Buyers’ Remorse ?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism.
They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”

— Saul Alinsky

---

Alinsky’s Steps to create a Social State

1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and income)

6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools

8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

---

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...ia-montage.jpg

As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office

11:56 PM 09/30/2012

( continued )


Entering Columbia Law School in September 1973, Holder joined the Black American Law Students Association. Less than a month later, that organization joined other minority activist groups in a coalition that demanded the retraction of a letter to President Gerald Ford, signed by six Columbia professors, that argued against affirmative action and racial quotas.

“Merit should be rewarded, without regard to race, sex, creed, or any other external factor,” the professors wrote to President Ford. Following a campaign marked by what two of those professors called “rhetoric and names hurled” at them, they changed their position and denied they actually opposed affirmative action.

The Columbia Spectator’s editorial page later argued against affirmative action as a factor in university admissions, touching off another controversy with the coalition that included the Black American Law Students Association. “Affirmative action is just a nice name for a quota, and quotas are just a nice name for racism,” the editorial board wrote.

In response, the minority students’ coalition responded that “traditional academic criteria have a built-in bias” that leaves many minority students “automatically excluded.”

“[A]ffirmative action is neither racist nor sexist,” they wrote. “Rather it is opposition to it, which fails to provide alternative means for eradicating bias, that supports the racist and sexist status quo.”

As attorney general, Holder has defended the affirmative action policies that are now the status quo. In February 2012, Holder said during a World Leaders Forum at Columbia University that he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.”

“Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

Holder has also come under fire for presiding over a Justice Department that declined to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who allegedly intimidated white voters outside a Philadelphia polling precinct in 2008.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as...y-rotc-office/

Judge Jeanine Has Been Mystified by Obama’s Behavior for 6 Years. Suddenly, It All Makes Sense.
By Kyle Becker - 2 hours ago

Judge Jeanine Pirro has been an ardent critic of President Obama for years. But Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, which the president’s most reliable defenders claim is a non-controversy, has her seeing the president’s behavior during America’s war with Islamic terrorists in a whole new light.

Here is how Pirro made her opening statement:

Quote:

---

“You know I’ve been watching this president for six years. And after this week’s prayer breakfast, it all came together. It finally made sense to me: Barack Obama is comfortable with extremism. He’s okay with it. He’s nonplussed. It’s part of what happens.

It explains why he goes golfing within minutes of announcing the beheading of an American. It explains why he didn’t join 40 world leaders in France to denounce ‘Islamic terrorism.’

It explains why he doesn’t attend certain funerals. Why he does nothing about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East. Or the raping, beheading, crucifying and burying alive of children there. Why he doesn’t get excited about people who cross his ‘red lines.’ And it explains why he so easily pivots to healthcare after announcing the burning alive of a coalition pilot.”

---

For some context, the president’s controversial remarks came just two days after a video showed the Islamic State burning captured Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh. This is the president’s line that has drawn attention:

Quote:

---

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

---

Judge Jeanine Pirro interprets these remarks to mean the president is generally nonplussed about Islamic extremism – it doesn’t really perturb him. The Judge then gives numerous examples of how the president’s inexplicable behavior following terrorist attacks can now be seen in an entirely new light.

Whether or not one agrees with the entirety of Pirro’s remarks, one thing is clear: approximately 70% of Americans lack confidence in the president’s ability to take on ISIS terrorists, while only 38% of approve of his handling of foreign policy in general.

The president at times appearing emotionally detached following terror attacks – even making equivocations to medieval Christian atrocities carried out centuries ago – is unlikely to change that perception.


http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/2473..._campaign=Medi

CAN'T MAKE IT UP:
Celebrity-in-chief Obama inserts himself into the Grammy Awards to decry domestic violence/rape
...while woman-beater Chris Brown and his victim Rihanna sit in the audience...

Quote:

---

The White House ✔ @WhiteHouse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEx-q...layer_embedded

"We can change our culture for the better by ending violence against women and girls."
—Obama: http://go.wh.gov/GRAMMYs #GRAMMYs #ItsOnUs

8:44 PM - 8 Feb 2015

---

.... and let the mocking begin ....

http://twitchy.com/2015/02/08/presid...brown-sitting/

NY Post: it’s party time for the bad guys in Obama’s final two-year “rampage”
Written by Allen WestFebruary 24, 2015 on

Some of you may find this hard to comprehend or stomach, but if there were a choice between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, — I’d choose the fella from Hope, Arkansas. Now having been in the military at the time of the Clinton administration, I can certainly find plenty of policy issues for disagreement there.

However, one thing about Bill Clinton, he knew how to pivot and be an adept politician. Who can forget how, after his midterm election debacle in 1994, in his ensuing State of the Union address he announced “the era of big government has ended.” And that was said with Al Gore and Newt Gingrich sitting behind him. At that point we saw bipartisanship — perhaps reluctantly so — but the result was balanced budgets, creation of surpluses, cuts to federal government agency growth, and welfare reform. Who would have thought it possible?

It was all because President Clinton, who had previously started out with big government liberal progressive aspirations, heard the American people and realized his “agenda” had been rebuked.

Now, compare that to Barack Obama who, on the Wednesday after the Tuesday November 4, 2014 midterm election defeat, stood in the White House and confirmed his savant status by saying he’d heard the voices of the two-thirds of Americans who hadn’t voted — huh?

Don’t take my word for it, here’s the video clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRnjNamD0iI&feature=player_embedded

We’ve seen how he continues doubling down after that midterm election — including a very dangerous executive order on immigration, which by his own declaration — between 22 and 25 times — was unconstitutional. And we clearly heard Mr. Obama using the bully pulpit of the State of the Union address to boisterously admonish a new GOP majority House and Senate about his veto power.

So against that backdrop, the New York Post had a very interesting piece entitled “Obama is on a Rampage” saying, “He can’t bring himself to call Islamic terrorists what they are, but President Obama finally said something with which we can all agree. Speaking of his remaining time in office, he said: “Two years is a long time.” He can say that again — and did, attaching a scary promise about his plans for the twilight of his tenure.

“Two years is also the time in which we’re going to be setting the stage for the next presidential election and the next 10 years of American policy,” he told wealthy donors in San Francisco. “So I intend to run through the tape and work really hard, and squeeze every last little bit of change.”

It’s funny, the liberal progressive media is all up in arms about what former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani said about President Obama at a fundraising event — but we haven’t heard too much about these comments, have we?

So will anyone be asking the White House press secretary or even the president what he means by setting the stage for the next ten years of American policy? I would think this a far more important issue than whether or not Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker believes President Obama is a Christian, don’t you?

What does it mean to “squeeze every last little bit of change?” Sounds painful. I suppose the “fundamental transformation” of America isn’t quite done.

However, here is the contrast. President Clinton realized his agenda had been rejected and in turn responded, and look at the good created by a Democrat president and a Republican House and Senate. It was a good that benefitted the American people. Yep, there were some things that didn’t go too well, mostly in the area of national security and foreign policy, but as James Carville stated, “it’s the economy stupid.”

And to this day, everyone credits Clinton — not a GOP majority House and Senate who governed as conservatives. Now, we have President Obama who articulated that his policies were on the ballot last November — you can see that here — and Americans responded by rejecting those policies. His response to the American people? I did not hear you as a matter of fact, I don’t care. Elections only seem to have consequences when Obama wins — not otherwise.

And so America, the democratic electoral process means little or nothing for President Barack Obama. We already know the Constitution means little, based on his defiant violations of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 4 and 11.

So, here is a simple, almost rhetorical question. If you love America, should you not abide by its rule of law and democratic process? Just a question that teeters on the understanding of the difference between an elected leader and the potential for tyrannical dictatorship.

Here’s the assessment from New York Post writer Michael Goodwin, ” Instead of cleaning up the messes he’s created, Obama is hell-bent on making more of them. The word that comes to mind is “rogue.” As in, the president is going rogue. Like an elephant on a rampage, he’s breaking free of all constraints. That makes the next two years extremely dangerous. Not just for Americans, but also for people around the world who count on us for their security and well-being.

It is party time for the bad guys. Imagine you are the head of Islamic State or al-Qaida. Or you are Vladimir Putin, the head of China or the ayatollah of Iran. You know Obama has spent six years shrinking America’s footprint and abandoning allies, leaving behind the vacuums you are filling. It’s already a bonanza, and his vow to double down over the next two years means you will never get a better opportunity to make more hay.”

“The potential danger is this, “the Putins, the mullahs and the terrorists will match Obama’s sprint to the finish with their own. The violence, chaos, millions of refugees and breakdown of sovereign states already under way could be just a preview of the coming dystopian future. From Eastern Europe to Asia to Africa to the Mideast, no populated spot anywhere would be immune from potential upheaval and collapse.”

Now for those of you who feel angered because I ask these questions and bring up these points — is your anger focused where it should be? If the American people reject national policies in an election, should one continue down that path of dismissive belligerence towards the electorate?

If the House and Senate composition is not considered representative of the voice of the people, are we still living in a Constitutional Republic? President George W. Bush accepted the results of the 2006 midterm elections and of course there was an increase in spending those final two years. And yes, he stood against the congressional onslaught and did the right thing in Iraq with the “surge” — only to be followed by someone who considered campaign promises more important than strategic security decisions — and whose prediction has come to fruition in Iraq?

Elections should have consequences. As we’ve seen in the history of our nation, be they Republican or Democrat, presidents have heeded the voice of the people. There is something very different with President Barack Obama — a malignant narcissism perhaps? Regardless, these two years will indeed be long since no one will seek impeachment of Obama, even if he meets with those who have affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The final words of the New York Post piece are quite disconcerting, “As those scenarios suggest, Obama’s promise “to squeeze every last little bit of change” out of the next two years could wreak havoc with the presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton and a platoon of Republicans. If they are wise, the candidates will draft their plans in erasable ink. With the Master of Disaster on the prowl, the worst is yet to come.”

Remember within the first seven months of George W. Bush’s first presidential term, the world changed on September, 11, 2001. That event was set in motion during the preceding Clinton administration. America, we’re gonna need a Churchill to follow this political agenda-driven Chamberlain.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/02/ny-pos...-year-rampage/

12/31/2013 [b]
Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free

President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

Quote:

---

“...there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

---

Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase.

The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.

Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)

That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?

I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.

Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.

Radical capitalists are just beginning to have a slight effect on the Right wing. The overwhelming majority on the Right are eclectic. Which is a nice way of saying inconsistent.

The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.”

They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.

Obama blames economic woes, some real some manufactured (“inequality”) on a philosophy and policy that was abandoned a century ago. What doesn’t exist is what he says didn’t work.

Obama absurdly suggests that timid, half-hearted, compromisers, like George W. Bush, installed laissez-faire capitalism–on the grounds that they tinkered with one or two regulations (Glass-Steagall) and marginal tax rates–while blanking out the fact that under the Bush administration, government spending ballooned, growing much faster than under Clinton, and 50,000 new regulations were added to the Federal Register.

The philosophy of individualism and the politics of laissez-faire would mean government spending of about one-tenth its present level. It would also mean an end to all regulatory agencies: no SEC, FDA, NLRB, FAA, OSHA, EPA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, FHA, FCC–to name just some of the better known of the 430 agencies listed in the federal register.

Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for about a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington.

We radical capitalists say that it was the regulatory-welfare state that imploded in 2008. You may disagree, but let’s argue that out, rather than engaging in the Big Lie that what failed was laissez-faire and individualism.

The question is: in the messy mixture of government controls and remnants of capitalism, which element caused the Great Depression and the recent financial crisis?

By raising that question, we uncover the fundamental: the meaning of capitalism and the meaning of government controls. Capitalism means freedom. Government means force.

Suddenly, the whole issue comes into focus: Obama is saying that freedom leads to poverty and force leads to wealth. He’s saying: “Look, we tried leaving you free to live your own life, and that didn’t work. You have to be forced, you have to have your earnings seized by the state, you have to work under our directions–under penalty of fines or imprisonment. You don’t deserve to be free.”

As a bit of ugly irony, this is precisely what former white slave-owners said after the Civil War: “The black man can’t handle freedom; we have to force him for his own good.” The innovation of the Left is to extend that viewpoint to all races.

Putting the issue as force vs. freedom shows how the shoe is on the other foot regarding what Obama said. Let me re-write it:

Quote:

---

“...there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The government will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just pile on even more regulations and raise taxes–especially on the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the losers are protected by more social programs and a higher minimum wage, if there is more Quantitative Easing by the Fed, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle up to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle up, well, that’s the price of the social safety net.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our intellectuals’ collectivism and Paul Krugman’s skepticism about freedom. That’s in Harvard’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the Soviet Union. It’s not what led to the incredible booms in India and China. And it didn’t work when Europe tried it during over the last decades. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this statist theory.

---

How does that sound? That’s blaming an actual, existing condition–government controls and wealth-expropriation–not a condition that ended in the late 19th century.

So which is the path to prosperity and happiness–freedom or force? Remember that force is aimed at preventing you from acting on your rational judgment.

Obama’s real antagonist is Ayn Rand, who made the case that reason is man’s basic means of survival and coercion is anti-reason. Force initiated against free, innocent men is directed at stopping them from acting on their own thinking. It makes them, under threat of fines and imprisonment, act as the government demands rather than as they think their self-interest requires. That’s the whole point of threatening force: to make people act against their own judgment.

The radical, uncompromised, laissez-faire capitalism that Obama pretends was in place in 2008 is exactly what morality demands. Because, as Ayn Rand wrote in 1961: “No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. . . . To claim the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man–the right to compel his agreement by the threat of physical destruction–is to evict oneself automatically from the realm of rights, of morality and of the intellect.”

Obama and his fellow statists have indeed evicted themselves from that realm.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...ve-to-be-free/


Full text of President Obama’s economic speech in Osawatomie, Kansas http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...6ZO_story.html

Glenn Beck Says if This Story Disappears, You Will Know the Government Is Being Run by the ‘Worst Kinds of People’
Feb. 25, 2015 6:50pm Erica Ritz

Glenn Beck said Wednesday that if the story of the State Department’s director of counterterrorism being arrested for allegedly soliciting a juvenile “disappears,” you will know the U.S. government is being run by the “worst kinds of people.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...iciting-minor/

“[A kakistocracy] is when a government fills its leadership and other high-level positions with the worst people society has to offer: the deviants, the liars and the criminals,” Beck said on his television program. “That’s exactly what the Germans did, and really bad governments do this because they know if you put somebody like that into power … they’ll do anything. They’ll lie, they’ll steal, they’ll cheat, they’ll kill.”

“They are the kind of people that are willing to show you an envelope of your dirtiest, most shameful moments and then use it to keep you a slave,” Beck added. “If [Daniel Rosen's story] disappears, you know that we are living in a government that is run just like the German government was run in the 1930s, one with the worst kinds of people.”

Beck said the nation is in “dire, dire trouble” if the repeated claims that senior State Department officials are soliciting sex with minors are ignored. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...nt-misconduct/

“Think about this — he’s in counter-terrorism intelligence so he knows about the NSA. He knows about the spying capabilities that we have. He’s seen all of it. He uses all of it!” Beck said. “He doesn’t even think the NSA will catch him. He doesn’t think that anybody even cares at the State Department. Are we insane? You don’t think Russia is looking into people like this?”

Beck asked how vulnerable the nation could become if “somebody comes to Rosen with pictures, with the email log of his perverted Weiner-like sex chats with teenage girls.”

“Here’s the worst part: there is an epidemic of really sick individuals at the State Department right now. Rosen is just the tip of the iceberg. Nobody is going to be talking about this,” Beck added.

Beck encouraged his audience to watch For the Record: Honor Fight, which has been updated and is re-airing Wednesday, and investigates the “rampant corruption and abuse of power” inside the State Department. http://www.theblaze.com/shows/for-the-record/

“There is no way for our country to survive if we put up with this kind of evil in our people’s name,” Beck concluded.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...nds-of-people/

State Dept. Whistleblower Sued in Retaliation by John Kerry
— and the Case Could Reveal Sordid Accusations of Department Misconduct
Sep. 18, 2014 9:24am Sara Carter

Richard “Rick” Higbie has spent more than a month under a barrage of financial attacks by the Northern District of Texas U.S. attorney’s office under the direction of the State Department. The attacks are an attempt to silence the government agent and they originate from the very people he has sworn an oath to protect.

Higbie is a distinguished 16-year veteran of the Diplomatic Security Services, the arm of the State Department that investigates crimes and provides protection to diplomats overseas.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...dacted-Hig.jpg

Rick Higbie, second from the right, is a Senior Criminal Investigator/Senior Special Agent with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security within the State Department. He currently serves in the Dallas Resident Office. Higbie was previously employed as a Foreign Service officer but due to his daughter's chronic illness he took legal measures against his employers and settled in 2005, where he was allowed to stay employed as a Civil Service officer. He is now in litigation for discrimination and retaliation against the State Department, under the direction of John Kerry. His case was a pandora's box that unveiled allegations of corruption at the highest levels. Photo courtesy/TheBlaze

Rick Higbie, second from right, is a senior criminal investigator with the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Higbie was previously employed as a foreign service officer but took legal action against his employers when he said they tried to encourage him to leave because of his daughter’s genetic disorder. (Photo courtesy Rick Higbie)

But he has been battling his employers almost his entire career, starting when his then-infant daughter was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder and his supervisors suggested he quit his job.

Higbie said his government employers claimed that his child’s illness created a situation where he could not work overseas as a foreign service officer. When he fought back with a discrimination lawsuit, he began to feel the full force of the State Department coming down on him. The message: Don’t cross us.

Higbie first filed suit in 2001. He and the State Department finally reached a settlement four years later in 2005; Higbie currently is the lead criminal investigator within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s Dallas field office.

Everything seemed fine until 2008, when the harassment began again under a returning old guard that has continued to this day, Higbie’s attorneys told TheBlaze TV’s For the Record in the season premiere episode “Honor Fight: The Battle Inside the State Department.”

‘Discriminatory, Adverse Actions’

Logan Higbie was born in 1998. Diagnosed with tuberous sclerosis, a rare genetic disorder that causes noncancerous growths on the brain, skin and other vital organs. Her parents spent much of the next three years sitting beside their young daughter in the intensive care units at various children’s hospitals as she fought to stay alive.

Higbie said during that time, he was constantly harassed by his supervisors and found his faith.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...i-was-blessed/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzThNZlnDJ4&feature=player_embedded

He followed all of his agency’s requirements, filing complaints about what he described as a degrading work environment. But when all those avenues failed, he told TheBlaze, he had no choice but to initiate his first lawsuit.

It was 2001, and Higbie filed suit against his supervisors in Dallas, alleging he had suffered “discriminatory, adverse actions” at the hands of Tim Haley, the special agent in charge in the Houston field office, which oversaw the Dallas office, court records state.

At the time, Higbie charged that Haley wanted him to quit because his daughter’s illness interfered with his work. Higbie said Haley’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and filed his suit in federal court, which settled in 2005.

But a few years later in 2008, Higbie filed a grievance against his new supervisors, saying the harassment at work had been reignited by old enemies and new ones. The situation led Higbie to file a discrimination lawsuit in October 2011 against the State Department, then under the leadership of Hillary Clinton.

Higbie is appealing his case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Over the past month, the State Department, now led by Secretary John Kerry, has had a $13,000 lien placed on Higbie’s home to collect legal fees the government says it has incurred on the case currently under appeal. The department also placed a lien on the Florida home of Higbie’s father — also named Richard Higbie — though with the younger Higbie’s birthdate and Social Security number on the document.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...y1-498x620.jpg
A copy of the Justice Department’s demand that Rick Higbie reimburse the State Department for more than $13,000.

Why take such substantial action against Higbie? It’s “what was discovered during the course of his lawsuit that has senior government officials on edge,” said Damon Mathias, Higbie’s attorney who is representing him in his post-judgment collection for the $13,000.

“Basically it’s systematic bullying,” Mathias said of the State Department’s actions. Mathias said his client is a target of a government that wants to silence him, and the barrage of attacks is meant to exhaust him into dropping his lawsuit.

“The amount of this judgment is peanuts for the government and basically being a whistleblower – what was discovered as a result of his lawsuit – has made him a number of enemies,” Mathias said. “They are giving his case special attention because they are threatened.”

State Department officials told TheBlaze they could not comment because of the ongoing litigation.

The Lien

Higbie’s attorneys could see a pattern of harassment building, and it culminated with the State Department putting liens on Higbie’s home and that of his father for the $13,000 his employer said he owed in legal fees.

Richard M. Higbie, a “full-bird” retired Air Force colonel and Rick Higbie’s father, is recovering from cancer treatment and has spent the past month trying to get the State Department to remove the lien from his home, Mathias said.

If the judgement is not paid, the courts have in effect given the State Department discretion to collect the debt. Since the State Department has already issued liens on Higbie’s and his father’s homes they could collet the debt through those methods or they could decide to garnish Higbie’s wages, Mathias said.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...er-476x620.jpg

A copy of the lien placed on the home of Richard Higbie, father of Rick by the State Department. The U.S. attorney representing the State Department told the courts that no lien was placed on the father’s home; Higbie’s father picked up a copy of the lien in his hometown of Melbourne, Florida.

Housing records obtained by For The Record show that Rick Higbie’s name does not appear anywhere on his father’s Florida home.

Higbie’s father “is in no way responsible for his son in this matter,” Mathias said. Even if the lien was issued at first believing it to belong to Higbie, the State Department has yet to retract it and “surely doubled down on the inappropriateness of their actions.”

U.S. Attorney Sarah Saldana, who represents the State Department, asserted that no one other than Higbie is on the lien.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, told TheBlaze it seems the government is overreaching in going after Higbie’s father as well, unless it’s been a case of mistaken identity. “Costs are assigned when the final judgment comes in the trial court,” Shapiro noted. “Should the [plaintiff] prevail on appeal, he won’t have to pay those costs.”

If Higbie wins his appeal to the Fifth Circuit to be retried at the lower court and if then wins that case, the government would be liable for all his legal fees , Mathias said.

For now, the courts have “informally sanctioned the government’s litigation by denying Higbie’s motion against the enforcement of the judgment and issued a detailed cost assessment of Higbie’s finances,” he said. When the judge denied Higbie’s relief, he indirectly sanctioned the government to take the property and garnish his wages within 60 days unless they win the appeal, Mathias said.

(continues )

A Pattern?

Higbie wasn’t the only employee being harassed.

During the course of Higbie’s litigation, numerous other employees came forward with similar complaints against supervisors in the Diplomatic Security Service and the State Department.

But one person, Aurelia Fedenisn, changed everything.

Fedenisn is a former senior Diplomatic Security agent who was a senior inspector within the State Department inspector general’s office. She said she was involved in investigations in which serious allegations of criminal misconduct by senior diplomats were swept under the rug.

She had interviews with witnesses who accused senior diplomats of inappropriate sexual misconduct with underage prostitutes, pedophilia and other criminal behavior.

The evidence suggested that the State Department’s acting inspector general, then Harold Geisel, had intentionally eliminated evidence from draft reports to lessen the blow or to completely eliminate accusations of wrongdoing against senior diplomats, according to reports obtained by TheBlaze.

As Higbie and his attorneys prepared to take on senior U.S. officials in his discrimination lawsuit, evidence soon emerged that would shatter the image of the State Department and reveal an underworld that left even Higbie baffled.

Higbie’s attorneys subpoenaed Fedenisn’s documents, which revealed the gravity of the accusations against some in the State Department. Evidence revealed possible cover-ups by then-Inspector General Geisel who was charged with oversight for the State Department. Geisel appeared to ignore allegations that major Democratic Party donor and U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman had sought underage prostitutes while at his post in Brussels, according to evidence collected by Fedenisn.

Additionally, Geisel had enough information to indicate that Hillary Clinton’s own private security detail was engaging with prostitutes overseas.

Higbie was no longer fighting for his own future but the integrity of the State Department when he stumbled onto possible serious violations of law. These officials were now being exposed by a desperate father, who had serendipitously stumbled on evidence of corruption and was no longer willing to keep quiet.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...nt-misconduct/

http://www.globemagazine.com/sites/g...10C1A_2015.jpg

http://www.globemagazine.com/


DOCTORS SAY: OBAMA IS INSANE!

President Barack Obama is mentally ill! That’s the bombshell diagnosis of mental health experts including one who says the leader displays classic signs of two severe personality disorders. They also point to a recent video where Obama makes strange faces and acts bizarrely. Plus, learn why Vice President Joe Biden is accused of being a serial groper. It’s all in this issue of GLOBE.


http://www.globemagazine.com/content...y-obama-insane

Remember this 12-year-old who dared to criticize Obama in a YouTube video?
Facebook found a reason to shut down his page:

You might recall the epic rant produced by 12-year-old C.J. Pearson which became a YouTube sensation after he criticized President Obama. His video has been viewed over 1.6 million times.

Here’s the original video, in case you missed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUtirCf-RfU&feature=player_embedded

Breitbart reports that Facebook has suspended young C.J.’s account due to “suspicious activity.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ticized-obama/

Quote:

---

“Last Friday, Pearson found that he could no longer post to his page. He asked his editor, Alan Davidson, to alert the public about what happened.”

---

“I am having my Editor, Alan Davidson post on my behalf on this page while Facebook continues to lock me out,” the young man wrote.”

Facebook claims the lockout has nothing to do with Pearson’s political leanings. Instead, it has to do with Pearson’s age.

“You have to be 13 to have a Facebook account. This is a requirement, not a suggestion. He was locked out because he lied about his age, not because of the content,” a Facebook statement read.”

According to the UK Daily Mail, “in a statement, Facebook said they were alerted to the fact that Pearson is 12 by a member of the public and acted accordingly.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-Obama.html

Ah yes, alerted by the “thought police.”

You know, here at allenbwest.com, we had a similar run-in with Facebook several months ago. http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/facebo...ative-content/ We posted a picture of Democrat President Lyndon Johnson quoting his words regarding passage of the Civil Rights Act. One of those words was the n-word, something apparently Johnson used quite frequently. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_B._Johnson

Our page was shut down for “hate speech"


MORE http://allenbwest.com/2015/03/though...ticized-obama/

President Obama speaks in Selma
Updated: Mar 07, 2015 - By Hunter Robinson

SELMA, AL (WSFA) -
President Barack Obama and his family, along with other dignitaries including former President George W. Bush and his wife, were in Selma on Saturday to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

Here is President Obama's speech in its entirety:



It is a rare honor in this life to follow one of your heroes. And John Lewis is one of my heroes.



Now, I have to imagine that when a younger John Lewis woke up that morning fifty years ago and made his way to Brown Chapel, heroics were not on his mind. A day like this was not on his mind. Young folks with bedrolls and backpacks were milling about. Veterans of the movement trained newcomers in the tactics of non-violence; the right way to protect yourself when attacked. A doctor described what tear gas does to the body, while marchers scribbled down instructions for contacting their loved ones. The air was thick with doubt, anticipation, and fear. They comforted themselves with the final verse of the final hymn they sung:



No matter what may be the test, God will take care of you; lean, weary one, upon His breast, God will take care of you.



Then, his knapsack stocked with an apple, a toothbrush, a book on government – all you need for a night behind bars – John Lewis led them out of the church on a mission to change America.



President Bush and Mrs. Bush, Governor Bentley, Members of Congress, Mayor Evans, Reverend Strong, friends and fellow Americans:



There are places, and moments in America where this nation's destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war – Concord and Lexington, Appomattox and Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America's character – Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.



Selma is such a place.



In one afternoon fifty years ago, so much of our turbulent history – the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham, and the dream of a Baptist preacher – met on this bridge.



It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the meaning of America.



And because of men and women like John Lewis, Joseph Lowery, Hosea Williams, Amelia Boynton, Diane Nash, Ralph Abernathy, C.T. Vivian, Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Dr. King, and so many more, the idea of a just America, a fair America, an inclusive America, a generous America – that idea ultimately triumphed.



As is true across the landscape of American history, we cannot examine this moment in isolation. The march on Selma was part of a broader campaign that spanned generations; the leaders that day part of a long line of heroes.



We gather here to celebrate them. We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching toward justice.



They did as Scripture instructed: “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” And in the days to come, they went back again and again. When the trumpet call sounded for more to join, the people came – black and white, young and old, Christian and Jew, waving the American flag and singing the same anthems full of faith and hope. A white newsman, Bill Plante, who covered the marches then and who is with us here today, quipped that the growing number of white people lowered the quality of the singing. To those who marched, though, those old gospel songs must have never sounded so sweet.



In time, their chorus would reach President Johnson. And he would send them protection, echoing their call for the nation and the world to hear:



“We shall overcome.”



What enormous faith these men and women had. Faith in God – but also faith in America.



The Americans who crossed this bridge were not physically imposing. But they gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation. They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, and countless daily indignities – but they didn't seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before.



What they did here will reverberate through the ages. Not because the change they won was preordained; not because their victory was complete; but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible; that love and hope can conquer hate.



As we commemorate their achievement, we are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them. Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse – everything but the name their parents gave them. Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.


And yet, what could be more American than what happened in this place?