Saturday, October 18, 2014

Will Those Who Believe Michael Brown Was Assassinated, Believe The Grand Jury If It Does Not Go Their Way? Doubtful!

From; Conservative Tribune

BREAKING: Eyewitness of the Michael Brown Shooting Finally Comes Forward With Massive Bombshell

An eyewitness to the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson said that Brown did not have his hands over his head when he was shot.
The witness testified this week before the grand jury investigating Brown’s death, and shared his testimony with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Wednesday, according to The Daily Caller.
Brown never raised his hand above his head at any time during the confrontation with Wilson, the eyewitness confirmed. Brown was approaching Wilson despite being told to stop and was between 20 and 25 feet away when he was shot.
Protesters have been chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot” while holding their hands in the air during demonstrations since the shooting in the belief that Wilson shot Brown while his hands were raised in surrender. This witness’ testimony contradicts that supposition.
The grand jury is expected to decide in about a month whether or not to indict Wilson inconnection with Brown’s death. Some have predicted additional violence if the officer is not charged with murder.
While some will welcome any eyewitness testimony that might shed clarity on the Michael Brown shooting, others will deny anything they hear that does not coincide with their own preconceptions of what occurred that day in Ferguson.
Nonetheless, regardless of threats, violence, or consequences, Darren Wilson deserves to receive full due process under the law. For that matter, so does Michael Brown. Anything less would be the real injustice.
Please share this information if you agree that, whatever the truth of the Michael Brown shooting is, the grand jury investigation must be allowed to run its course and Officer Darren Wilson afforded due process.
at No comments:

From Someone Who Should Know, Frieden Advised To Resign! We Agree.

Ex-FEMA Chief Michael Brown: CDC's Frieden Should Resign

Friday, 17 Oct 2014 10:57 PM
By Sean Piccoli
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
President George W. Bush's point man for natural disaster preparedness, who was vilified for his handling of Hurricane Katrina, told Newsmax TV on Friday that the agency chief responsible for the Obama administration's fumbling first response to the Ebola virus ought to do as he did, and resign.

"Having been through that same kind of grilling, there's a point where you leave, where you lose public confidence," Michael Brown, former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner in remarks about Tom Frieden, embattled head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Story continues below video.




Brown, a Denver radio talk show host, said that a gracious and voluntary exit is "the best thing" Frieden "could do for the president," especially since President Obama has named an "Ebola czar" — longtime Democratic political operative Ron Klain — to oversee the federal response to the disease landing in the United States.

"The [CDC] director ought to say at this point, 'You know what? Let me step aside because right now I'm a distraction,' " said Brown, who resigned as FEMA director in September 2005, two weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, catching federal, state and local responders unprepared.

Brown said the appointment of Klain, best known as Vice President Al Gore's chief strategist in the 2000 Florida presidential vote recount, presents other problems. For one, Klain has no medical or public health background.


"We already have a czar that's in charge of public health, and that's the assistant secretary for emergency preparedness and response in HHS," he said, referring to Nicole Lurie, a U.S. Public Health Service rear admiral who is prinicpal adviser on public health emergencies for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Brown described Lurie, an Obama nominee, as "noticeably absent" from the administration's Ebola response despite her portfolio.

"So what we're doing now is, we're trying to fix a problem in CDC which should have already been managed by someone that Congress has already authorized to be the person in charge of these kinds of things," said Brown.

"And now we're going to make a political appointee on top of that? This is bureaucracy run amok again," he said.

Related Stories:

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


at No comments:

Could We Be Having Non-Citizens Come To This Country For Ebola Treatment? Idiocy!

Judicial Watch: Obama to Admit Non-Citizens for Ebola Treatment

Image: Judicial Watch: Obama to Admit Non-Citizens for Ebola Treatment(Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images)
Friday, 17 Oct 2014 04:00 PM
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
The government watchdog group Judicial Watch alleged Friday the Obama administration is formulating plans to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States for treatment.

The group, which cited one unidentified source, said the administration would aim to bring Ebola patients into the United States for treatment within the first days of diagnosis, and that it’s not clear who’d pay either for the transportation or treatment.
The group alleged the plan for treatment includes special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease; Judicial Watch cited its source saying the administration has not told Congress about the plan.

“The source is concerned that the proposal is illegal; endangers the public health and welfare; and should require the approval of Congress,” Judicial Watch stated.


President Barack Obama has made it clear he opposes any travel bans to stop Ebola spreading from West Africa into the United States, noting Thursday “history shows that there is a likelihood of increased avoidance (that could lead to) more cases rather than less,” Fox News reports.

“The problem is that — in all the discussions that I’ve had thus far with experts in the field, experts in infectious disease … a travel ban is less effective than the measures that we are currently instituting,” Obama said.

The United States has brought American citizens back for treatment of Ebola — includingDr. Kent Brantly and a colleague who were working in Africa with Ebola patients, both recovered, and a freelance photojournalist who is currently undergoing treatment. No non-U.S. citizens, though, have been brought here for treatment.

Related Stories:
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

at No comments:

Is The Political Movement In Britain, The Example The US Should Follow.

UK: Political Earthquake Next May?

by Peter Martino
October 18, 2014 at 4:00 am
The United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP] not only managed to halve the Conservative vote, but also the Labour Vote and the Liberal Democrat vote.
UKIP stands for small government, low taxes, and preservation of Britain's identity and sovereignty, values that appeal to Conservative voters; and it wants to pull the United Kingdom out of the European Union. UKIP also stands for strong policies on law and order and immigration, which appeal to the traditional old Labour heartlands.
Strategically, to pick up Labour votes, UKIP would need to move to the left, butexamples in France, Switzerland, Denmark and Geert Wilders's PVV in the Netherlands, show that it is possible to attract voters from both the left and the right.
Last Thursday, the United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP] won its first ever seat in the British House of Commons. For years, UKIP, led by the flamboyant Nigel Farage, has been a major party among the British contingent in the European Parliament, but winning a seat in the British national parliament had so far never succeeded.


Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP] (Image source: Euro Realist Newsletter/Wikimedia Commons)

UKIP stands for the preservation of Britain's identity and sovereignty. It wants to pull the United Kingdom out of the European Union and aims for tougher immigration policies. Last August, Douglas Carswell, Member of Parliament for Clacton in Essex (a prosperous county to the East of London) defected from the Conservative Party to UKIP. Carswell had been elected for the Conservatives in 2010 with a 53% majority – a 28% lead over Labour. After his defection, he gave up his seat, so that a by-election had to be held. On October 9, Carswell was re-elected on a UKIP ticket, with 60% of the vote and a 35% lead over the Conservatives.
The interesting thing is that UKIP not only managed to more than halve the Conservative vote (from 53% to 25%) but also the Labour vote (from 25% to 11%), and the Liberal Democrat vote (from 13% to 1.5%.)
UKIP also did extremely well in the by-election in Heywood and Middleton, a constituency near Manchester in the north of England. This part of the country is a Labour Party stronghold. In 2010, Heywood and Middleton went to Labour with 40% of the vote – a 13% lead over the Conservatives.
Last Thursday, Labour won 41% of the vote, but UKIP came second with an astonishing 39%. Four years ago, the party had only received 3% of the vote. The Conservatives saw their share of the vote drop from 27% to 12%; the Liberal Democrats from 23% to 5%.
UKIP originated as a party of dissatisfied Conservative voters. However, as Nigel Farage pointed out last Friday, "UKIP is now tearing great holes in the old Labour vote." Heywood and Middleton was considered a safe Labour seat, at a time when Labour was in the opposition against an unpopular coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
As if last Thursday's blows to the British political establishment were not enough, on Sunday, a nationwide opinion poll revealed that one in four Britons intend to vote UKIP in next year's general elections. According to John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, the ratings would result in UKIP winning 128 seats in the next House of Commons, against 253 seats for Labour, 187 seats for the Conservatives, 11 seats for the Liberal Democrats, and 71 seats for other parties, such as the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Nationalists and the Ulster Unionists. The Conservatives currently hold 303 seats, Labour 257 seats, the Liberal Democrats 56 seats, UKIP 1 seat, and the others 33 seats.
If this prognosis becomes reality at the next elections, which are to held by May 7, 2015 at the latest, a coalition government of the Conservatives and UKIP would still be 11 seats short of a majority. Hence, Britain would become virtually impossible to govern unless there were a coalition of Labour and the Conservatives, which is highly unlikely. However, since UKIP has not lost its momentum yet, it might very well be able to pick up an additional 11 seats from other parties than the Conservatives (read: Labour), which would result in a coalition government of the Conservatives and UKIP.
Strategically, it is currently in the interest of both the Conservatives and UKIP that UKIP move to the left in order to pick up Labour votes. Traditionally, UKIP is economically to the right. The party calls itself libertarian and stands for a small state and low taxes. These values appeal mostly to the Conservative voters. However, UKIP also stands for strong policies on law and order and immigration, which appeal to voters in the traditional old Labour heartlands. Some commentators, such as the editors of The Economist, expect that UKIP leader Farage will eventually "pull a muscle" when he tries to bend towards Labour and Tory voters simultaneously.
The examples of Marine Le Pen's National Front in France and Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom [PVV] in the Netherlands, however, show that it is possible to attract voters from both the right and the left. Mr. Wilders' party successfully combines anti-tax and anti-immigration policies. So do the Swiss People's Party [SVP] in Switzerland and the Danish People's Party [DF] in Denmark. Given the Anglo-Saxon orientation of the Dutch and Mr. Wilders' admiration for Margaret Thatcher, the PVV especially might serve as an example for UKIP.
at No comments:

Colorado Senator Udall Is Key Supporter Of Obama, Regardless Of What He Says!

From Right To Bear Blog:

2nd Amendment / Gun Control / Other News

Self-Proclaimed “Thorn in Obama’s Side” Can’t Hide His True Colors from Second Amendment Voters

With elections just around the corner it’s not uncommon to hear politicians say all kinds of outlandish things to voters in an attempt to further cement their chances of winning an election.
But Mark Udall is making the commander in chief look like a rookie when it comes to the lies he’s telling.
Mark UdallIn case you don’t know, Mark Udall is Colorado’s progressiveSenator looking to severely hobble second amendment supporters.
And to court undecided voters who don’t like Obama, Udall has come up with a fairy tale where he insists that he’s the last person President Obama wants to see coming down the lawn of the White House. You know, because he’s always telling Obama “No.”
Udall has tried to convince voters that he’s actually working against the President most of the time. However, his voting record really doesn’t support the image he’s trying to portray.
As Town Hall reports, “Colorado’s Mark Udall is the ultimate Obama rubber stamp. He’s represented his purple state in a reflexively partisan, close-minded manner, backing President Obama 99 percent of the time.”
And unfortunately for gun owners in the Mile High State, Udall’s voting record has severely limited their 2nd Amendment freedoms to where Colorado now has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
Udall is very much like the man he claims to aggravate, consistently voting in favor of harsher gun control laws every single time he can. He has voted for anti-gun judges, magazine bans, universal gun owner registration and much more.
So what’s this about him being a pain in Obama’s side? Is he simply trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes?
In short, yes.
Fact of the matter is, of all the lawmakers in the nation, he is only one of a handful that has been selected to hit the greens with Obama. Apparently, playing golf with Obama counts as “resistance.”
Gun Owners of America has compiled a list they call “Udall’s Dirty Dozen,” whichcatalogs the many times Udall has restricted conservatives’ right to bear arms.
Udall might be be getting high on the legal weed out there in Colorado because no one in their right mind can say they’re a pain in Obama’s side when they’re the one who is helping get Obama’s gun control rammed through the legislative process.
Perhaps that’s why Michael Bloomberg endorsed Udall for Everytown for Gun Safety, Bloomberg’s pet project to get guns out of people’s hands.
Whatever the case might be, if a politician like Udall or Obama says they’re in favor of the second amendment, you can assume they’re lying about that too.
at No comments:

Either Alexa Has A Bad Algorithm Or It Has Been Corrupted?

THE WAR ON FREE PRESS CONTINUES

Exclusive: Joseph Farah exposes 'mysterious, inexplicable rankings revolution' at site

author-image JOSEPH FARAH About | Email | Archive
 author alerts Receive author alerts rss feed Subscribe to feed
  • Printer Friendly
  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
For 17 years, longer than any other independent Internet news agency, WND.com has been fighting to re-establish the free press in America.
We’ve battled challenges from the federal government, the corporate gatekeepers in the Big Media, corrupt banksters, cultural revolutionaries, well-funded professional smear artists and a thousand other adversaries along the way.
The latest attack, camouflaged under the guise of a new-and-improved, more accurate algorithm, comes from an Internet ranking company owned by Amazon.com called Alexa.com.
Beginning just 10 days ago, Alexa.com, which specializes in ranking websites all over the world in order of popularity, instituted a new system that has precipitated plunges in the positions of FoxNews.com, the DrudgeReport, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller.com, Infowars.com, NewsMax.com, WND.com and many other “alternative” Internet news sites – or those which, like WND.com, are, in one way or another, attempting to serve the role of government watchdog.
Meanwhile, while those sites are in free-fall on Alexa.com, statist, “progressive” content sites, some of which serve only as watchdogs of the watchdogs, are skyrocketing on the Alexa rankings. None of this has anything, of course, to do with a sudden change in the public’s news consumption habits. Though officials at Alexa finally responded to WND’s persistent requests for comment after nearly three days of silence, the company has offered no explanation for this remarkable, dramatic, overnight shift in their rankings.
What do I conclude from this?
The only conclusion I can draw after similar battles over the decades with Internet giants like Google and Bing and the Big Media establishment is that Alexa has joined the war on the free press. I can only conclude that the once-reputable company has thrown its lot in with the corporate gatekeepers who are threatened by the competition from the upstart muckrakers.
WND news stories have documented the otherwise mysterious, inexplicable rankings revolution taking place at Alexa.com:
What’s happening at Alexa.com is shocking and demands a public response from Amazon.com. Over the last 17 years WND has been around, we’ve seen this kind of thing before. It smacks of a deliberate effort to destroy and discredit alternative news sites – especially those that don’t grovel at the feet of government and who seek to be the watchdogs the American news media are supposed to be.
How else does one explain the disparity between the recent gains on Alexa by statist, pro-government, pro-status quo, establishment sites and the precipitous drops on Alexa by the anti-establishment alternatives? Again, to be clear, these rankings are not in any way based on dropping traffic. No such drop is taking place. The Alexa rankings, based on what we’ve seen over the last week or so, suggest the company has thrown out its role as a politically impartial Internet ranking service and thrown its lot in with search engines like Google and Bing, which admittedly give preference through their skewed algorithms to establishment content sites like CNN and Huffington Post.
The shift is widespread in its “political correctness” standard: Websites like Planned Parenthood are suddenly soaring, while the pro-life LifeNews.org is falling like a rock.
All Alexa has said about what’s happening is posted below:
“Thanks for your inquiry. Below is some additional information about how Alexa calculates ranks. We have not recently changed our methodology.
“The Alexa ranks are updated daily. Most Global and Country ranks are based on our panel of toolbar users which is a sample of all internet users; specifically the Global rank is based on unique visitor and page-view metrics from the past 3 months and the Country ranks are based on metrics from the past 1 month. If a site’s metrics are Certified the Global and Country ranks can be based on Certified Site Metrics from the past 3 months and from the past month, respectively. The Certified Site Metrics feature is available on all of our paid subscription plans: http://www.alexa.com/plans
“The rank graph at the top of the Site Overview page shows a site’s rank smoothed over the trailing 30 days, making it less meaningful than the 3 month rank. The smoothed rank plot points on the graph tend to fluctuate more often than the 3 month global rank that appears at the top of Site Overview pages.”
Apparently, Alexa has made a corporate decision not to answer WND’s inquiries about the sudden discrepancies between rankings of watchdog and “progressive” sites.
Maybe Alexa needs to hear from you.
Alexa Internet
Phone: (415) 561-6900 and (415) 561-6908
Fax: (415) 561-6795
37 Graham St, San Francisco, CA 94129-1723
Twitter
Facebook

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/the-war-on-free-press-continues/#Of1ku5QeX7E6PvyE.99
at No comments: