In the 1990s, conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly wrote a moving description of the plight of U.S. Army Specialist E-4 Michael G. New, a medic in the Third Infantry Division who was drummed out of the military because he refused to wear the uniform of the United Nations.
“When American soldiers were killed over Iraq,” she wrote, “Vice President Al Gore told the widows and orphans of those men that ‘they died in the service of the United Nations.’ That wasn’t a slip of the tongue; his words reveal the Clinton administration’s plan to use our armed forces as U.N. mercenaries all over the world at the whim of U.N. bureaucrats.
Schlafly said New had “raised the flag of patriotism against the Clinton-Gore goal.”
“Michael New’s trial is our battle, if we care about America,” she wrote.
What if New was right all along, and the order to don the U.N. emblems was unlawful, as he argued throughout his dispute with his commanding officers at his court-martial and throughout the appeals process?
It would mean that prosecutors in the Clinton administration withheld exculpatory evidence, deceived a judge in the case and misled defense counsel to stamp out what could have been a rebellion against illegal orders to serve under the banner of the international political group.
It is being filed by Herbert W. Titus, of counsel with the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.
This is the scenario that had been released to the public to this point. New was a soldier who objected to changing his allegiance from the U.S. Constitution, which he promised in an oath to defend, to the United Nations. Clinton was ramping up his involvement in various ethic conflicts around the globe. New was to be dispatched, under the command of the U.N., to Macedonia.
It was through Presidential Decision Directive 25 that Clinton ordered American troops to submit to the command of multilateral “peace” operations around the world.
But New refused to wear the arm patch and hat designating him a soldier of the United Nations. He eventually was charged and given a Bad Conduct Discharge, a slam on his personal integrity that has followed him since.
In one of the stops in his battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia warned that it would not overturn his conviction, which he argued was reached incorrectly because the deployment to which he was assigned violated the UNPA (United Nations Participation Act).
He has argued that the UNPA requires that specific congressional approval be given for certain deployments under the United Nations and that permission had not been obtained by the military.
That law, dating from the 1940s, does require such approval. It also forbids the placement of more than 1,000 soldiers under such command at any one time.
But under Clinton’s orders, such deployments were to be made by him “on a case-by-case basis.” He said he would allow U.S. forces to be placed under a “competent U.N. commander” based on factors such as U.S. interests, the size of the proposed force and the risk.
But what fell out of the process was the effort to obtain permission from Congress.
Instead, Clinton said, “The United States will take a leadership role in obtaining international agreement to enhance the headquarters capabilities of the U.N. to conduct peace operations effectively, to achieve economies of scale and reap the benefits of past experience. The United States will contribute personnel, technical assistance, equipment, facilities and funding for that enhancement.”
Defense attorneys had asked the government about such documentation during New’s court martial and were refused access, Titus explained. In fact, the prosecutors represented an abbreviated set of some 8-10 pages as the full order, and did not let the judge and defense counsel know the full extent of the order.
“When Mr. New’s attorneys requested that the classified document, which would have revealed that Clinton’s operational policy was not in compliance with the law, [the prosecutor] represented to the court and to New’s lawyers that the document he had in his hand, of 8-10 pages, was the document,” according to the appeal.
Actually, it contained closer to 30 pages.
Titus told WND that an appropriate resolution to the apparent misbehavior by prosecutors probably would include vacating the conviction and removing it from New’s record.
His pleading explains further: “Mr. New’s civilian defense counsel [in 1995] requested that pre-trial motions be deferred until defense counsel gained access to certain ‘classified’ documents in the custody of the government.”
Primary among those was the Presidential Decision Directive 25.
“We would like to see that document that forms the basis of what the government has asserted in that briefing is the legality of the order pertaining to Specialist New,” counsel argued.
Government officials refused, announcing “PDD 25 to be irrelevant to this trial” even though commanding officers specifically cited “PDD 25″ as a basis for the Macedonia deployment.
It was not until 2009, after the document was declassified, that New became aware of Clinton’s statements. And, according to the brief, it was at that time New also obtained access to Presidential Review Directive 13, which coordinated with PDD 25.
“As a direct result from having been denied access to material and exculpatory information in the classified versions of PDD 25 and PDD/PRD13, demonstrating noncompliance with UNPA, the military judge ruled that Mr. New failed to carry his ‘heavy burden of demonstrating [the order’s] unlawfulness,’” the filing states.
In the case, the military “denied petitioner his liberty and property without due process of law by unlawfully suppressing material and exculpatory information respecting the illegality of the order of which petitioner was charged to have disobeyed.”
“Both classified document PDD 25 and PRD 13 contained information that would have provided ample support for Mr. New’s claim that the order to wear the U.N. uniform violated the UNPA,” the pleading explains.
“Specifically, the classified version of PDD 25 adopted a policy of American armed force participation, both combatant and noncombatant, in disregard of whether the deployment of those armed forces complied either with Section 6 or Section 7 of the UNPA,” the case alleges.
How was Clinton ultimately going to get around such violations?
“The classified version of PDD 25 revealed the existence of a classified plan by the Clinton Administration to seek legislative change at an appropriate future time to remove the limitations placed by the UNPA on presidential discretion to commit American armed forces to multilateral U.N. peace operations.”
Both documents support “the validity of Mr. New’s contention that the Macedonian deployment violated the UNPA.”
Without relief, New will continue to suffer unjustly from the “ineradicable stigma” of a punitive discharge from the military, the argument contends.
Further, it would allow to remain unchallenged and unrecognized the usurpation of federal law by Clinton, the brief explains.
“We now know that PDD  sanctioned American armed force participation in U.N. multilateral peacekeeping operations without any regard to whether the Clinton administration’s new policy complied with UNPA requirements limiting U.S. participation in either U.N. peace enforcement or peace keeping operations,” a support brief said.
“Indeed, there is strong evidence in the classified versions of PDD 25 and PRD 13 to support a claim that the Clinton administration viewed UNPA as an obstacle to be avoided, rather than a law to be obeyed.”
The brief continued, “Now that PDD 25 has been declassified, obtained, and reviewed, the executive order can be seen as little more than camouflage for a presidential administration to do what it wanted to do, irrespective of the law.”
Schlafly’s article quoted New himself to get the message across: “I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. My Army enlistment oath is to the Constitution. I cannot find any reference to the United Nations in that oath.”
The GPS Smart Shoe embeds a GPS receiver and SIM card to send the shoe’s position to a private tracking website – helping to find people if they wander off.
With an estimated 5 million sufferers in the U.S., manufacturer Aetrex said they wanted to use technology to enable extra support.
The shoes are available for both men and women, with either straps or shoelaces, and sell for around $300 a pair, with a monthly service plan of $30.
The transmitter is embedded in the base of the right heel and tracks the user’s location in real time, sending that data at specified intervals to a central monitoring station.
When the wearer wanders off wearing the GPS Shoe, their caregiver will immediately receive a geo-fence alert on their smartphone and computer, with a direct link to a Google map plotting the wanderer’s location.
The company is also talking to various Alzheimer associations to explore various partnerships.
If there is a downside to the technology, it is that the battery life of the GPS receiver lasts only two days – so it could run flat if no-one remembers to charge it.
The website AllThingsDigital asked Evan Schwartz, the company founder, if there was any risk to the product in terms of surveillance concerns.
He said: “It’s all kinds of good and bad and ugly popping up when it comes to GPS tech these days, and that’s definitely a concern.”
“There are enough people who make jokes about tracking a spouse, or what if you threw the shoe in the trunk of someone’s car and they never know it’s being used for that, that sort of thing.”
“But at the same time, this shoe has been designed to serve a purpose, and it’s to help caregivers, so we have a hard time believing someone would abuse this.”
Transcript from Rush Limbaugh’s Radio program:
Trayvon Martin had drugs in his system. This is turning out to be the Duke lacrosse case all over again. Trayvon Martin, 17-year-old who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, had the drug THC in his system the night of his death. That’s the primary ingredient in marijuana. The revelation came as prosecutors in the case prepared to release to the public hundreds of pages of new evidence along with videos and crime scene photos. None of this information was in the charging affidavit, none of it. The charging affidavit contained only the fact that Zimmerman went out there and profiled Trayvon Martin.
Even now, even now NBC News — and we can never forget what they did — NBC News doctored the 911 tape of Zimmerman’s call to the cops to make it look like Zimmerman was profiling and was a racist and was only chasing Trayvon Martin because he was a black guy. They totally doctored that tape. The person that doctored it supposedly has been fired. Two other people at NBC were fired shortly afterwards. We don’t know who the original editor was that was canned. They haven’t identified by name, but they’ve told us the person has been fired. The tape was doctored on two separate occasions, and even after all of that, what I said earlier about you can’t humiliate the media, NBC News had a story this week in which they referred to George Zimmerman as a white man with Hispanic heritage.
After all of the so-called embarrassment and humiliation that they should have felt and suffered over the journalistically criminal doctoring of the 911 tape, they didn’t just leave something out of it. They put it in a different order. They made it sound like Zimmerman said something that he didn’t say. He only identified Trayvon Martin as black after he was asked to by the dispatcher. He did not volunteer the information. The NBC edited version of the tape makes it look like that’s the first thing that Zimmerman told him when he made the 911 call. The New York Times was the first to run the story that Zimmerman was a white Hispanic. It was the fifth time in the history of the New York Times anybody could find where they had done that.
But NBC this week referred to Zimmerman as a white man with Hispanic heritage. Even after all of this new evidence is coming out that Zimmerman was literally beat up, that Trayvon Martin had bruises on his knuckles, eyewitnesses now and a cop documenting Zimmerman’s story almost step by step. This case is falling apart. Now Trayvon Martin, THC was found in his blood and urine. This is another thing. The autopsy showed that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between one inch and 18 inches away, which bolsters Zimmerman’s claim that he shot Martin during a struggle. Everybody else, the media, tried to make it look like Trayvon Martin was shot in cold blood by George Zimmerman, who was chasing after him and shot him from a distance without any provocation. And none of that was true. None of the way the story was originally reported, very little of it, was true. Just like the Duke lacrosse case.
So now, in the New York Daily News today is a column by Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law. The headline says it all: “Drop George Zimmerman’s Murder Charge.” According to this column by Dershowitz, this new evidence is proof positive — well, not proof positive, but highly likely here that George Zimmerman did indeed, as he said, acted in self-defense.
“A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally. There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.”
That’s Dershowitz, Harvard Law, a liberal, writing about a state attorney up in Jacksonville. I fully expect the Jacksonville affiliate, WOKV, to call the state attorney now, ask them what they think of what Limbaugh said about what Dershowitz said.
NBC News, by the way, also claimed in their story after the autopsy was revealed, the detailed autopsy report, NBC claimed that Trayvon Martin was shot at intermediate range, not close range. I don’t know the official term is close range, but the distance was between one and 18 inches. I don’t know what the legal term for that distance is and I don’t know what the distance for intermediate range is, but NBC is attempting to imply that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin from quite a ways away. Honestly, I don’t know what’s happened to this network. It’s not just MSNBC that’s gone over the cliff. The parent network, NBC, has as well. There’s no pretense anymore.
Even after the 911 tapes were doctored, even after they fired three people involved in that, supposedly, they still describe Zimmerman as a white man with Hispanic heritage, in order to carry the racist template forward, that this was a crime that occurred only because a white guy saw a black guy wearing a hoodie in his neighborhood and doesn’t like black guys in his neighborhood so, pow. That’s what NBC wants its readers and viewers to believe happened, when it didn’t. They know it didn’t. Yet it doesn’t matter.
From: Breitbart/Big Government:
Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as does The Common Constitutionalist, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.
Yet Breitbart also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama’s ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.
It is in that spirit that Breitbart.com discovered, and now present, the booklet described below–one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.
It is evidence–not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has indeed been presented differently at different times.
Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.
It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.
Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):
Jay Acton no longer represents Obama. However, Jane Dystel still lists Obama as a client on her agency’s website.
According to the booklet itself, the text was edited by Miriam Goderich, who has since become Dystel’s partner at Dystel & Goderich, an agency founded in 1994. Breitbart News attempted to reach Goderich by telephone several times over several days. Her calls are screened by an automated service that requires callers to state their name and company, which we did. She never answered.
The design of the booklet was undertaken by Richard Bellsey, who has since closed his business. Bellsey, reached by telephone, could not recall the exact details of the booklet, but told Breitbart News that it “sounds like one of our jobs, like I did for [Acton & Dystel] twenty years ago or more.”
The parade of authors alongside Obama in the booklet includes politicians, such as former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill; sports legends, such as Joe Montana and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; and numerous Hollywood celebrities.
The reverse side of the page that features Barack Obama includes former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and early-1990s “boy band” pop sensation New Kids On the Block.
Acton, who spoke to Breitbart News by telephone, confirmed precise details of the booklet and said that it cost the agency tens of thousands of dollars to produce.
He indicated that while “almost nobody” wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom “the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,” were “probably” approached to approve the text as presented.
Dystel did not respond to numerous requests for comment, via email and telephone. Her assistant told Breitbart News that Dystel “does not answer questions about Obama.”
The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.
The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama–or the people representing and supporting him–manipulate his public persona.
David Maraniss’s forthcoming biography of Obama has reportedly confirmed, for example, that a girlfriend Obama described in Dreams from My Father was, in fact, an amalgam of several separate individuals.
In addition, Obama and his handlers have a history of redefining his identity when expedient. In March 2008, for example, he famously declared: “I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”
Several weeks later, Obama left Wright’s church–and, according to Edward Klein’s new biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, allegedly attempted to persuade Wright not to “do any more public speaking until after the November  election” (51).
Obama has been known frequently to fictionalize aspects of his own life. During his 2008 campaign, for instance, Obama claimed that his dying mother had fought with insurance companies over coverage for her cancer treatments.
That turned out to be untrue, but Obama has repeated the story–which even the Washington Post called “misleading”–in a campaign video for the 2012 election.
The Acton & Dystel biography could also reflect how Obama was seen by his associates, or transitions in his own identity. He is said, for instance, to have cultivated an “international” identity until well into his adulthood, according to Maraniss.
Regardless of the reason for Obama’s odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama–who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media.
From: Jonathon M. Seidl of The Blaze
When Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) heard that a school in his home state was fined $15,000 for accidentally selling soda during lunch, thus violating federal law, he was angry. But that’s only part of the story. While The Blaze brought that story national attention on Thursday, now we come to find out that it wasn’t the only school that had to fork over thousands of dollars for selling soda at the wrong time.
That led Bishop to deliver a passionate House speech on Wednesday where he lectured his colleagues on the Constitution.
“It is restated in the 10th Amendment where each level of government had a specific and distinct responsibility. When the states were interfering with the federal government, it produced historical catastrophic consequences,” Bishop said on Thursday. “But also when the federal government interferes with the role of states, the consequences will range from being catastrophic to just plain silly.”
He wasn’t done:
“In 2010, this congress passed the Healthy and Hunger-free Kids Act. We were wrong to pass it for five reasons. Number one, it was a Senate bill–that should have been our first tipoff. Number two, it was opposed by the National Governor’s Association. Three, it was opposed by the school boards association. Four, it violated the Constitution. Finally, number five, we created a one-size-fits-all federal program, not defined by us.”
Bishop explained both schools are important to him: he graduated from one and taught at the other for 23 years.
“It was wrong for Congress to invade the role of states. It was wrong to punish kids for these silly reasons. It is wrong to violate federalism,” he concluded. “If a community, school, and their PTA wanted to create the standards themselves, fine. It is wrong for this body to think that every issue has to be decided here in this room and it is wrong for us to forget that the 10th amendment has a purpose. It is there for a reason and should be respected.”
You can watch the speech below:
By the way, Bishop pleaded with his colleagues in 2010 not to pass this exact legislation for fear of a federal power grab (that would replace local and parental common sense). It seems he was right:
Yes, it’s that magical time of year again when the Darwin Awards are bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us.
And the Winner is:
1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach, California would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.
And now, the honorable mentions:
2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat-cutting machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to his insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also lost a finger. The chef’s claim was approved.
3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.
4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies. The deception wasn’t discovered for 3 days.
5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.
6.. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer…. $15. [If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?]
7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided that he’d just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of Polycarbonate. The whole event was caught on videotape.
8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, “Yes, officer, that’s her. That’s the lady I stole the purse from.”
9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn’t open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren’t available for breakfast. The man, frustrated, walked away. [*A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER]
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for. Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose into the motor home’s sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined to press charges saying that it was the best laugh he’d ever had.