Tag Archives: political cronies

Egyptian Supreme Court Wants Parliament Dissolved

Outrage was sparked in Egypt Thursday when that country’s Supreme Court ruled that the recent parliamentary election was unconstitutional. That decision led to emergency meetings of the ruling military council. In response, the country’s interim military rulers declared full legislative authority.

Supreme Court head Farouk Soltan said: “The ruling regarding parliament includes the dissolution of the Lower House of parliament in its entirety because the law upon which the elections were held is contrary to rules of the constitution.”

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, who won 46% of the vote, said the ruling would take Egypt into a “dark tunnel”.

Freedom and Justice Party and Salafist Al-Nur Party critics who said it would leave the next incoming president without either a parliament or a constitution, describing the ruling as a “complete coup” and “a complete disregard for the free will of the voters”.

The Supreme Court also decided in a separate ruling that former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq could run for president in the June 16-17 election, rejecting a law that would have kept him from competing against the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi in a run-off election. Ahmed Shafiq was Egypt’s last Prime Minister under ousted President Hosni Mubarak. Some in Egypt have called for the disqualification of Shafiq because he is a “remnant of the old guard”.

The makeup of Egypt’s government is crucial to future peace in the Middle East. Should the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt it will then be in position to put its long held hostility towards Israel into motion. The Brotherhood is dedicated to establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. Islamic law has no room for either democratic principles or religious freedoms. It uses violence against dissenters and tramples the rights of minorities and women. The Brotherhood is, in its own words, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”. They were early critics of the Egypt Israeli peace treaty and have long been held responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who signed the treaty in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood also has close ties to Iran, which is accused of engaging in hegemony and suspected of secretly developing nuclear arms.

Even though the Muslim Brotherhood was still outlawed in Egypt at the time of his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, barack obama invited the group to attend. his administration established relations with the Brotherhood in 2011. Today three members of the Muslim Brotherhood wield influence over White House policy.

What was the White House reaction to the Egyptian Supreme Court’s ruling?

*Cue the sound of crickets*

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/egyptian-supreme-court-wants-parliament-dissolved/

White House Rebuffs Calls for a Special Prosecutor

Despite calls from Senators John Cornyn, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the Justice Department continues to resist calls for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate national security leaks said to be coming from inside the White House. The Senators view Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to appoint two Justice Department legal insiders to the investigation as insufficient.

The White House remains in support of Holder. The official word from press secretary Jay Carney is that “there is no need for a special counsel. These things have consistently been investigated when that’s appropriate”.

Holder’s troubles are not isolated to the national security leaks investigation. Holder is also under legal attack for the failed Fast and Furious firearms fiasco. Despite Holder’s possibly facing contempt of Congress charges next week, Carney relayed the “absolute confidence” the White House still has in Holder.

This “no special prosecutor” position stands in stark contrast to the position held by then Senators obama and Biden when it came to investigating the Iraq war policy. Or when it came to calling for the firing of U.S. attorneys. Or reviewing conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. And especially when it came to discovering who leaked Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson’s identities. All of which took place during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Not to mention special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was appointed to investigate the Watergate scandal.

It would seem that, as usual, when the left commits perceived offenses, it’s perfectly appropriate for them to police themselves. But when there are similar perceptions of offenses committed by those on the right, that’s a completely different story.

Holder’s stonewalling of the Fast and Furious congressional investigation is not only straight out of the Richard M. Nixon play book, it is more egregious. Although ultimately the ongoing investigation resulted in the removal of a sitting President from office for his role in the Watergate burglary and ensuing cover-up, nobody died due to decisions made or actions taken by Nixon and his lieutenants.

It is alleged that by allowing hundreds of highly sophisticated automatic weapons to walk across the U.S./Mexican border and into the hands of criminal drug cartels, the Holder led Department of Justice contributed to the death of hundreds of Mexican civilians and murder of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry. This is an extremely serious charge. The truth must be uncovered. If this allegation is true, Eric Holder should go to prison, instead of being allowed to harass multiple state governments with frivolous, racist lawsuits. To hold to the notion that Eric Holder is capable of dispassionate logic in pursuit of fact in the face of such a clear conflict of interest is incongruous.

That the White House is standing behind Holder in stone walling the cover up of information is not surprising. When are the college records, medical records, travel records, etc of the current White House occupant going to be brought to light?

Will obama and Holder agree to appoint a special prosecutor? If they do and the going gets dicey, is the United States going to be submitted to a replay of the Archibald Cox firing drama? Will there be the Saturday Night Massacre, part two?

It would not be in the least bit surprising to see the White House let this drag out through the summer as a means of distracting from their own dismal record. It would also be true to form to see Holder go the way of many of obama’s once political allies. The moment Holder’s presence becomes too much of a political liability to the full time, win at all costs candidate he will become persona non grata faster than you can say: “Our long national nightmare is over”.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/white-house-rebuffs-calls-for-a-special-prosecutor/

NEWS FLASH: Lindsey Graham is a “top conservative”!

Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, Gregory Lemos and Sherisse Pham, part of the collective, useful spokes-tools employed by ABC News and the “progressive” Party Pravda’s online misinformation outlet known as Yahoo News are at it again.

To begin with, this “progressive” misinformation’s “headline” is pure, pre-fabricated nonsense that reads:

“Top conservative says read my lips: Don’t sign ‘no new tax’ pledge”.

This “headline” is garbage.

First of all, save for his consistently patriotic support for the United States military and for American troops, Senator Lindsey Graham is about as moderate as Republicans come. Some Conservatives might characterize him as a “progressive” Republican. Even more may openly label him a RINO. The thought of his being a “top conservative” comes from the minds of institutionalized “progressive” leftists, not reality. Secondly, not once in the interview does Graham ever utter the words “read my lips”. Again, readers are witnessing fabricated “progressive” wishful fiction, not fact. Furthermore, never did he say “don’t sign the ‘no new tax’ pledge. Not even once. Not ever.

The entire headline is a total lie. It’s a complete falsehood. The “news” presented in this “headline” is “progressive” fabrication that goes light years beyond the outer limits of “spin”.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html

Thanks to a “headline” that’s contains not one ounce of truth, the article is automatically discredited in the minds of informed voters, those who are obviously not the target audience of Karl, Coolidge, Lemos and Pham.

What Graham did say is that he is willing to be flexible on applying one fourth of revenue collected by the IRS through elimination of tax loopholes and subsidies towards reducing the nations nearly $16 trillion in debt. The other three fourths would continue to follow the No New Tax Pledge’s formula for applying such revenues solely towards tax cuts. For Graham to accept this compromise, Democrats would be required to respond in kind to work in a bipartisan fashion towards reducing the national debt via “entitlement” program reforms.

That such inaccurate “reporting” could be considered, even for a fleeting moment, as real journalism, that these liars are actually getting paid to propagandize pure fiction as fact shows how low are today’s standards for journalistic integrity. This “headline” is going to give a large number of low-information, “sound bite news voters” a completely incorrect image of reality. It’s not even close to being true. All visible evidence points to clear intent to mislead misinform and indoctrinate masses of online readers.

How about giving this story a more objective headline, a headline that reflects the truth while accurately respects the content of the story? One more like: Graham Willing to Discuss Tax, Entitlement Compromise.

How difficult was that?

Perhaps for self imagined, self-appointed members of the “progressive” intellectual elite, it’s just too simple for their brilliant minds.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/news-flash-lindsey-graham-is-a-top-conservative/

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

Was “The Private Sector is Doing Fine” Really a Gaffe?

When obama uttered the words “the private sector is doing fine” speculation ran rampant, declarations occurred and questions abounded.

Obedient spokes-fools within the “progressive” Party Pravda remained largely mum, dutifully neglecting or downplaying the story. Conservatives pounced on the statement, speculating aggressively about obama’s lack of perceptive abilities while declaring it to be the biggest gaffe in his presidency. Questions were asked as to why standard operating procedure had been abandoned and a presidential press conference was being held in the White House when no major announcement was being made.

That obama followed up the initial remark by saying the problem with America’s economy is a loss of government jobs at the state and local level suggests various possible explanations. One is that it’s a sign of his commitment to growing government as the sole solution to each and every one of the world’s problems. Another is that he is so out of touch with economic reality that the remark really was a gaffe.

But there is at least one other possibility to consider.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is coming under heavy congressional scrutiny for his role in the failed Fast and Furious gun running scandal. Hard questions are being raised on both sides of the aisle about the risks posed to the country through national security leaks possibly emanating from the White House. obama’s been accused of allowing the leaks to occur for personal political gain. There are ongoing discussions and mounting evidence regarding obama’s membership in Chicago’s extremist “New Party”, coupled with continuing avoidance of or denials about it among obama’s political apparatus. There is major embarrassment about obama’s “entire grassroots machinery” being resoundingly drubbed in the Wisconsin recall election. There is growing “progressive” left wing extremist frustration with obama’s perceived inability to deliver on his pledge to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”.

Go back to the question: Why was a presidential new conference being held when there was no major announcement being made? Even given that there was only the remotest possibility that the “progressive” Party Pravda might actually uncover a hitherto undiscovered ounce of journalistic integrity within itself and ask hard questions on a myriad of topics, why was this press conference being held?

Is it possible that the biggest gaffe in obama’s presidency was committed on purpose? That it was an intentional diversion? A coldly calculated politically driven distraction away from other bad news that had been dominating the weekly news cycle?

Was it an accident that it occurred on a Friday morning, contributing to the likelihood that the weekend political talk show discussions will focus on this rather than the myriad of other, more damaging news about obama’s failed attempt to be the nation’s Chief Executive?

If so, it was an extreme abuse of the power of the presidency.

Given that this “gaffe” originated from a once humming along firing on all cylinders well oiled political machine that has repeatedly engaged in “the art” of misrepresentation, distortion, distraction, diversion and smoke and mirror parlor trickery, is pondering such questions an unreasonable activity?

With obama in the White House, do you now consider such a line of questioning to be unpatriotic?

Do you really?

You may wish to reconsider come November 6th.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/was-the-private-sector-is-doing-fine-really-a-gaffe/

Shocking Similarities Concealed

In a televised address to parliament, President Bashar Assad said foreign-backed terrorists and extremists were to blame for the massacres going on in Syria. Despite suspicions expressed by the UN that Assad’s forces are responsible for the Houla massacre, Assad denied it. Syrian opposition condemned his comments as lies.

Assad described protestors as paid killers, ridiculing freedom demonstrators as people not truly looking for reform. The opposition is seeking reform in a country where expressing dissent often leads directly to arrest and torture. They contend that Assad has offered nothing but cosmetic changes.

A revolt that began as peaceful protests can now only be described as an armed insurgency. This can be attributed to the harsh government crackdown that led protestors to take up arms in self-defense.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, barack obama and many other “progressive” politicians have called the Tea Party “teabaggers”, “racists”, “astroturf”, “Nazis” ” and “extremists” on multiple occasions. The Department of Homeland Security issued a report that described the Tea Party as “right-wing extremists” and “insurgents”, expressing concerns that “Right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”

“Violent capacities”?

How much longer will it be before members of Tea Parties are called “paid killers”?

Hasn’t that already happened? Such a description was more than quite heavily inferred by multiple “progressive” politicians and virtually every member of the “progressive” Party Pravda after a nut job who was working solo shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Dee “Gabby” Giffords on January 8, 2011.

How soon will members of the “progressive” Democratic Party say that Tea Party members are “not truly looking for reform”?

David Axlerod, obama’s 2012 re-election campaign chief, claimed that the Tea Party “reign of terror” blocked immigration reform. Tea Party efforts to stop “progressive” Democrats from cramming unwanted “healthcare reform” down America’s throat are viewed by “progressives” and their media spokes-tools as “not truly looking for reform”.

How much longer will it take for the United States to become a country where expressing dissent can lead directly to arrest and torture?

According to former FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground Central Committee meant to cause the collapse of the United States government. Ayers and his group would deal with resistant Americans by “establishing re-education centers in the south-west”. Those who refused to convert to Communism, would be “eliminated”. As in: concentration camps would be used to kill 25 million Americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Politico’s Ben Smith reported: “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn”.

The Tea Party movement began as a peaceful protest against big government, reckless government spending, high taxes and oppressive regulations. The Tea Party’s Contract From America expressed principles held by its members. The most basic being that “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government.”

The principles of the Tea Party were clearly expressed in the Contract:

Protect the Constitution, reject Cap & Trade, demand a balanced budget, enact fundamental tax reform, restore fiscal responsibility and Constitutionally limited government in Washington DC, end runaway government spending, defund, repeal and replace government-run health care, pass an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy, stop the pork, and stop the tax hikes.

That sounds like people who are truly looking for reform. Just not the type of reform being insisted upon by members of the institutionalized “progressive” left.

Only those dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government would consider a stand for protecting the Constitution, rejecting the UN backed Cap and Trade agenda, demanding a balanced budget, et al “extreme” in their views.

The similarities between what’s happening now in Syria and plans envisioned for America by the institutionalized “progressive” left are both shocking and real. Why are those similarities being concealed by America’s fabled Fourth Estate? The only logical conclusion is that the views held by the “mainstream media” are sympathetic to those of the institutionalized “progressive” left. They are on the same team.

If violence does break out in the United States, it will be due to a harsh government crackdown leading to peaceful protestors having to take up arms in self-defense. God Bless the genius of America’s Founders and their insightful, forward thinking ratification of the Second Amendment. For they knew first hand that of which Tyrants are made.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/shocking-similarities-concealed/

Recent Entries »