Friday, May 19, 2017

FLASHBACK: Mom of Murdered Obama Gay Lover Speaks Up


Donald Young
In late May, Wash. DC-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen had a bombshell revelation about Obama’s membership in a Chicago gay club, Man’s Country. Madsen also reported on Obama’s sexual relationships with other men, including named D.C. politicians and Donald Young, the openly-gay choir-director of the church in Chicago of which Obama was a member for some 20 years — Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ black liberation theology. Obama’s relationship with Young was confirmed by Larry Sinclair, who claims to have had two sex-cocaine trysts with Obama. 
There were two other openly gay men in Wright’s church: Larry Bland and Nate Spencer. In late 2007, as Obama began his ascent to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, in a span of 1½ months, all three men “conveniently” died:
  • Bland was murdered execution-style on November 17, 2007;
  • Young was murdered execution-style on December 24, 2007;
  • Spencer reportedly died of septicemia, pneumonia, and HIV on December 26, 2007. (Death certificates of Bland and Young, HERE.)

Nate Spencer (r)
Now, Young’s elderly mother is speaking out about her suspicions that her son was murdered to protect Obama’s reputation and assure his political future as President.
~Eowyn

WHITE HOUSE RAMPS UP DAMAGE CONTROL OVER OBAMA CHICAGO GAY HISTORY

An exclusive Wayne Madsen Report – July 19, 2010
The story about President Barack Obama’s bi-sexual past will not go away. Now, in an exclusive interview with The GlobeNorma Jean Young, the 76-year old mother of the late Trinity United Church of Christ choir director Donald Young, has spoken out and declared that persons trying to protect Obama murdered her son at the height of the 2007 Democratic presidential primary to protect Obama from embarrassing revelations about his homosexual relationship with her son. Donald Young’s bullet-ridden body was found in his Chicago apartment on December 23, 2007, in what appeared to be an assassination-style slaying.
Norma Jean Young revealed to The Globe that her son Donald, who was openly gay, was a “close friend” of Obama. Mrs. Young also believes the Chicago Police Department has not placed a high priority on finding the killers of her son. Mrs. Young, who is, herself a former employee of the Chicago Police Department, told The Globe that, “There is more to the story,” adding, “I do believe they are shielding somebody or protecting someone.”
The Globe’s revelations are consistent with information obtained by WMR during a May investigation conducted in Chicago. On May 24, WMR reported:“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bath house in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city.” The report added, “WMR spoke to several well-placed sources in Chicago who reported that Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama’s former church of 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on Chicago’s south side, ran what was essentially a matchmaking service for gay married black professional members of the church, including lawyers and businessmen, particularly those with children. The matchmaking club was called the ‘Down Low Club’ but references to it over the phone and email simply referred to the group with the code phrase ‘DLC.’ The ruse, according to our sources, was to make anyone who was eavesdropping on the communications [FBI wiretaps in the Rod Blagojevich case likely contain such references] believe that the references were to the Democratic Leadership Council, also known as the DLC . . . Among the members of the gay ‘DLC’ were Obama and TUCC’s choir director, Donald Young, an openly gay man who reportedly had a sexual relationship with Obama. Two other gay members of the church were Larry Bland and Nate Spencer. Young and Bland were brutally murdered, execution style, in late 2007. Bland was murdered on November 17, 2007 and Young on December 24, 2007. The latter was killed by multiple gunshot wounds. Spencer reportedly died on December 26, 2007, official cause of death: ‘septicemia, pneumonia, and HIV.'”
Larry Sinclair, the gay man who claimed to have had two sexual encounters with Obama in Chicago in 1999, wrote a book, “Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder,” in which he states that Obama was linked to Young’s murder. Sinclair wrote that he was in contact with Young shortly before his murder and Young revealed his relationship with Obama. At the time of his revelations about Obama at a National Press Club news conference, WMR doubted the veracity of Sinclair’s story due to the absence of corroborating evidence coupled with a bizarre news conference. However, since that time, WMR has received corroboration from a number of sources in a number of locations, including Chicago, Alabama, Georgia, and Washington, DC. WMR has received information that various competing camps, including the Hillary Clinton and John McCain campaigns, attempted to co-opt Sinclair and his revelations for their own political purposes. Sinclair, it should be noted, has not deviated from his original story or charges against Obama.
On June 19, 2008, WMR reported: “WhiteHouse.com held a news conference following Sinclair’s at which a video of Sinclair’s polygraph was to be shown. After experiencing technical difficulties with the video presentation, Parisi abruptly canceled the news conference and took no questions.” The aborted news conference was as bizarre as Sinclair’s. Sinclair was arrested by Washington, DC police following his news conference based on a warrant from Delaware issued by Vice President candidate Joseph Biden’s son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden. The Delaware charges against Sinclair were later dropped.
Sinclair’s book is now the subject of a defamation lawsuit [Daniel Parisi, et al v. Lawrence W. Sinclair a/k/a “Larry Sinclair,” et al] brought by Dan Parisi, the proprietor of the website, Whitehouse.com, who is mentioned in Sinclair’s book with regard to his involvement in polygraphs administered to Sinclair after he made his allegations against Obama public during the 2008 presidential campaign. The lawsuit is being handled by the politically powerful Patton & Boggs law firm, the same firm that represented George W. Bush’s top political adviser Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame Wilson/CIA leak, and has been filed against Sinclair, his publishing company, and distributors, including Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Sinclair is currently a resident of Florida.
The lawsuit against Sinclair has been assigned to Judge Richard Leon, the Republican deputy chief minority counsel on the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, aka, the Iran-contra scandal. From 1988 to 1989, he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and from 1992 to 1993 was the Republican chief minority counsel on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s October Surprise Task Force investigating the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign’s secret dealings with Iran to ensure the defeat of President Jimmy Carter. Leon Leon was nominated for the federal bench by President George W. Bush on September 10, 2001. Leon’s involvement in so many high-level cover-ups of White House misconduct makes him an illogical choice to hear a case involving serious allegations against President Obama.
Note: Blagojevich’s defense in his federal corruption trial is slated to begin today in Chicago. Judge James Zagel has denied the defense’s request for all the government’s wiretaps to be played. The tapes, as previously reported by WMR, contain some earthy references to Obama’s and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s homosexual habits.
Sinclair has told WMR that he believes the Obama White House is trying to have his book withdrawn from circulation to avoid any further embarrassments about Obama’s homosexual past and the possible involvement of his top lieutenants in Young’s murder. The Globe reported in May 2008 that a top Chicago private detective said he believed Young was “rubbed out” because of his relationship with Obama. Sinclair has echoed the private eye’s beliefs about Young and Obama. The Globe reports that before his death, Young was planning to flee to Africa to teach. The information was provided to The Globe by Young’s mother, who also now fears for her life and plans to leave her Peoria, Illinois home for a secret location. Mrs. Young said the Chicago police have warned her that her life is in danger.

UPDATE (1.20.2012):

Wayne Madsen has this to say in an exclusive-to-subscribers report on Jan. 19, 2012:
WMR has learned from a source who is an official of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, President Obama’s former church, that congregants are afraid of discussing the brutal execution-style murders of two of the church’s members.
The church’s choir director Donald Young was murdered on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2007, at the beginning of the presidential campaign. Although the Chicago Police Department indicated there was a “person of interest” in the Young case, no one has been charged with Young’s murder. Another church member, Larry Bland, was murdered execution-style on November 17, 2007. […]
When TUCC pastor Jeremiah Wright retired as pastor in early 2008, several church members left the predominantly African-American mega-church along with him, according to our TUCC source. The new pastor, Otis Moss III, has shown no interest in trying to find out the killers of Young and Bland, although the church is active in several community action programs, including those dealing with violence.
The TUCC source says there has been a “stand down” at TUCC in dealing with the Young and Bland murders. Although a service was held for Young at TUCC, the church, according to the source, “ignored the two murders,” adding, “there is no interest in pursuing the murderers.”
~Eowyn
Related:

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Don't Allow Bombshell Seth Rich Evidence To Be Muzzled

It isn't uncommon for United States citizens to wind up at the foul end of the deep state's ire. As is revealed by buried evidence spun out of the narrative by the Mockingbird Media. For example, the sunken details related to the JFK Assassination and Dulles Brothers Incorporated, Andrew Breitbart's untimely red flag death, Michael Hastings unusual car explosion, or genius patriot Aaron Swartz, whether he was driven to suicide or not. 

Now more details surrounding the body count connected to the DNC’s muzzling of Wikileaks have begun to find solid ground and it could open an investigation involving the DC Mayor’s office, The DC Police Department, and rocket its way into the chain of command at the DNC as to why a DNC staffer who reportedly sent 40,000 emails to wikileaks director and BBC DNC History Documentarian Gavin MacFayden was murdered on July 10, 2016. 

World Net Daily reported "The slain man’s parents, Mary and Joel Rich of Omaha, Nebraska, said in an August 2016 interview with the Daily Mail that their son had been asked to join Hillary Clinton’s campaign four days before he was murdered.

“He had just found out they wanted him and he was probably going to be moving up to Brooklyn through the election. He was really excited about that,” said Joel Rich.

Most Americans will be forced to devote their news diet to the ongoing propagandized Washington Post leaking and fumbling of the Trump and Russia investigation. But if you want something truly akin to Watergate, The 911 Commission Investigation, or The Warren Commission Investigation. Let your representatives know that you want further exploration into the fine points surrounding the untimely deaths of Shawn Lucas, John Ashe and Seth Rich.


Sunday, May 14, 2017

New National ‘Ratios’ Bills Set Safety Limits on Number of Patients Assigned to Nurses

Editor's Note: My wife is an RN and I can attest that this is very much needed. Please contact  your representatives and ask that they support these bills... 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1063 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2392 

New National ‘Ratios’ Bills Set Safety Limits on Number of Patients Assigned to Nurses



Bonnie Castillo, NNU Director of Health & Safety
, 5/5/17
nationalnursesunited.org

IN 49 STATES, THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON HOW MANY PATIENTS HOSPITAL CORPORATIONS CAN ASSIGN TO NURSES AT ONE TIME. NATIONAL NURSES UNITED-SPONSORED LEGISLATION FIGHTS BACK.

With the boom in assembly lines during the industrial revolution, employers were able to move products faster, using less staff, padding their bottom line. As I’ve written before, we’ve all seen pop culture comedy examples of what happens next, when profit-driven corporations speed up the pace faster and faster — until a character like Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times works so frantically that he falls right into the machine, getting ground up in the gears.
Our patients are not products, and nurses are not assembly line workers — but you would not know that by the frantic pace at which our hospital employers, who currently have no repercussions for saving money by cutting corners on safe staffing, expect nurses to provide care. When we are saddled with 9 or 10 patients at once, we are not practicing at our full capacity, and the repercussions for our patients, who come to us with illnesses and injuries where every moment of attention counts, include loss of life.
This is unacceptable. Nurses across the U.S. — where 49 out of 50 states currently have no limit on the number of patients nurses can be assigned — are standing up to say the focus on profit over patients must end. Nurses demand safe staffing now.
To that end, National Nurses United (NNU) — the largest union of registered nurses in the country — is proud to announce the introduction today in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Sherrod Brown (S.1063) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (H.R. 2392) NNU-sponsored legislation setting specific safety limits on the numbers of patients each RN can care for in hospitals throughout the U.S.
The bills, both known as the Nurse Staffing Standards for Hospital Patient Safety and Quality Care Act, establish minimum RN-to-patient ratios for every hospital unit at all times. They also provide whistleblower protection to assure that nurses are free to speak out for enforcement of safe staffing standards.
The bills are modeled on a California law, fought for and won by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU), that has saved patient lives, improved the quality of care, and reduced nurse burnout keeping experienced RNs at the patient bedside.
Nurses applaud Sen. Brown and Rep. Schakowsky for doing the right thing by our patients, and we hope other elected officials will do the same. After all, the benefit to enacting these protections at the national level would be immense. Studies have shown again and again that mandatory safe staffing ratios save lives.
A 2010 study (Aiken et. al), for example, found that compared to California, New Jersey hospitals would have 13.9 percent fewer patient deaths and Pennsylvania 10.6 percent fewer deaths if they matched California’s ratios in medical-surgical units.
Safe staffing is also critical for the health and safety of nurses. A 2015 study in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health showed that the California safe staffing law was associated with 55.57 fewer occupational injuries and illnesses per 10,000 RNs per year, a value 31.6 % lower than the expected rate without the law.
Sometimes change is a long game (California’s regulations were enacted in 2004, after nurses with CNA/NNU, fought for 13 years to achieve them), but nurses never give up on our patients. That’s why we will never give up in our fight to ensure nurses across America have safe staffing protections. It’s a two-fold fight, as we push for legislation at the national level, and also at the state level.
On February 14, for example, NNU registered nurses in Ohio and elected officials gathered at the Ohio Statehouse, in Columbus, to mark the reintroduction by Senator Michael Skindell of the Ohio Patient Protection Act — a bill which sets specific limits on how many patients nurses can care for at once in hospitals throughout Ohio. NNU is also sponsoring safe staffing legislation in Florida and fighting for safe patient ratios legislation in other states.
Hospital corporations have a lot of money to fight against safe staffing legislation. But the evidence, and morality, is on nurses’ side. Nurses will never accept that the fragile lives entrusted to our care are a means of increased profit for corporate employers. Patients are not products, we are not assembly line workers, and when these safe staffing bills are voted into law, nurses will finally be protected in the process of doing our life’s work: providing the focused, professional, safe care that saves lives.

Bonnie CastilloDirector of Health & Safety at @NationalNurses, Director of RN Response Network; I’m an RN & healthcare champion who believes healthcare is a human right!

Intelligent People Have Fewer Friends, Here's Why...

Saturday, May 13, 2017

The Truth about the Vietnam War

Did the United States win or lose the Vietnam War? We are taught that it was a resounding loss for America, one that proves that intervening in the affairs of other nations is usually misguided. The truth is that our military won the war, but our politicians lost it. The Communists in North Vietnam actually signed a peace treaty, effectively surrendering. But the U.S. Congress didn't hold up its end of the bargain. In just five minutes, learn the truth about who really lost the Vietnam War.



...It was never right to stop or enable spreading of any political systems in someone else country. Whether other countries chose communism it was their choice, and US has no say on it. -  JC

Re: Hey JC, the US did have the right because the spread of a communist dictatorship to South Vietnam was not through democratic elections, but forceful invasion from the North. The North Vietnamese had NO right to invade the South. To answer the OPs question, the Vietnam war, while failing to protect South Vietnam, did stop the spread of communism in South Asia. So, IMO the vietnam war was a half-success

Chris · 3 years ago

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100114161437AAn2hcZ

Guest
Join Date: Aug 2003
I've never understood the resistance to the domino theory. We pulled out of southeast asia in 1975. After we did the nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos all became communist.

Ironically the communists in Vietnam eventually overthrew the Cambodian communists in 1979. However Laos and Vietnam are still technically communist nations.

From what I know of it, 'communism' is an umbrella term for a variety of rebellions for a variety of reasons. Some communist insurgents were economic, some are nationalistic and anti-colonial, some are idealogical, some are anti-dictatorship. Pol Pot was idealogical, the Vietnamese were nationalistic, the Chinese and Russian were probably economic. That is my impression.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=540660

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

OBAMACARE IS ENDING AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!


 Welcome to the beginning of the end of Obamacare! And apparently, we’re all going to die. We’re all going to die here in short order and we’ll all have Republicans, who were elected to Congress in record majorities, to blame. Good job everyone. That’s the message coming out of Democrats and duly picked up by national media after yesterday’s House passage of the amended American Health Care Act. “Families will go bankrupt. People will die,” Chief Elizabeth Warren signaled on Twitter. ““This will cost American lives if it ever becomes law,” claimed Cory Booker on MSNBC. “This will mean death, pain, and suffering to people’s families.”Chris Murphy, never one to be outdone in using death to exploit, tweeted: “House GOP, I hope you slept well last night. Because after this vote, you will have the death of thousands of your conscience forever.” 


The Daily Kos shouted: “House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death!” The newly ‘elected’ head of the DNC, Tom Perez said: “Trump and Republicans will own every preventable death.”. Perez is somehow allowed to go unchallenged on what constitutes a preventable death.

Democrats have been riding the death wave now for awhile. When it comes to the climate cycles of the planet, we’re all going to die. Healthcare, all dead. Soda tax? Gotta do it or we’re all dead. A Donald Trump tweet about North Korea? Now he really went and killed everyone.

As Democrats –fueled more and more by a willing media and celebrity microphones– have amplified their dire warnings, the smaller and smaller their electorate has become. Their entire party philosophy for almost a decade now has become “Vote for us or people will die”. On top of these childish hysterics, popular media is all too willing to oblige them. Vox continues to roll out story after story of people who really love Obamacare, and who are all going to die without it. The Washington Post got on the ball with a story of a rape survivor who now is going to die.

The primary problem, among many others with this strategy, is simple: Nobody believes them anymore. When everything is an imminent catastrophe, nothing is and life now moves at the speed of Twitter. Of course, quoting Chuck Palahniuk, “In the Tibetan philosophy, Sylvia Plath sense of the word I know we’re all dying…”

But the party of the happy grim reaper (on everything it seems except Planned Parenthood) is missing historical context. When almost six million Americans received policy cancellation notices in 2013–a shock to many as they were promised by Barack Obama they wouldn’t be getting those letters–there were not dire warnings of bodies in the streets from “the party of compassion”. Americans were told they would simply be receiving something better in return. Their old policies were outdated. There were no cable news hysterics.

Another point: for every Democrats’ story of someone affected by losing their Obamacare plan that Vox puts up in lights, there are stories of people either losing their own life saving insurance or not being able to afford their new plan. For every cancer patient with a reporter in their living room now, there is a family member of one who lost their own oncologist during treatment. Democracy dying in darkness, indeed. Read more at https://heatst.com/politics/democrats...

 

Related: 

Trump, GOP Celebrate Repeal Of ObamaCare-Full Event - Limbaugh's Side-By-Side Comparison Of Obamacare vs GOP Health Care Bill - CONGRESS VOTES TO DEFUND MURDER FACTORY 

LIMBAUGH: HYSTERIA Over GOP Health Care Bill Is GROTESQUE! - RUSH: The END Of Obamacare Is BIGGER Than The Bill Itself

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Debunking MADD - MADD “Statistics” Again Debunked - A Reality Check on DUI Claims

Posted by Lawrence Taylor
duiblog.com

As I’ve posted repeatedly in the past, MADD’s prohibitionist zealots are fond of twisting statistics to justify their expansion of unfair laws, Draconian penalties and unconstitutional procedures.  See, for example, A Closer Look at DUI Fatality StatisticsMADDness and Lies, Damned Lies and MADD Statistics.
The truth is finally beginning to emerge:

A Reality Check on DUI Claims 
Groups purposely misstate fatalities
to further an anti-drinking agenda
The Tennessean, June 22 — Drunken-driving stories, like last week’s op-ed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative Alexanderia Honeycutt, make headlines every day.
Groups like MADD relentlessly remind Americans that the abuse of alcohol continues to be a huge problem on our roadways and, as a result, the most drastic measures are needed. Though truly "drunken" driving is a serious issue, much of the reported problem is little more than PR.
 Consider fatality statistics. The number of deaths that activist groups attribute to drunken driving is grossly exaggerated.
Last year, federal statisticians classified almost 18,000 deaths as "alcohol-related." However, alcohol-related does not mean alcohol-caused. In fact, that figure includes anyone killed in a crash in which at least one person (driver, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) was estimated to have any alcohol. (If a sober driver recklessly crashes into and kills a family whose driver had enjoyed a glass of wine, statistics reflect all their deaths as "alcohol-related.")
In reality, the figure reflects a much broader spectrum of casualties: people under the legal limit, drunken pedestrians, impaired cyclists and others. After accounting for those people, actual innocent victims only make up 12 percent of the widely reported statistic — a considerably smaller amount than activists have led us to believe.
The anti-alcohol lobby has also invented fantastical talking points to bolster their bunk traffic stats. Honeycutt uses one of its favorites ("first offenders drive drunk on average 87 times before they are caught"), going so far as to accuse individuals of criminal acts with absolutely no proof to back up the claim.
The truth is that this widely publicized figure comes from rough estimates of self-reported data — commonly criticized as unreliable. Collected from a small sample almost 13 years ago, even the study’s own authors admit the estimates are "crude."

As I posted a couple of years ago, an independent study by the Los Angeles Times  found that despite federal figures claiming nearly 18,000 deaths caused by drunk driving in 2002, only about 5,000 of these actually involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian.
MADD has used the same altered statistics to get all 50 states – with some federal coercion – to lower the legal limit to .08% and to expand the use of roadblocks:

In the 1990s, these groups used another "crude" statistic to convince the public that reducing the legal blood-alcohol content limit from 0.10 to 0.08 percent would save 600-800 lives annually. Today, research proves it didn’t work.
Their 0.08 push failed to have any measurable effects on traffic fatality rates. It only lowered the threshold for qualifying as a "drunken" driver, ignoring the fact that the majority of "drunks" wreaking havoc on our roads drive while more than double the 0.08 limit. One study in Contemporary Economic Policy concluded that 0.08 efforts would have been better spent encouraging effective measures against chronic drunken drivers.
Tennessee’s anti-alcohol groups aren’t heeding that warning. Instead, they’re demanding more funding, more legislation and more manpower for other misguided measures, like sobriety checkpoints.
These roadblocks are based on the idea that it’s more important to look "tough on drunken driving" than to actually go after the drunks. Checkpoints don’t catch many (if any) drunken drivers. In the largest program ever studied, Tennessee ran almost 900 checkpoints over the course of a year, stopping almost 150,000 of the state’s drivers. The result: a mere 773 DUI arrests — less than one arrest per checkpoint. Compare that to the impact of roving police patrols — a tactic that catches 10 times more drunken drivers than roadblocks.
But you won’t hear anti-alcohol activists like Honeycutt repeat that stat. Their groups no longer target "drunken" drivers, aiming instead to eliminate any drinking before driving.
Right now, the 176 million responsible Americans who drink in moderation can still safely (and legally) drive home after enjoying a drink. Furthermore, research shows that drivers who talk on cell phones, drive drowsy, or travel 7 mph above the speed limit pose a larger threat than those who enjoy a few drinks (and stay below 0.08) before driving home.
Disregarding the evidence, the anti-alcohol movement’s invented, inflated and distorted "facts" would have the public believe that there should be no legal limit except zero. This is the reason we all think one thing when the reality is another.