a good idea (along with half of the rest of America) and this absolutely infuriates the politically correct crowd.
On Thursday Mayor Menino also added the following….
“That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
In addition, he penned a furious letter to Chick-fil-A headquarters that you can read right here.
The town of Mountain View, California has also blocked a new Chick-fil-A restaurant from opening up.
In the months to come we will probably see much more of this.
And Chick-fil-A is probably going to get booted off of a whole bunch of college campuses.
In February, Northeastern University refused to allow a Chick-fil-A store to open on their campus, and student groups around the country are already mobilizing to oppose Chick-fil-A on more campuses.
This is the kind of religious fervor the politically correct crowd has. You are either with them or you are dog manure.
For example, Roseanne Barr wished cancer on those that eat at Chick-Fil-A on Twitter the other day.
So what were these supposedly “bigoted” comments that started this uproar in the first place?
The following is what Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy recent said during an interview with the Baptist Press….
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that”
Wow, that is some pretty controversial stuff, eh?
Certainly this could not be enough to spark a nationwide protest.
Perhaps it is what he said recently on “The Ken Coleman Show”….
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Is that statement really worth going crazy over?
To the politically correct crowd it is.
They simply cannot tolerate a major public figure such as the CEO of Chick-fil-A saying that gay marriage is wrong. Plus they are always looking for more ways to chill the free speech of others that would speak out against gay marriage. The following is what John Hayward of Human Events said about all of this recently….
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game.”
The politically correct crowd does not want a debate about gay marriage.
What they want to do is to completely intimidate the other side and shut down the debate completely so that they can win by default.
Wednesday, August 1st, has been designated as “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”. I encourage all of you to go out and buy a chicken burger that day to show your support of free speech.
If we don’t stand up for free speech now, soon it will be totally gone.
Already, the name of Jesus is becoming a forbidden word all over America. Just consider the following examples….
-All over the United States chaplains are being banned from praying in the name of Jesus.
-You can say just about anything you want in U.S. public schools these days except for anything having to do with Jesus. In fact, if you are a public school student and you try to talk about Jesus with your fellow classmates there is a good chance that you will be suspended from school.
-In many areas of America today, if you want to go out on a public sidewalk and discuss your faith with others there is a good chance that you will be arrested.
-If you are anti-abortion, if you have “radical theology” or if you are against “the New World Order”, there is a chance that you will be labeled as a “potential terrorist” by the Department of Homeland Security.
In the end, we will end up just like North Korea if we are not very careful.
In North Korea, if you say something that is not “politically correct” you and your entire extended family could literally be on the next train to a concentration camp.
Today it is estimated that 70,000 Christians are being held captive in concentration camps in North Korea. Many of those believers are likely to spend the rest of their lives toiling in conditions that are absolutely nightmarish simply because they believe the “wrong thing”.
If you don’t think that such a thing could ever happen in America, you are dead wrong.
We are moving a little bit more in that direction every single day, and this latest attack on Chick-fil-A is another example of this trend.
When you attack the freedom of speech of one group of Americans, you attack the freedom of speech of every American.
Once our freedom of speech is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to ever get back.
Stand up for freedom of speech while you still can.
So what do you think about the attacks on Chick-fil-A? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….
Source With Links: The American Dream
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)