Daily Archives: October 9, 2015

California’s culture of death: 2 in 3 voters favor euthanasia


By: Devvy Kidd

Here we go again.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal all want to be the next U.S. president. The only problem is, just like the impostor in the White House, Barack Obama (known aliases used: Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and aka Barry Dunham), all three are constitutionally ineligible, contrary to declarations from their campaign managers, ignorant journalists and partisan mouth pieces.

Jonathan Tilove, The Times-Picayune: “They (Jindal’s parents) arrived Feb 1, 1971, and a bit over four months later, on June 10, 1971, Piyush Jindal was born at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge, a natural-born U.S. citizen, who like every other child born in America, could, constitutionally, grow up to be president.”

His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth; they were here on green cards. His mother became a citizen in 1976, his father in 1986. Jindal is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen.

Rubio was born in May 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents did not become U.S. citizens until November 1975. Rubio is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen.

[Upon further consideration, I believe Jindal and Rubio are the myth called ‘anchor babies’. Please see this column.]

Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was born in Delaware. Cruz’ father was born in Cuba, lived in the U.S. on a student visa, went to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. But, he did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 2005. Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen. When the issue of Cruz’ ineligibility came up in mid – 2013 with the Dallas Morning News proclaiming he was born with dual citizenship, Cruz announced he was giving up his dual citizenship because Ted Cruz wants to be president more than he wants to take his next breath:

“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship,” he continued. “Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

Technically? Sorry, Ted, but like the fraud in the White House, you were born with dual citizenship. The prostitute MSM including big money anchors on FOX like Hannity & O’Reilly to this day continue to parrot that because the fraud in the White House’s mother was a U.S. citizen, therefore, so is Barry Soetoro. The key word here being born. Cruz thinks be can become natural born at age 43 when he announced he would give up his Canadian citizenship.

In that Dallas Morning News item, ignorance flows like champagne during prohibition:

“As speculation ramps up about Cruz’s political future, some have questioned his eligibility to become president. Most legal experts have said Cruz qualifies as a “natural born citizen,” a requirement for the White House job, as stated in the Constitution. “In the Dallas Morning News Sunday, legal experts told the paper that Cruz is not only eligible for president in the United States, he’s also technically a Canadian citizen and can even run for Parliament. Unless he renounces his citizenship there, he could also obtain a Canadian passport, according to the newspaper.”

The latest update I can find is Cruz was still saying he intends to give up his citizenship in January 2014: “TORONTO (AP) — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz vowed months ago to renounce his Canadian citizenship by the end of 2013, but the Calgary-born Republican is still a dual citizen. Cruz, 43, recently said in an interview with the Dallas Morning News that lawyers are preparing the paperwork to renounce citizenship, just as he said in August. Richard Kurland, a Vancouver-based immigration attorney, wonders what’s taking so long. Kurland said Friday that unless there’s a security or mental health issue that hasn’t been disclosed, renouncing citizenship is a simple, quick process.”

Is a red flag coming up? In any event, Cruz still believes he can be a natural born citizen at any given time.

There was a reason the Founding Fathers grand fathered in the ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the Constitution. They wanted to make absolutely sure as possible there would be no dual loyalties for a U.S. president. While I have no doubt Rubio, Jindal and Cruz are loyal Americans, one need only look at the usurper in the White House regarding loyalty to these united States of America and the U.S. Constitution. Soetoro was groomed by a high profile communist in Hawaii and then went on to Chicago to resume his communist connections. He is a die hard Marxist: Obama’s proven communist connections in Hawaii and Chicago.

We all know about the dozens and dozens of eligibility cases brought against Barry Soetoro aka Obama and why every single challenge was shot down by politically corrupt judges: his skin is black. The biggest disappointment for the truth came on March 21, 2014, nearly a year after oral arguments from the Alabama Supreme Court:

Alabama Supreme Court upholds decision to toss ‘birther’ lawsuit, Chief Justice Roy Moore dissents

“The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a 2012 lawsuit which wanted Alabama’s Secretary of State to certify the birth certificate of each presidential candidate before allowing their names to appear on the general election ballot. The court ruled 7-2 on the issue, with Chief Justice Roy Moore one of two justices who dissented from the majority’s decision, arguing the lower court should have directed the secretary of state to check candidate birth certificates.”

“The court determined that while the Secretary of State should check qualifications for a candidate, in 2012, no such authority existed to do so. Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote on that issue: “The chief justice argued that the results of the election did not render “moot” the plaintiffs’ claim that the Secretary of State had a duty to verify under the “natural-born citizen clause of the United States Constitution” each candidate’s eligibility to serve as president, before their names can appear on the ballot.

“Moore wrote that the Secretary of State has a duty under the U.S. Constitution to ensure candidates are qualified for office and he said the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs petition in order to implement the natural-born citizen qualifications clause in future elections. “Moore also argued that the court should have granted the petition and ordered the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of the presidential candidates who appeared on the 2012 ballot. “Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore wrote.

“This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”

“Parker wrote he concurred with Moore, but didn’t believe the secretary has a duty to investigate every proposed candidate.” (The full 83 page decision is here.)

No, a constitutionally ineligible candidate cannot be remedied through impeachment, because if a candidate is ineligible to be on the ballot, no one has the right to vote for that person. That candidate usurped the office, therefore he/she never occupied the office. How do you impeach someone who never legally held the office? But, there are those who don’t care, they simply want Barry aka Obama out of the White House using impeachment. Many are hopeful Comrade Obama will take so much heat over an impeachment, he would resign.

Nor can the impostor be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors since he was not eligible for the office of president. No one had the right to vote for him. He usurped it through fraud and lies. Barry Soetoro aka Obama has never held the office of president legally. He has committed many crimes including impersonating the president of these united States of America and as a civilian, he can be indicted and prosecuted, but there are no real men or women who will step up to the plate in their official capacity and take his crimes to a federal grand jury. They’re all a bunch of gutless suits and judicial robes who shame our justice system. I wonder how they look at themselves in the mirror.

Getting back to the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, I urge you to take the time to read the pieces below by constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo, if not today, take one each day:

Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to be President
Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility (Including Bobby Jindal)
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

As Mario talks about Minor, this is it and the meaning of that decision written by attorney Leo Donofrio: Minor v Happersett is Binding Precedent as to the Constitutional Definition of a Natural Born Citizen

Don’t look to the Democratic/Communist Party USA to step up to the plate. They know if even one of them is determined to be ineligible the world will know Barry Soetoro aka Obama was/is ineligible and every bill he signed into “law” and every treaty he signed is null and void. There was some noise made about Rubio’s eligibility a couple of years ago, but like Cruz, it went away for the reason I just stated. You can bet the word was quietly put out there by those pulling the strings to shut up Democrats about Republicans and eligibility.

Many of the lawsuits were thrown out using the excuse the Secretary of State isn’t required to check eligibility of a candidate, which makes one want to vomit. In the past, however, ineligible candidates have been removed from the ballot, just not Barry aka Obama because his skin color is black. His race was the shadow government’s trump card shoved down our throats and protected by the prostitute media, high profile “conservatives” on talk radio AND cable network anchors who called those of us who believe the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land all kinds of names.

We know both times Barry aka Obama was submitted as a candidate, the Democratic/Communist Party USA committed fraud. If the Republican Party submits ballot qualification paperwork for Rubio, Jindal or Cruz to be on any presidential ballot, they will also be committing fraud by knowingly and willfully submitting an ineligible candidate.

While we have more urgent issues right now, people are already out there working (and donating their hard earned money) to convince their fellow party members that Cruz, Rubio or Jindal should be the next president. I sincerely hope when the time comes, lawsuits will be filed against the Republican Party to keep those ineligible candidates off the ballot. I know how desperate Republicans and many independents are to take the White House. It will NOT happen if any form of amnesty goes through. You can take money to the bookie on that one – unless, the shadow government who control the game decide it’s in their best interests for the time being to put another RINO in the Oval Office.

But, that aside, what kind of hypocrites would we be if we don’t fight constitutionally ineligible Republican candidates as we fought to keep the current usurper out of the White House? Well, let me give you a prime example:

Cruz’s Supporters Don’t Question Eligibility

KINGWOOD, Texas — “When Democrat Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, Republican voter Christina Katok of Walden said she believed he was ineligible for the job. She reasoned that he was born in Kenya and therefore wasn’t a “natural born” American — one of a handful of constitutional requirements for the job. (Obama’s birth certificate shows that he was born in Hawaii, but some critics do not accept that as fact.)

“Fast forward six years and another freshman U.S. senator, Canadian-born Tea Party firebrand Ted Cruz of Texas, is being mentioned as a potential 2016 presidential candidate. But Katok, who would vote for Cruz in a heartbeat, doesn’t have any concerns about his eligibility. “As far as I’m concerned, Canada is not really foreign soil,” she said. Katok said she was more disturbed by Obama’s “strong ties to Kenya,” the African country where his father was born. She also said she didn’t like the fact that Obama did not release his long-form birth certificate during the 2008 race….

“Liberal critics say Republicans who questioned Obama’s presidential eligibility are being hypocritical now that one of their own is facing questions about his. Republican partisans say the controversies are different — and that Cruz has been more transparent about the circumstances of his birth. But partisanship may also be a factor in the differing perceptions. Kerrville real estate broker Sue Tiemann, for example, said she had questioned Obama’s American citizenship and concluded that if he had not been born in this country, he would not be eligible.

“Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, though, nobody disputed that his mother was from Kansas. In that case, it would be strikingly similar to the circumstances of Cruz’s birth: a mother who was an American citizen, born in Delaware, and a father born somewhere else (in Cruz’s case, Cuba). Tiemann, who said she has no doubt that Cruz is eligible to be president, acknowledged that party affiliation might have something to do with her evaluation of the circumstances. “You are always going to have that issue between Republicans and Democrats, [who] always look at it with a different way, a different eye,” she said.”

Not only are those Cruz supporters completely ignorant of the natural born citizen clause, Katok doesn’t care about Cruz’ eligibility because this time it’s her candidate. Hell, she doesn’t even believe the country of Canada is foreign soil!

This isn’t about their politics or personalities (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal), it’s about the Constitution. Mark my words – you will see a large number of Republicans, just like the Cruz supporters above, who care nothing about the U.S. Constitution if it might disqualify their favorite presidential candidate attack people like me for standing up for the supreme law of the land. However, that should not stop we the people from demanding only constitutional presidential candidates for any of the political parties appear on the ballot in all 50 states.

Important Links – If you can’t read today, please bookmark, but be sure to read them. If we are to fight, we must do it with facts – in this case, historical ones:

1- US Supreme Court Precedent States That Obama Is Not Eligible to be President
2- The Mr. Binney Funeral Humiliates The Reputation Of The United States Supreme Court.
3- Is There Any Way To Get The Impostor Out of the White House?
4- Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 1
5- Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment
6- Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 3: Standing Trial By Jury – History of Statute – Separation of Powers
7- The strange 2008 McCain-Obama Presidential eligibility debate
8- Historical and legal analysis: Natural Born at Birth
9- Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Devvy’s regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is: devvyk@npn.net

Source: 1000s of Terrorists Flee Syria after Russian Airstrikes, Army Ground Assault


TEHRAN (FNA)- Members of the ISIL Takfiri terrorist groups in Syria have evacuated the Arab country and fled to Turkey, Jordan and Europe, military source confirmed.

Thousands of ISIL Takfiri terrorists have fled Syria to Jordan, Turkey and Europe as the Syrian army continues march on militant-held regions as well as Russia’s airstrikes against positions of militias across the Arab country.

“A large number of ISIL terrorists have fled the Syrian territories to Jordan, Turkey and Europe after the Russian warplanes and the Syrian army troops pounded their gathering centers and hideouts,” the source underlined.

A local source on Monday told FNA that the ISIL militants, most of them from the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Chechnya, together with their families have left Raqqa province in Syria for Iraq.

The source noted that at least 220 ISIL families have fled to Iraq, and said, “Notorious terrorists such as Abu Talheh Hejazi from Saudi Arabia and ISIL religious police chief Abu Abdullah al-Akidi are among the militants who have fled Raqqa province.”

Another military source confirmed that over 3,000 militants from the ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and Jeish al-Yarmouk have left Syria for Jordan after the start of the Syrian army’s new wave of attacks and advances and the Russian airstrikes on terrorist groups positions.

The source noted that the Takfiri militants are afraid of the army’s advances in all fronts that come with the Russians’ air backup.

Russia’s Defense Ministry confimed on Tuesday that its jets pounded 10 ISIL targets in various regions, and destroyed 20 tanks and 3 rocket launchers near Palmyra in Homs province.

Russia’s upper house of parliament has approved the use of Russia’s Air Force in Syria, following a request by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Russia has launched a series of airstrikes across the Arab country Syria since last Wednesday. Moscow says its strikes have destroyed command centers and arms depots belonging to ISIL.

Meanwhile, Head of Russia’s upper chamber of parliament announced that Moscow will consider extending its airstrikes against terrorist groups in Syria to Iraq if it receives such a request from Baghdad. The Speaker, Valentina Matviyenko, stressed that Russia had so far not received such a request from the Iraqi government.


Obama’s Gun Control

Obama gun

These Three Republicans are Threatening to Defeat a New Bill to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

My Comments:  May I suggest those of you who are pro-life call these three Republicans and raise holy Hannah with them…tell them exactly what you think of their threat to vote against defunding Planned Parenthood.



With the support of dozens of pro-life groups and leaders, Congress will soon unveil new legislation designed to de-fund Planned Parenthood that pro-life advocates hope can get around a Senate filibuster and force President Barack Obama to make good on his promise to veto. But three Senate Republicans are threatening to defeat the new legislation.

As LifeNews.com has reported, Congressional Republicans are looking to use the reconciliation process to approve legislation to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, which has been caught selling aborted babies and their body parts. After the House approved the de-funding measure, Senate Democrats defeated a bill to fund the federal government that included language de-funding Planned Parenthood for one year while the Congressional investigation continues into how it allegedly violated multiple laws to sell aborted babies and their body parts.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

Now, House Republican leaders are planning to target Planned Parenthood’s funding by immediately drafting a fast-track reconciliation bill that would be able to overcome the Democrats’ filibuster and be approved on a majority vote in the Senate.

But, as The Hill reports, three pro-abortion Republicans in the Senate are threatening to oppose the bill and their vote vote could derail the de-funding bill. Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still pass the Planned Parenthood de-funding bill with 51 votes, assuming every Senate Democrat votes against funding.

Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.), one of the most vulnerable Republicans in next year’s elections, twice voted against procedural motions on legislation to block the healthcare group’s funding.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) has spoken on the Senate floor against defunding the group, though she did back a procedural motion in August that could have led to an up-or-down vote on defunding. She said she only did so on assurances from leadership that it would lead to another measure to maintain funding for Planned Parenthood’s other healthcare services.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) has also backed funding for Planned Parenthood, though she made the same vote in August as Collins based on the same argument.

“We’re not making news today,” said Kirk.

“I have not supported the defunding [of Planned Parenthood]. I’ve supported the repeal of ObamaCare. I’ve got to look at it as a whole,” said Murkowski, who faces reelection next year but is favored to win.

“I’m not going to prejudge what’s sent over by the House until I’ve seen all the components,” said Collins.

A fourth Republican, pro-life Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, is noncommittal on whether she will support the reconciliation de-funding bill.

“I have to look at it,” said Ayotte, who on Monday learned Democrats had recruited Gov. Maggie Hassan to challenge her next year. The Ayotte-Hassan race is expected to be one of the most hotly contested Senate races in the cycle.

One of the contentious reasons why the Republicans may not support the de-funding bill is because the reconciliation package may also have language in it repealing parts of Obamacare. That’s something pro-life Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hopes will be included after the House passes it.

“We’ll take up reconciliation when it comes over from the House. And it’s my hope and expectation that it would have in it as much of ObamaCare as we can repeal. And I hope that it will also include provisions to de-fund Planned Parenthood,” he told reporters.

But if Obamacare repeal is included, the de-funding bill may also lose the vote of a Democrat who considers himself pro-life on abortion. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia says he will vote against the Planned Parenthood de-funding bill if Obamacare repeal is included.

“That’s bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit,” he said.

While the reconciliation process would result in getting a bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood to pro-abortion President Barack Obama’s desk, Obama has already promised repeatedly to veto any bill that revokes taxpayer funding for the abortion company. The Senate does not have enough votes to overcome such a veto, leading some pro-life groups to point out that there is little hope of de-funding Planned Parenthood until the election of a pro-life president next year.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of the Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 61, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2016, and for other purposes, which contains highly objectionable provisions that advance a narrow ideological agenda,” the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said before the vote. Eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood would “limit access” to healthcare for women, men, families and “disproportionately” affect low-income people, the OMB said.

Weeks ago, a previous Senate vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding.

A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.

The 10th video by The Center for Medical Progress features several top-level Planned Parenthood executives discussing the organization’s secretive practices around aborted fetal parts harvesting. The video includes comments from Deborah VanDerhei, the National Director of the organization’s Consortium of Abortion Providers, describing the harvesting of fetal body parts as “donation for remuneration.”

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all ten:

  • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
  • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
  • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
  • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
  • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
  • In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
  • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
  • In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
  • The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
  • The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies.The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.

The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.


Potentially game-changing oil reserves discovered in Israel



Haifa, Israel – After Israel complained for years that it was surrounded by oil-rich states but didn’t have a drop within its own borders, it appears there’s a big-time turnaround with the announcement Wednesday that massive oil reserves have been located in the Golan Heights,close to the country’s border with Syria.

Afek Oil and Gas, an Israeli subsidiary of the U.S. company Genie Energy, confirmed the find in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 TVbut conceded that until the oil is actually extracted, they won’t be sure of the actual amounts and quality of the oil that has been discovered.

“We are talking about a strata which is 350 meters thick and what is important is the thickness and the porosity,” the company’s chief geologist, Yuval Bartov, explained. “On average in the world, strata are 20-30 meters thick, so this is ten times as large as that, so we are talking about significant quantities. The important thing is to know the oil is in the rock and that’s what we now know.”

“There is enormous excitement,” Bartov said. “It’s a fantastic feeling. We came here thinking maybe yes or maybe no, and now things are really happening.”

According to a September 2014 Times of Israel report on the Golan exploration, Genie Energy is chaired by Howard Jonas and counts among its more notable investors the “former US Vice President Dick Cheney, Michael Steinhardt, Jacob Rothschild, and Rupert Murdoch.”

Experts say actually extracting meaningful quantities of oil from the deposits is likely some time away. Some have suggested that while the find could be very significant, the announcement might have as much to do with the share price of the exploration company as the actual certainty that oil will be produced at the site.

The other key consideration in the development of the potential oil feed is its close proximity to the vicious fighting taking place just over the border in neighboring Syria, where ISIS and other jihadi organizations had been battling the Syrian forces of President Assad and his Iran-backed allies Lebanon-based Hezbollah even before Russia’ recent entry into the regional conflict.

Most recent rocket strikes into Israel’s Golan territory have generally been declared stray fire by the Israel Defense Forces, but regional experts point out that the potential costs and challenges of protecting future oil fields so close to the war zone, as well as the large target it would provide for enemy fire, could prove challenging should the project indeed come to fruition and provide the Jewish state –where a reported 270,000 barrels of oil are consumed daily – with its own source of ‘black gold’.

A license to drill in the area was initially issued in April 2013 within an area of nearly 98,000 acres -approximately a third of the Golan itself – but a series of appeals to the Israeli courts by organizations such as the Society for Protection of Nature in Israel and Greenpeace, put all development of the site on hold until a December 2014 ruling gave the green light for drilling.

The main site is close to the small town of Katzrin, which lies northeast of the northern shore of the fabled Sea of Galilee and is home to a wide range of special plants and wild animals, including major nature reserves such as Gamla, home to Israel’s largest population of Griffon vultures.

The rugged land, captured from Syria during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and still under dispute between the two countries, includes vital underground water sources that feed directly into the Sea of Galilee itself, Israel’s main source of fresh water.

In recent years massive natural gas reserves have been discovered and developed off the Mediterranean coast of Israel, but political wrangling over who gets which piece of the financial pie has caused a delay in benefits from the find.

The long-running saga has proved a major embarrassment to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which in August received a further blow to what the Israeli government had anticipated would be its regional dominance in oil in the eastern Mediterranean when Egypt announced than an Italian company had discovered a gas field estimated at 30 trillion cubic feet. However, the Egyptian fields have yet be developed.

Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist. Follow him on Twitter @paul_alster and visit his website: www.paulalster.com


3 Teens Died After Principal Hypnotized Them

By Michael Harthorne,  Newser Staff FOR NEWSER.COM

(NEWSER) – On Tuesday, a Florida school board approved a $600,000 payout to the families of three students who died after being hypnotized by their high school principal, theSarasota Herald-Tribune reports. The bizarre case started in 2011 when 16-year-old North Port High School student Wesley McKinley hanged himself after being hypnotized by principal George Kenney multiple times. Friends say McKinley couldn’t remember his own name after hypnosis sessions to improve his guitar playing. Seventeen-year-old Brittany Palumbo also hanged herself after Kenney hypnotized her to improve her SAT scores. And 16-year-old quarterback Marcus Freeman died in a car crash on his way home from a painful dental visit after Kenney taught him to hypnotize himself to deal with pain during games.

An investigation launched after McKinley’s death found Kenney hypnotized up to 75 students, staff members, and others starting in 2006, the Herald-Tribune reports. A school district official had warned him to stop hypnotizing students three times by the time the deaths started. One student on the basketball team says Kenney hypnotized him 30 to 40 times to improve his concentration. A lawyer for the families says Kenney never admitted wrongdoing or apologized to the families. “It’s something they will never get over,” he says. “He altered the underdeveloped brains of teenagers, and they all ended up dead because of it.” Kenney resigned in 2012, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors, served one year of probation, and is currently operating a bed and breakfast in North Carolina. Read the full story here.


Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority

Obama speaks about Ore. community college shooting

Speaking at the White House on Thursday evening, a visibly frustrated and emotional President Obama remarked on the deadly shooting at a community college in Oregon.

By Juliet Eilperin October 8 at 8:46 PM 


In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.

Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers.

As the president heads to Roseburg, Ore., on Friday to comfort the survivors and families of those killed in last week’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College, the political calculus around his most vexing domestic policy issue is shifting once again.

After the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., claimed the lives of 20 students and six staff members, Obama asked Vice President Biden to devise a list of policy proposals in response, and on Jan. 26, 2013, the president announced 23 executive actions ranging from restarting federal research into the causes of gun violence to providing parity for mental health coverage under private insurance plans. He pushed for legislation mandating universal background checks on gun sales, an effort that failed in the Senate in April 2013. In August that year, Obama closed two gun-sale loopholes through executive authority, subjecting gun purchases by corporations and trusts to background checks and banning almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities.

[Guns, race remain Obama’s biggest missed opportunities]

In the wake of last week’s tragedy, Obama said he had asked his team “to scrub what kinds of authorities do we have to enforce the laws that we have in place more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

“We are hopeful we can find a way to do this,” said one senior administration official, who noted that lawyers were still working through details to ensure that the rule could pass legal muster. “It’s a lot more clear today than it was a year ago how to work this out.”

Nine days before a shooter opened fire on the Umpqua Community College campus, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, Mark Kelly, were at the White House to reiterate a long-standing request that those private dealers who sell a sizable number of guns conduct background checks on buyers. The proposed rule change would clarify what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms.

In a meeting with Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Giffords and Kelly, who became gun-control activists after Giffords was seriously wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, were pushing for a regulatory change that administration officials considered — but then shelved — nearly two years ago.

The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

White House officials drafted the proposal in late 2013 to apply to those dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually, after Congress had rejected legislation that would have expanded background checks more broadly to private sellers. While the White House Office of Legal Counsel and then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. initially concluded the regulation was legally defensible, according to several individuals involved in the discussions, some federal lawyers remained concerned that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold could leave the rule vulnerable to a challenge.

ATF officials, moreover, objected that it would be hard to enforce and that it was unclear how many sellers would be affected by the change. “Everyone realized it would be hugely politically controversial,” said one individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions.

On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listed the idea of changing the definition of who qualifies as a gun dealer as one of her top proposals to address gun violence.

[Can Hillary Clinton’s background checks proposal actually work?]

The aides to Biden who worked most intently on the background-checks proposal in 2013 have since left the administration, but it has resurfaced periodically: Obama discussed the idea with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch during a July 9 Oval Office meeting, aides said, three weeks after nine African American parishioners were gunned down in Charleston, S.C. Now, according to administration officials, a group of West Wing staffers are working in concert on this and other possible executive actions.

Pia Carusone, a senior adviser at Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group Giffords and Kelly founded, declined to discuss details surrounding private White House meetings.

“Over the last few years, Gabby, Mark and ARS staff have met with various administration officials to discuss how we can work together to address America’s gun violence problem,” Carusone said by e-mail. “Many potential solutions have been discussed in conversations that have included the president, vice president and their teams.”

Arkadi Gerney, senior vice president at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, said tightening the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling guns “is a meaningful but modest step towards the goal of ensuring that all gun sales involve a background check.”

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker, by contrast, said any change was unnecessary and could “ensnare” people not intended to be covered by the law, such as a widow selling off her late husband’s gun collection. “People who repeatedly sell large volumes of firearms are already covered in the current statute because they are already defined as ‘engaged in the business,’ ” she said.

Some activists, including those from the faith and community organizing group Metro Industrial Areas Foundation say Obama could be much bolder with his executive authority. On Thursday, the group, which is pushing the president to leverage the federal government’s purchasing power with gun manufacturers, held a rally in Lafayette Square to demand Obama call in industry leaders and insist that they develop safer technology and crack down on the stores that sell a disproportionate number of guns used in crimes.

“We have traveled here from across the nation to challenge you to stop whining about the power you don’t have, and start acting with the power you do have,” said Bishop Douglas Miles, who is on the group’s leadership team and serves as pastor of Koinonia Baptist Church in Baltimore.

Last week, Obama said that “this is something we should politicize” and that every American had “to for a while, be a single-issue voter” when it came to tightening the nation’s gun laws.

Gun-control activists have made significant political headway on the state level since the Newtown shooting. In the past year, they prevailed on background check fights in Washington state and Oregon; laws to carry concealed weapons without a permit were enacted in three states but defeated in 15. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 55 percent of gun laws enacted so far this year loosened restrictions rather than tightened them, and many were quite minor. In 2012, by contrast, 72 percent of all enacted gun laws loosened restrictions.

“The gun lobby has done a very good job of tying up Washington, D.C.,” said John Feinblatt, president of the advocacy group Everytown. “It can’t tie up the people, and cannot, in fact, tie up state legislatures.”

While polling shows between 85 and 92 percent of Americans support expanding background checks, the broader issue of gun rights remains fraught. In Roseburg, where many have chafed at the administration’s gun policies, opinion remains sharply divided over whether Obama should even come to offer his condolences to victims’ families.

“Half the people in Roseburg say it’s wonderful, the other half say he shouldn’t show up,” said Earl Skonberg, a local gun owner who engages in sport shooting.

GOP shocker! Kevin McCarthy drops out of speaker race



WASHINGTON – “It must have been the Jones letter,” a well-placed Capitol Hill source told WND.

It seemed the only way to explain why House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suddenly and shockingly announced Thursday he would not run for speaker of the House, when his election was considered a near certainty.

The source was referring to a letter written by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., as WND reported, asking any candidates for majority leader to drop out if they had any embarrassing skeletons in the closet.

Red State reported a letter accusing McCarthy of having a relationship with Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., was circulated widely among members of Congress. The pair denied having a relationship.

The stunning move suddenly throws the GOP caucus into disarray and makes the race for the top spot in the House wide open, with no clear frontrunner.


Rep. Renee Ellmers , R-N.C.

McCarthy was considered the heavy favorite and heir apparent to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who recently announced he would retire from Congress at the end of October.

Boehner now may stay on the job past October, perhaps even indefinitely, as he reiterated Thursday he would remain until the House elects a new speaker.

That could be bad news for conservatives who fear Boehner will strike deals with Democrats to pass legislation raising the debt limit, as well as another budget resolution in December funding such Obama administration priorities as Planned Parenthood, amnesty and Obamacare.

Shock and silence

“I’m not the one,” McCarthy reportedly announced to the amazement of his GOP colleagues, at a caucus assembled Thursday morning to nominate speaker candidates.

Fox News reported fellow House Republicans reacted with silence and disbelief. Anchor Brett Baier said, “This throws complete turmoil into this election.”

McCarthy’s blockbuster announcement left his supporters bewildered.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said, “I think it’s pretty obvious that all members of the delegation of the conference were shocked.”

Some members even broke out in tears.

Boehner ally Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said, “People are crying. They don’t have any idea how this will unfold at all.”

“It is total confusion — a banana republic,” he added.

According to Politico, an aide to McCarthy shocked Boehner with the news just moments before going public.

At a press conference, McCarthy confirmed he will stay on as majority leader, the number two spot in the GOP House leadership hierarchy, but said, “If we are going to unite and be strong we need a new face to help do that.”

“I feel good about the decision,” he added. “I have the deepest respect and regard for each member of the conference and our team as a whole. It is imperative for us to unite and work together on the challenges facing our country.”

“Over the last week, it has become clear to me that our conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader. I have always put this conference ahead of myself.”

A House divided

McCarthy was opposed by the conservative wing of the House but had the strong support of establishment Republicans.


House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

A McCarthy aide told CNN he dropped out of the speaker race because he simply didn’t have the 218 votes needed to win.

But a conservative House source contradicted that, telling WND his election had been considered inevitable.

Additionally, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., told CNN that McCarthy was still campaigning for speaker just a few hours before he made his sudden about-face.

McCarthy had previously come under fire for a gaffe in which he said the House committee investigating the Benghazi scandal had succeeded in hurting the poll numbers of Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

But that did not seem to deter him from seeking the top spot in the House or diminish support from most of his colleagues, even though Republicans roundly criticized McCarthy and he apologized for implying the inquiry was politically motivated.

Despite the allegation of a relationship between McCarthy and Ellmers, she was not supporting him for speaker, which struck political observers as odd because they are both considered establishment Republicans.

Ellmers recently said of McCarthy, “He has not spoken to me personally for my vote, and Jason Chaffetz has, so that’s where I am right now. At this point I will be casting a vote for Jason Chaffetz.”

“I can’t vote for someone who doesn’t ask for my vote,” she added.

Ellmers concluded, “I’m apparently not high on his priority list.”

McCarthy blamed conservatives for his demise.

In an interview with National Review after his announcement, he said the roughly 40 members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus “wanted things I couldn’t deliver.”

“I wouldn’t have enjoyed being speaker this way, he added.

McCarthy also said colleagues were getting calls opposing him, and, “I didn’t want to put them through a tough vote.”

Who’s next?

Boehner canceled the speaker nomination elections among GOP House members scheduled for Thursday. The entire House was to vote for speaker on Oct. 29, but that is now in doubt, as members will be out of session next week, and there will undoubtedly be a media circus surrounding the testimony of Hillary Clinton before the Benghazi committee on Oct. 22.


Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc.

Now that there is no clear front-runner to replace Boehner as speaker of the House, speculation on a viable successor is running rampant.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., was immediately seen as the most likely candidate to garner the 218 votes needed in the full House to win the speaker’s post, but he quickly said he doesn’t have intentions to run.

Despite strong endorsements from Boehner and McCarthy, Ryan released a statement that said, “While I am grateful for the encouragement I have received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.”

There had been a movement to draft Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., as speaker, but he quashed the notion, saying he needed to focus on his work as chairman of the committee investigating the Benghazi scandal.

Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash, also declined to run.

Neither she nor Gowdy has said whether they will change their mind following McCarthy’s announcement.

Reps. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Tom Price, R-Ga., had been planning to run for the position of majority leader that McCarthy was going to vacate but will now keep. Neither has said whether he now intends to run for speaker.

Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, are now the only candidates left officially seeking the speaker slot.

Webster is endorsed by the House Freedom Caucus.

“It might enhance Dan Webster’s chances. Dan is a man of principle,” Jones told Fox News after McCarthy’s withdrawal.


Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla.

“We stand by our support of Webster,” said Freedom Caucus member Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., to the Daily Signal. “He would make a fantastic speaker. As a group we endorsed Webster, and we stand by the endorsement.”

“[Webster] has made a powerful case for overhauling the function of the House and making it principle-driven rather than power-driven, and that appeals to a lot of members who have been, I’ll say, disenfranchised from the power-driven House that we’ve experienced,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who nominated Webster.

“Our focus is on making sure that the next speaker will put in place the changes that will help us do what we told the American people we were going to do,” Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told the Daily Signal.

A call for order

That was likely a tacit recognition that House conservatives realize they did not have the votes to elect one of their own.

They have been pushing for a speaker who would return the House to what is called regular order, the open process of moving legislation through the chamber that gives rank-and-file members more say, rather than just a yes or no vote on measures proposed by leadership.

In a Facebook post in reaction to McCarthy’s announcement, Amash asked people to read his op-ed from earlier in the week describing what conservatives sought in a new speaker:

“With Speaker Boehner’s resignation, we have a historic opportunity to change course for the better by electing a speaker committed to upholding the open process that allows the body to reflect the policy preferences of the people.

“Under such leadership, there would be no secret deals or voice votes; legislation would move through the normal committee process; and all of us, regardless of party, would be given adequate time to read each bill and an opportunity to offer and vote on amendments.

“This is how the House was meant to work — not as an oligarchy, but as a deliberative body that respects the diversity of its membership.”

The House Freedom Caucus issued this statement:

“We were surprised by today’s news and respect Kevin’s decision to place the conference ahead of himself. Our prayers are with him and his family. We believe that the House needs the principled leadership of a speaker who will empower the institution, its members, and the American people. We must ensure that the processes in the House and in the Republican Conference are fair for all members. The next speaker needs to yield back power to the membership for the sake of both the institution and the country.”

Others who have been mentioned as possible candidates for speaker include: Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas; Hal Rogers, R-Ky.; Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga.; and Greg Walden, R-Ore.

Ivanka for speaker?

The Capitol Hill drama did not escape the attention of presidential contenders.


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump

GOP front-running presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeted: “Great. Kevin McCarthy’s dropped out of speaker’s race.”

He also retweeted a suggestion that his daughter, Ivanka, take the post.

At a campaign event in Las Vegas, Trump commented on McCarthy’s decision, saying, “They’re giving me a lot of credit for that because I said you really need someone very, very, tough and very smart. You know smart goes with tough. I know tough people that aren’t smart that’s the worst. We need smart, we need tough, we need the whole package.”

“The race for speaker of the House is not about Kevin McCarthy, it’s about burning the corrupt Washington political machine to the ground and rebuilding our country so America can win again,” said GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in a statement.

“We all fought hard to elect conservatives to Congress, but the campaign promises made weren’t kept – because they’re beholden to Wall Street, K-Street and the donor class,” he added. “It’s time to elect a speaker who will lead Congress and do what we conservatives sent them there to accomplish.”

In an apparent attempt at humor, the Democratic National Committee tweeted: “Nancy Pelosi for speaker.”

Second Amendment foes lying about gun control


The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.

Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.

Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media whores tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control:

They are lying.

If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control.

These despots truly hate America.

These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property.

These oligarchs fear that America will wake up one day from the MSM’s digital drug of social engineering aimed at an acceptance of the lie of a utopian fantasy of safety and security through gun registration and confiscation.

But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism.

They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.

Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.

The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population.

Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

Or do we let these and other rights slip away one by one until we are herded into the gas chambers by armed guards, waiting those last twenty seconds for metallic clicks of the Zyklon B canisters pressurizing the fake shower heads?