Posts Tagged ‘Fascist’

‘They treat her like she’s Osama bin Laden’ as TSA pats down their daughter, SEVEN, who is mentally handicapped and has Cerebral Palsy!

Saturday, April 28th, 2012

It just does not stop with the Obama GOVERNMENT attacks on the American people…..

We the people must STOP Obama and his Socialist/Fascist oppression that is costing every American THEIR freedom.

‘They treat her like she’s Osama bin Laden’
Family’s outrage as TSA pats down their daughter, SEVEN, who is mentally handicapped and has Cerebral Palsy
Dina Frank, seven, forced to undergo ‘lengthy’ pat-down from ‘overly aggressive’ TSA agent at JFK Airport
Family requested that TSA agent introduce himself and take his time
TSA manager finally let family go through security but family missed flight
By Beth Stebner

One Long Island family was looking forward to a relaxing trip to sunny Florida.

But that trip screeched to a halt when a TSA agent in New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport targeted and searched the family’s disabled seven-year-old daughter, who suffers from cerebral palsy.

Little Dina Frank could not walk through the metal detectors because of her crutches and orthotics, and was instead subjected to a pat down by security agents – a severely traumatic event for the young girl.

Dr Joseph Frank, a doctor who practices pediatrics on Long Island, exclusively told the Daily that the lengthy pat down and resulting emotional trauma caused the family to miss their flight to Florida.

The Obama Fascist Government elite are here and they are coming for your Kids & your Parents.

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012


Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”.strong>

Article Originally Appeared in Carolina Journal via carolinajournal.com
Written By Sara Burrows

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”

It is unclear whether the school was allowed to charge for the cafeteria lunches they gave to every preschooler in the class that day.

The state regulation reads:

“Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.

“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”

Still, Kozlowski said, the parents shouldn’t have been charged.

“The school may have interpreted [the rule] to mean they felt like the lunch wasn’t meeting the nutritional requirements and so they wanted the child to have the school lunch and then charged the parent,” she said. “It sounds like maybe a technical assistance need for that school.”

The school principal, Jackie Samuels, said he didn’t “know anything about” parents being charged for the meals that day. “I know they eat in the cafeteria. Whether they pay or not, they eat in the cafeteria.”

UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit

Sunday, December 11th, 2011


UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit
By Paul Joseph Watson

UPDATE: World Government Climate Deal Fails In Durban

Bureaucrats at the UN Climate Summit in Durban have outlined plans for the most draconian, harebrained and madcap climate change treaty ever produced, under which the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a “climate debt” which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.

“Here – and, as always, you heard it here first, for the mainstream media have conspired to keep secret the Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie of governmental and bureaucratic lunatics worldwide – is what the dribbling, twitching thrones and dominions, principalities and powers of the world will be asked to agree to,” he writes, adding that actual climate science has not been a topic of debate at the summit.

- The treaty calls for the west to achieve a 50% CO2 emissions reduction within the next eight years, a feat that would completely bankrupt the global economy and spark a new great depression, as well as a “more than 100%” reduction by 2050, which presumably could only be accomplished by killing billions of humans to prevent them from exhaling carbon dioxide.

“So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves,” writes Monckton.

- The text calls for a 2 degree Celsius drop in global temperatures, which as Monckton points out “would kill hundreds of millions” and herald a new ice age.

- The reduction in CO2 concentration the text calls for would actually begin to kill all plant life and trees on the planet because they need levels of carbon dioxide above 210 ppmv to survive.

- All military forces would be abolished because they contribute to climate change. Presumably the United Nations would then take on the role of world army to police the globe.

- The process will be enforced by an “International Climate Court of Justice” under a bureaucracy of world government that will force western nations to pay “climate debt,” as well as reparations to third world nations to pay for carbon cuts that wouldn’t be as drastic. The burden of “historical responsibility” has been applied to industrialized nations, implying they are guilty for whatever the weather decides to do and must be punished for it.

- All the money will be collected by the UN and whatever is left after they have taken their considerable cut will be doled out according to the wishes of UN bureaucrats. “As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change,” writes Monckton.

- Environmental enforcement arms of the UN will be given the power of a global government in the name of fighting climate change. “The draft “agrees that common principles, modalities and procedures as well as the coordinating and oversight functions of the UNFCCC are needed” – in short, global centralization of political, economic and environmental power in the manicured hands of the Convention’s near-invisible but all-powerful secretariat. No provision is made for the democratic election of key members of the all-powerful secretariat – in effect, a world government – by the peoples of our planet,” writes Monckton.

- This world government will mandate that western nations submit reports every two years on their progress and then implement the measures demanded by the world government.

- The UN will create several new slush funds from which to enrich its coffers, including a tax on shipping and aviation fuel, a new “green climate fund” and a worldwide cap and trade. Most of the costs will be handed down to taxpayers.

This merely scratches the surface of what the UN is trying to include in its “legally-binding treaty,” which represents eco-fascism on steroids. Despite press reports that the text is once again likely to be rejected, Monckton points out that UN bureaucrats are confident they can get some form of deal rammed through on this occasion.

The true Obama exposed!!!

Monday, February 21st, 2011

Watch the Obama in his own works. This is the real pro Socialist, Pro Fascist big government President.
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/video/video/show?id=2600775%3AVideo%3A3245354&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video

Let us agree on what economic systems are available.

Monday, August 16th, 2010

In the spirit of finding international common ground, some also see them as humorous manifestations of an underlying general scheme of political science that would compare legal or political concepts, such as the rights of ownership, across cultures around the world.
“You have two cows”
Anarchism:
You have two cows. You keep the cows and steal your neighbor’s bull. You ignore the government. Meanwhile, your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society.
Barter:
You have two cows; you want chickens; you set out to find another farmer who has chickens and wants a cow.

Capitalism:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Communism:
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk

Dictatorship:
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you

Environmentalism :
You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them

Fascism :
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Nazism:
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you

New Dealism:
You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.

Socialism:
You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbour.

Socialism — Bureaucratic:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

Totalitarianism:
You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

The Obama is the 1st hybrid President (a Fascolist) combining
Fascism : In point of fact, fascism as an economic program involved government control–but not outright ownership of–private capital, so that industry could be channeled to serve the priorities of the state. This, journalist John Flynn pointed out more than 60 years ago in his book As We Go Marching, is precisely what FDR tried to accomplish in the United States during the 1930s and ’40s.

Socialsim: socialist economy is based on public ownership of the means of production, wherein production is carried out to directly produce use-value, usually, but not always, coordinated through economic planning and a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind or labor-time.

The Democratic Party is fully supporting Socialism:
You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbour.

Conservatives support Capitalism:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
The Republican Party is weakly supporting Capitalism:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Al Gore supports Environmentalism :
You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

Which government would work best for you!

Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism??

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

Clearly the Fascist/Socialist Obama government is the most intrusive since Hugo Chavez and clearly resembles that of Stalinist Russian or Nazi Germany.

When will the American people say enough government intrusion is enough… Where is the Civil Liberties Union? Where are the out cry’s of GOVERNMENT abuse of the system and people… A free society????

Published June 18, 2010
| Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation’s homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans’ civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents.

“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Napolitano’s comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

“Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue,” said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. “They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they’ve adjusted their preconceptions.”

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists.

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, “We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.”

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people’s privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss — such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners’ use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can’t have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine.

Stalin, Chavez and Castro would agree with Michelle Obama.

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Michelle Obama doesn’t seem to understand when she says, “looking his critics in the eye”. The ISSUE is his critics are the American PEOPLE!

“I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course,” Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on “Good Morning America.” “That’s what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the President of the United States.”

Michelle Obama’s comments came in response to recent criticism from Sarah Palin who told TEA Party conventioneers in Nashville, Tenn., this weekend she wants to ask Obama supporters, “How is that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for you?”

The Obama view is failing because the United States is not interested is lowering the country to the level of either Fascist or Socialist models Obama is using to change the U.S..

The Obama administration is a complete disaster and failure.