Homosexual Lobby has found a way around the Constitution
A major plank in the Gay Bill of Special Rights has just been enacted by Federal bureaucratic decree!
That’s right -- the Homosexual Lobby has found a way around the Constitution and the U.S. Congress to give special employments privileges to transsexuals.
Just a few days ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to redefine the rules already on the books to make it nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person.
No new law was passed by Congress.
And no one had any say in this but the Obama-appointed bureaucrats who have allied themselves with the Homosexual Lobby.
As you know, special employment rights are at the heart of the Gay Bill of Special Rights.
The Homosexual Lobby wants to make it impossible for any company, church or even daycare center to ever fire homosexuals or transsexuals.
Public Advocate has steadfastly opposed the Gay Bill of Special Rights every time it has been brought up in Congress -- countless times over the decades.
But in just the past few months Obama has started threatening to pass key elements of the bill by Executive Order.
He’s declared that he has the power to make “homosexual preferred employment policies” a reality for all Federal departments and any company doing business with the Federal government.
And now the EEOC is going even further.
They are reinterpreting current laws to reflect their idea of what fair employment should be.
And now business and churches are risking a Federal lawsuit anytime they fire or refuse to hire a transsexual.
My friend, we are coming dangerously close to a de facto passage of the Gay Bill of Special Rights and the creation of a superior class of Americans.
And Public Advocate is the only organization in the country that is fighting against these unlawful and immoral changes.
It’s not because the majority of Americans do not care -- the hundreds of thousands of Public Advocate supporters prove otherwise.
It’s because so many of the supposed champions of the Family have been scared out of the fight.
But I promise you right now, I will never give up.
For the Family,
Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States
P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.
Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States
On May 1, 2012, our Glorious Leader, Premier Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat, signed yet another Executive Order – Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. This dictate is designed to standardize regulations between the United States and it’s so called trading partners.
What is a regulation? A law. So what is actually being attempted here is a standardization of international law. It is an absolute violation of the Constitution for the United States to legislate our law outside of our borders.
Considering the many international security agreements the traitors occupying our highest seats of power have entered into, this latest executive order can absolutely be used to institute gun confiscation laws/regulations, without any consent by our Congress or our Judicial. And once these foreign laws are brought to the United States under the various security agreements, foreign troops will be brought in to enforce the foreign laws upon the people of the United States.
So look at what we have now.
- The Patriot Act which allows unlimited spying on the American people by the government.
- The National Defense Authorization Act with Sections 1021 and 1022 for the military arrests and indefinite detention of American nationals without any due process of the law.
- HR 347 Trespass Law for the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act upon any citizen who dares to speak out against the insurgency.
- Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act, which allows the dictator to confiscate every resource of the United States, including we the people as conscripts to be put in servitude to the insurgency.
This latest executive order is nothing more than another act of blatant treason and we the American people must reject it absolutely.
Here is the Executive Order. Read and interpret it for yourself.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote
international regulatory cooperation, it is hereby ordered as follows:- – - – - – -
PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COOPERATION
Section 1. Policy. Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), states that our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. In an increasingly global economy, international regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting the goals of Executive Order 13563.
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Sec. 2. Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation. (a) The Regulatory Working Group (Working Group) established by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), which was reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, shall, as appropriate:
(i) serve as a forum to discuss, coordinate, and develop a common understanding among agencies of U.S. Government positions and priorities with respect to:
(A) international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulatory actions;
(B) efforts across the Federal Government to support significant, cross-cutting international regulatory cooperation activities, such as the work of regulatory cooperation councils; and
(C) the promotion of good regulatory practices internationally, as well as the promotion of U.S. regulatory approaches, as appropriate; and
(ii) examine, among other things:
(A) appropriate strategies for engaging in the development of regulatory approaches through international regulatory cooperation, particularly in emerging technology areas, when consistent with section 1 of this order;
(B) best practices for international regulatory cooperation with respect to regulatory development, and, where appropriate, information exchange and other regulatory tools; and
(C) factors that agencies should take into account when determining whether and how to consider other regulatory approaches under section 3(d) of this order.
(b) As Chair of the Working Group, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall convene the Working Group as necessary to discuss international regulatory cooperation issues as described above, and the Working Group shall include a representative from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and, as appropriate, representatives from other agencies and offices.
(c) The activities of the Working Group, consistent with law, shall not duplicate the efforts of existing interagency bodies and coordination mechanisms. The Working Group shall consult with existing interagency bodies when appropriate.
(d) To inform its discussions, and pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 12866, the Working Group may commission analytical reports and studies by OIRA, the Administrative Conference of the United States, or any other relevant agency, and the Administrator of OIRA may solicit input, from time to time, from representatives of business, nongovernmental organizations, and the public.
(e) The Working Group shall develop and issue guidelines on the applicability and implementation of sections 2 through 4 of this order.
(f) For purposes of this order, the Working Group shall operate by consensus.
Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies. To the extent permitted by law, and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each agency shall:
(a) if required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;
(b) ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;
(c) in selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:
(i) reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and
(ii) such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and
(d) for significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.
Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
(b) “International impact” is a direct effect that a proposed or final regulation is expected to have on international trade and investment, or that otherwise may be of significant interest to the trading partners of the United States.
(c) “International regulatory cooperation” refers to a bilateral, regional, or multilateral process, other than processes that are covered by section 6(a)(ii), (iii), and (v) of this order, in which national governments engage in various forms of collaboration and communication with respect to regulations, in particular a process that is reasonably anticipated to lead to the development of significant regulations.
(d) “Regulation” shall have the same meaning as “regulation” or “rule” in section 3(d) of Executive Order 12866.
(e) “Significant regulation” is a proposed or final regulation that constitutes a significant regulatory action.
(f) “Significant regulatory action” shall have the same meaning as in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Sec. 5. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;
(ii) the coordination and development of international trade policy and negotiations pursuant to section 411 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2451) and section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171);
(iii) international trade activities undertaken pursuant to section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1903 (15 U.S.C. 1512), subtitle C of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4721 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2171 note);
(iv) the authorization process for the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(c) and its implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. 181.4) and implementing procedures (11 FAM 720);
(v) activities in connection with subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31 of the United States Code, title 26 of the United States Code, or Public Law 111-203 and other laws relating to financial regulation; or
(vi) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Ron Paul: How Many Delegates Now?
Doug Wead
Speculation about the size of the Ron Paul presence at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August has some Mitt Romney operatives in a panic. What is worrisome are the additional numbers of “stealth delegates” now winning positions in state conventions and going to Tampa as Mitt Romney delegates. The question is this, how many Ron Paul supporters will actually be on the floor? And what will they be able to do?
Meanwhile, some journalists are scrambling in embarrassment, having assured their corporate masters that the whole drama is over. But if Ron Paul can take delegates in Romney’s home state of Massachusetts, right under his nose, what other surprises are in store?
For the moment, the leading argument inside the Romney camp is being driven by Washington old hands who are urging the campaign to come down hard on the Ronulans, in the tradition of the John McCain – Robert Dole campaigns. Keep the convention tidy, exclusive, show that they are in control and organized.
The counter argument, which comes from some of Romney’s own personal team, is that it is too late, “that ship has already sailed. There will be a sizeable Ron Paul delegation on the RNC floor anyway, we have the nomination, so let’s be nice, let’s take a page from the Reagan playbook and bring them into the fold.” Or so they say.
The immediate question coming to a head this weekend and next is should Ron Paul’s name be allowed in nomination at the RNC in Tampa? If the process is played out naturally, organically, that is exactly what will happen, for Ron Paul will have a plurality in more than the five states required to place his name in nomination. Some in the Romney camp are fine with that. “We need these people for the general election. Let them have their day in the sun. It will add drama and attract a larger viewing audience.”
But the prevailing mood of some in the Romney camp is to shut down the process, to use their power to stop it from happening. It risks angering the Ronulans who will feel cheated by bitter power plays at state conventions this month and next but the Romney Hawks argue that allowing the Ronulans any more room will turn the convention into a fiasco similar to the 1992 convention. That was the year that the RNC had Pat Robertson and insurgent candidate, Pat Buchanan, give speeches and the George HW Bush – Dan Quayle ticket went down in defeat in the general election.
The Romney angels counter that this is not 1992. That Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan represented the most conservative base of the GOP at a time when they should be reaching out to a wider, general audience, while Ron Paul represents youth, Hispanics, independents and even Democrats, the very votes that Romney must now have to win a general election. A recent Rasmussen poll has Ron Paul beating Obama and Romney only tying him. “If we don’t have them in the general election,” say the more angelic Romneyites, “Then we lose.”
Whatever happens, the ball is now in the Mitt Romney court. If the Hawks continue to prevail and they keep playing dirty at the state conventions they will stop Ron Paul from being nominated and probably their own chances of winning a general election. They will also have a sizeable number of angry Ronulans on the floor of the RNC all with I-Phone cameras to record every ugly moment of disunity.
What to do?
Next Wednesday, May 9, 2012, will be an important day. I will be online that night at 9PM to talk with anyone who wants to join the discussion. Here is the link.
http://www.facebook.com/DougWeadOfficial
Speculation about the size of the Ron Paul presence at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August has some Mitt Romney operatives in a panic. What is worrisome are the additional numbers of “stealth delegates” now winning positions in state conventions and going to Tampa as Mitt Romney delegates. The question is this, how many Ron Paul supporters will actually be on the floor? And what will they be able to do?
Meanwhile, some journalists are scrambling in embarrassment, having assured their corporate masters that the whole drama is over. But if Ron Paul can take delegates in Romney’s home state of Massachusetts, right under his nose, what other surprises are in store?
For the moment, the leading argument inside the Romney camp is being driven by Washington old hands who are urging the campaign to come down hard on the Ronulans, in the tradition of the John McCain – Robert Dole campaigns. Keep the convention tidy, exclusive, show that they are in control and organized.
The counter argument, which comes from some of Romney’s own personal team, is that it is too late, “that ship has already sailed. There will be a sizeable Ron Paul delegation on the RNC floor anyway, we have the nomination, so let’s be nice, let’s take a page from the Reagan playbook and bring them into the fold.” Or so they say.
The immediate question coming to a head this weekend and next is should Ron Paul’s name be allowed in nomination at the RNC in Tampa? If the process is played out naturally, organically, that is exactly what will happen, for Ron Paul will have a plurality in more than the five states required to place his name in nomination. Some in the Romney camp are fine with that. “We need these people for the general election. Let them have their day in the sun. It will add drama and attract a larger viewing audience.”
But the prevailing mood of some in the Romney camp is to shut down the process, to use their power to stop it from happening. It risks angering the Ronulans who will feel cheated by bitter power plays at state conventions this month and next but the Romney Hawks argue that allowing the Ronulans any more room will turn the convention into a fiasco similar to the 1992 convention. That was the year that the RNC had Pat Robertson and insurgent candidate, Pat Buchanan, give speeches and the George HW Bush – Dan Quayle ticket went down in defeat in the general election.
The Romney angels counter that this is not 1992. That Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan represented the most conservative base of the GOP at a time when they should be reaching out to a wider, general audience, while Ron Paul represents youth, Hispanics, independents and even Democrats, the very votes that Romney must now have to win a general election. A recent Rasmussen poll has Ron Paul beating Obama and Romney only tying him. “If we don’t have them in the general election,” say the more angelic Romneyites, “Then we lose.”
Whatever happens, the ball is now in the Mitt Romney court. If the Hawks continue to prevail and they keep playing dirty at the state conventions they will stop Ron Paul from being nominated and probably their own chances of winning a general election. They will also have a sizeable number of angry Ronulans on the floor of the RNC all with I-Phone cameras to record every ugly moment of disunity.
What to do?
Next Wednesday, May 9, 2012, will be an important day. I will be online that night at 9PM to talk with anyone who wants to join the discussion. Here is the link.
http://www.facebook.com/DougWeadOfficial
WND Poll: Romney vs. Ron Paul
 | ||||
Don't miss this opportunity to let your voice be heard! Vote Today! | ||||
|
1) Who would you vote for, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul Mitt Romney Ron Paul Neither 2) Whom do you believe has better solutions for the nation's economic problems? Conservatives Liberal Neither | ||||
VOTE HERE: WND -- Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul
CURRENT WND POLL RESULTS:
Poll - Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul
Who would you vote for, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul
1. Mitt Romney (3.24%)
2. Ron Paul ( 94.1%)
3. Neither ( 0.98%)
Not Answered ( 1.61%)
Whom do you believe has better solutions for the nation's economic problems?
1. Conservatives ( 47.7%)
2. Liberal ( 7.11%)
3. Neither ( 42.3%)
Not Answered ( 2.78%)
Operation: Entrapment - Cleveland bomb "plot" masterminded by FBI agents
L-R: Connor Stevens, Brandon Baxter, Douglas Wright, Anthony Hayne and Joshua Stafford (AFP Photo / Handout / FBI)
As is the case with most terrorist attacks revealed by the FBI, from the very beginning of the alleged crime until this week’s arrests, the charges introduced by federal agents were orchestrated by undercover agent provocateurs.
Five men were arrested in the Cleveland area on Monday for charges of conspiracy and the use of explosive materials. According to the criminal complaint released this week by the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, prosecutors link Brandon Baxter, 20; Anthony Hayne, 35; and Douglas Wright, 26, to an anti-government plot that involved bringing a large bridge in the region crashing down with the aid of at least two accomplices.
"The individuals charged in this plot were intent on using violence to express their ideological views,” explains Special Agent Stephen D. Anthony of the Cleveland Division of the FBI this week.
Taking a closer look at the federal complaint against the five men reveals that although the suspects are believed to have expressed anti-government sentiments and disdain for major financial corporations, the impetus in the would-be bombing was the urging of undercover agents that had infiltrated a group of friends and encouraged them to consider acts of terrorism. Although the incident is still developing, federal authorities have submitted statements and recordings stemming from conversations their contacts had with the alleged terrorists, and unsurprisingly the mainstream media is largely ignoring one key problem with the federal probe: the FBI provoked members of an Occupy Wall Street off-shoot to embrace terrorist-like crimes despite voicing from the start that they were opposed to such.
The criminal complaint considers the entire operation to have started from an Occupy Wall Street style protest in Cleveland on October 21, 2011. There the FBI dispatched an unnamed confidential human source — referred to as CHS in the criminal complaint — who had been recruited by the agency to work undercover earlier in the year. The FBI describes the CHS as a felon that had been convicted of at least six charges dating back to the 1990s, including cocaine possession and robbery, yet entrusted the source to attend the OWS meeting in order to investigate reports “of potential criminal activity and threats involving anarchists who would be attending” the protest. Once there, the CHS singled out participants who “acted differently than the other people in attendance,” including the aforementioned accused, Douglas Wright. The CHS then forged a relationship with Wright that lasted until this week.
Although it seems straight out of a spy novel, it is commonplace within domestic intelligence agencies. An exposé put together last year by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley reveals that the FBI currently has as many as 15,000 undercover agents working within their ranks, with some making as much as $100,000 per assignment from Uncle Sam.
What’s more is that the FBI regularly dabbles in entrapment in order to encourage and create crime. The same study shows that of around 500 prosecutions in recent years relating to terrorism charges, the FBI used informants for about half of them. Of 158 of prosecutions that ended in convictions, around one-third acted on plots perpetrated by federal agent provocateurs.
According to the criminal complaint, Wright and fellow self-described anarchists had been considering options “in order to send a message to corporations and the United States government,” that had at that point consisted of nothing more than knocking the signs off of banks in downtown Cleveland while concurrently detonating smoke grenades to distract law enforcement. Wright is also said to have suggested the group use items such as stink bombs or paint guns, objects available to children, in order to make a statement. When Wright told the CHS that C4 explosives may be out of the question due to the cost, the undercover agent asked how much money it would take.
“I’m not sure, I haven’t really read too much into it,” said Wright in reference to instructions he found in a digital copy of the Anarchists Cookbook.
“Well, you gotta get with me,” pleaded the CHS. “If we gonna be trying to do something in a month you need to get with me as soon as possible on how much money we gonna need.”
That conversation is reported by the FBI to have occurred on March 22. In another encounter on March 28, both Wright and his cohort Brandon Baxter said that they did not want people to think that they are terrorists. On that same day, along with the undercover informant, the group drove over Valley View Bridge and the conversation turned to bringing a similar structure to the ground.
“I could show you,” said the informant, who then urged the group to exit the highway and investigate the bridge.
The CHS then asked if they would be interested in purchasing blocks of C4 explosives, suggested to them that they need two, and then offered to put them in touch with another FBI agent, this time a 15-year veteran with a decade off the radar.
On a March 28 meeting, Wright refused an offer to purchase “heavy stuff” from the agent. Later in the week, the officer asked them to consider purchasing a larger quantity of C4 at a discounted rate. Days later, the CHS insisted that Wright and Baxter act quick because they were “on the hook” for the explosives.
In the weeks leading up to the alleged attack, the FBI says that Baxter at one point said that the group had never agreed to blow up a bridge and that he personally feared that, if caught committing a large-scale crime, the anarchists would be sent to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. The CHS attempted to ease those concerns by offering the group decoy license plates and provided them with ways to establish an alibi should they follow through.
On Tuesday this week, law enforcement announced that five men had been arrested in conjunction with the terrorist plot and now both Baxter and Wright face hefty sentences if convicted. For engaging in a conspiracy to commit offense they can each suffer up to five years in prison and a fine of a quarter of a million dollars; for the use of explosive materials, they could spend another decade behind bars.
And for engaging in hostilities against the United States while working for a terrorist organization? Well, it’s a long-shot, but if the government really wants to invoke the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, then Wright and Baxter could end up at Gitmo until the end of time.
"The problem with the cases we're talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents," attorney Martin Stolar tells Mother Jones. Although Stolar is not working with this case currently, the lawyer previously represented the suspect the linked to a New York City bombing plot that was set-up by FBI agents. "They're creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror." For their part, the FBI says this method is a plan for "preemption," "prevention" and "disruption."
There is a happy ending for someone, at least: The convicted robber and hard-drug user turned FBI informant will probably just be sent to infiltrate more OWS protests, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)