Day of Resistance: Feb 23rd Nationwide Rallies to Challenge Obama Agenda

by Matthew Boyle 
14 Feb 2013

“The first is one which I’ve been getting ruthlessly abused for and that is because the AR-15 caliber is .223,” Stockton said in a phone interview. “It’s also the day that we raised the flag in Iwo Jima and it’s also a Saturday, so people who work regular hours can also attend.”

More than 50,000 Americans have already signed up for 97 rallies in more than 30 states across the country. The rallies will focus on Second Amendment issues and President Barack Obama’s push for gun control, but they will also branch out into all aspects of oppressive big government. 

“The main hook is Second Amendment defense and executive actions by Obama,” Stockton said. “At the same time, we feel like the GOP establishment argument on guns is that ‘this is all crazy talk, what you’re hearing doesn’t matter and they’re not going to actually come take your guns away.’”
Stockton claimed the average law-abiding gun owner believes the president is seriously pushing for gun control, among other left-wing policies, and cannot stand the establishment GOP’s unwillingness to fight back. However, guns are not the only issue that has conservatives upset: the gun control fight is a new launching pad for a bigger discussion, similar to how Obamacare sparked the Tea Party movement’s beginnings in 2009.
“We think that gives us an opportunity to talk about how Obamacare is affecting people’s personal privacy and all the other issues the Tea Party movement has to talk about,” Stockton said. “We’ll talk about over-regulation, bailouts, crony capitalism, Benghazi, Fast and Furious."
"Fast and Furious is a big one for me," Stockton explained. "When the top cop in the country is as crooked as Eric Holder, it really cements our argument that ‘yeah, you really need to not be counting on law enforcement for protection. You need to be taking personal responsibility.’”
Those interested in getting involved can either find a rally near them on the Day of Resistance website, or they can (through the end of this week) sign up to create their own event in their own town or city. “You have three options: You can sign up to attend, you can sign up to volunteer, or you can sign up to organize your own rally,” Stockton said.
Stockton has a Political Action Committee, Western Representation PAC, that is spending $25,000 from its cash reserves on the rallies in addition to money they have raised for the events; he said about $9,000 has come in thus far. TheTeaParty.net is sponsoring the events as well.
“We’ve got financial support if people need to pay for insurance, stages or whatever,” he told Breitbart News.
Stockton said there are lots of Americans around the country who want to get involved but have not had a place to start since the big Tea Party rallies and events back in 2009 and 2010. After watching Gun Appreciation Day rallies across the country in recent weeks, Stockton said he had an idea to fund five rallies with his PAC.
“I put out this video that I was going to do five rallies, and then all of a sudden I started getting emails from people all over the country,” he said. “Some asked me to come to Mississippi, to Minneapolis, to Louisiana and so many other places. I was like ‘Holy crap.’ This is way bigger than I anticipated.”
“So I started talking to folks and I realized this does have a very similar feel to 2009 and the Obamacare response. We’re up to 97 rallies and we have 50,000 people signed up to go and we haven’t really even dug into our marketing budget yet.”
Stockton hopes these new rallies can begin to rekindle the 2010 conservative magic. “For me, my big life-changing event was my first Tea Party rally,” he said. “I wasn’t politically active. I had all the conservative ideas, but I went to college in Eugene, Oregon, so I kind of learned to mostly keep them to myself. But when I physically went and saw the massive number of people who felt like I did, there was an inspiration level that drove me and everyone else all the way through 2010.”
“That feeling of community really generates a level of enthusiasm and volunteerism that we just didn’t see in 2012,” Stockton added.

Obama made no phone calls on night of Benghazi attack, White House says

By Stephen Dinan

February 14, 2013

President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though the White House downplayed that notion in the first five days after the attack.

Republican senators said they will still push for more information on who changed the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday talk shows after the attacks and blamed protests against an anti-Islam video.

Mr. Graham said he will block the president’s nominee to head the CIA until he hears more details about what Mr. Obama was doing.

Sen. John McCain said the White House’s reticence in releasing information contrasts poorly with the flood of details the White House put out about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, which has spawned two movies.

“We still don’t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn’t talking to,” Mr. McCain said.

Parents Complain About School Ad Excluding Whites From Tutoring Program

[Anti-White Race Hate Watch]

by CBS Denver
February 13, 2013

AURORA, Colorado
A school principal said no white children were allowed at an after-school tutoring program, and now some parents call it discrimination.
The principal at Mission Viejo Elementary in Aurora sent a letter telling parents the program is only for students of color. Parents CBS4 talked with said they were shocked to see, in this day and age, what they consider to be segregation.
“I was infuriated. I didn’t understand why they would include or exclude certain groups,” said parent Nicole Cox, who is white.
Cox’s 10-year-old daughter needs tutoring. After receiving the notice, other parents complained to the school’s principal, Andre Pearson.
“We have come so far in all of these years to show everybody that everyone is equal, that everyone should be treated equally … this is a form of bullying,” Cox said.
Before Cox could complain to the school, Pearson contacted her directly. His voicemail only seemed to reinforce the segregated tutoring idea.
“This is Andre Pearson. It’s focused for and designed for children of color, but certainly, if we have space for other kids who have needs, we can definitely meet those needs,” Pearson told Cox in the voicemail.

Last week MPs revived the corpse of the 'Secret Justice' Bill. Here we spell out the full terrifying implications of life in... Secret Britain

• Vote on Bill took place at same time as gay marriage vote
• Bill could give power to cover-up details on events such as Hillsborough
• Legal system would be weighted in favour of the powerful

 By David Rose
10 February 2013

While all attention at Westminster was focused on whether to allow gay marriage, this Coalition Government did something furtive – something that is not only much less liberal, but coldly terrifying.
Under the cover of the furore, it quietly disinterred the corpse of its ‘Secret Justice’ Bill. This Bill creates extraordinary new legal powers to keep official dealings hidden from us. It changes all the comforting certainties about the rule of law in Britain.
Most of us have some kind of grasp of what is officially called the Justice and Security Bill. But it can be hard to imagine what it would actually mean  in practice.
The Government wants us to think its scope is limited to rare and arcane disputes, perhaps born of foreign battlefields. Or ones that sound as if they belong in spy novels, involving CIA ‘black ops’ and ‘dark jails’. But if it becomes law, the effects will be felt much closer to home.
The shocking outcome of the recent Hillsborough Inquiry, bringing justice at last to 97 families? If similar circumstances were to arise again, it is likely that justice would never be delivered: if the families tried to sue, alleging a bungled police operation and a subsequent cover-up, the Bill would give the authorities the ability to keep the truth concealed.

A case brought against the Ministry of Defence by families of soldiers killed in a foreign deployment, alleging their loved ones’ equipment was defective? This is not mere hypothesis. Many argue now that the British death toll in Afghanistan has been higher than it should have been because some of our military vehicles were too vulnerable to roadside bombs.
With this law enshrined, the Government could insist on a closed, secret hearing. There, it could present evidence denying such claims. No one could challenge it, because no one directly affected by the case would ever know what it was.
Or take the very real, current scandal of the women green activists who unknowingly entered sexual relationships with undercover police officers.
 Those defending such a case could be entitled to a secret hearing, at which they could claim that such tactics were entirely justified, on the basis that the women posed some kind of threat to national security.
This is the reality of a society regulated by secret justice:  a legal system weighted irredeemably in favour of those in power. The legislation had previously been watered down considerably, and wisely, by the House of Lords. Now, it is not just as bad as it was when introduced last year. It’s even worse.
Under the resuscitated Bill, matters involving State security will usually be heard at secret ‘closed material procedure’ hearings. They will be attended only by security-vetted ‘special advocates’. Those involved in cases against official bodies will be permanently unable to know about the evidence deployed against them.
The new revised draft, the product of the final session of the Bill’s committee stage, was forced through by a majority of one. The Ulster Democratic Unionist Ian Paisley Jnr cast the critical vote.
This took place at precisely the same time as the same-sex marriage debate was happening in the main Commons chamber, which is why all this went virtually unnoticed.
The consequences are draconian. The Government’s actions, prompted by intense lobbying from MI5 and MI6 security chiefs, mean there is now less than three weeks to stop the enactment of a ruthless measure that amounts to a charter for cover-ups.
A real recent example of a case that will be affected is that of Abdelhakim Belhadj. He is the Libyan opposition leader abducted with his family from Bangkok with the help of British intelligence, then  tortured by Gaddafi’s brutal regime for years.
Like other victims of ‘extraordinary rendition’, Mr Belhadj,  who has never been alleged to have committed a single hostile act against Britain, its citizens or its allies, is suing the UK Government. But the official evidence of what was done in our name will be deemed far too ‘sensitive’ to be aired in open court.
Once the Bill becomes law, his chances of success are remote. And the prospects for enforcing the merest whiff of accountability on the agencies responsible for torture cases, and, indeed, a vast range of official activity from national security to the country’s ‘economic wellbeing’, will be just as distant.

Previously, the Lords had passed two crucial safeguards to stop this. The first said judges could grant the Government a secret hearing only if other alternatives had already been considered, like, for example, asking permission from the judge in a case to withhold sensitive evidence altogether, under the longstanding system of ‘public interest immunity’. The second Lords safeguard was more fundamental.

It stated that judges could allow a secret hearing only after balancing the Government’s demand for one against the historic legal principle that justice must always be open.
Last week, with the passage of Amendment 55, moved by the junior Justice Minister James Brokenshire, both these safeguards were swept away. ‘In practice, it will now be very difficult for a judge to resist a closed hearing,’ one legal analyst said yesterday.
Under this Bill, it is now possible a prisoner in a British jail who tried to challenge his detention in the courts would remain incarcerated without hearing the evidence against him.
The battle is not over. Pending is a High Court action by The Mail on Sunday which seeks to make public a secret judgment issued in an Afghan alleged torture case two years ago, which resulted from an earlier form of secret hearing, now deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.
As this newspaper has pointed out, the Bill will inevitably lead to a body of secret law and secret legal precedents. Our case also asks the court to issue guidelines on how such secret judgments should be reviewed, and whenever possible, published.
Meanwhile both Labour and several influential Tories are determined to try to reinstate the Lords’ safeguards when the Bill returns to the full House of Commons later this month.
David Davis, the leading Conservative backbencher, said: ‘It is appalling that the Government has reneged on its promise to allow full judicial discretion as enacted by the Lords.’
Andrew Tyrie, the Tory who campaigned for years against torture and rendition, says: ‘Not only must all of the Lords’ amendments remain in the Bill, they need to be underpinned by further improvements.’
Mr Davis added: ‘What the Government did last week is a massive dilution of the protections put in place by the Lords. I can only hope they will summon up the courage to reinstate them.’
It is a hope anyone with even the vaguest interest in open justice would surely share.