Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “cry havoc and let slip the dogs”

Arizona Sheriffs Smack Down Feds Over UnConstitutional Demands regarding Public Land


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Jim White

arizona sheriffs

As the saying goes, “along with tremendous power comes tremendous responsibility.”  I cannot think of any person in public service who fits that saying more than a county sheriff.  However, the major networks have spent many years brainwashing the populace into thinking that Federal Agents are the top cops.

How many times have you seen a cop show on TV where the Feds show up, flash their badge and relieve the local sheriff? Then, local sheriff storms off in frustration because the Feds took over the case.  That, good people, is brainwashing.

What many people are unaware of is that your sheriff is the top law enforcement official in your county.  He or She has jurisdiction, even over the Feds.  There are many people, with whom I have spoken, who believe that the only chance that this country has is for good, honest sheriffs to stand up and assert their power.  Perhaps not a silver bullet, but if every sheriff of every county found their constitutional spine, it would set the Feds plan of dominating the population back 25 years.

The first thing that we could do is kick the Feds off of our lands.  But, I digress.

In Arizona, the Arizona Sheriffs Association is asserting their power over the Feds… or at least their power not to comply.  When the Feds “ruled by decree” that any trailers left in the National Forest in AZ would be towed if left more than 72 hours, the ASA shot back.  Click here to read ASA resolution.

The document bears the signature of ASA President Joseph Dedman, Jr. and it concludes with the following resolve:

That the Arizona Sheriffs are opposed to the policies of the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests to a 72 hours period during hunting season and will not enforce any federal government regulation imposed on our citizens depriving them of their right to utilize their public lands.

Take note of this resolution and hold your own county sheriff to the same Constitutional standards that the ASA have adopted for themselves.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/arizona-sheriffs-smack-feds-unconstitutional-demands-regarding-public-land/#u3BX461cA8LA4bUr.99

New ObamaCare Video Slammed by Gay Republican Group


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://newsbusters.org

 

Posted by:Randy Hall

Just when it seemed that proponents of the Affordable Care Act couldn’t sink any lower, they’ve gone ahead and approved an offensive advertisement trying to get gay men to enroll in healthcare exchanges that has managed to get everyone disgusted.


The ad — which features muscular men dancing in colorful underwear and Christmas headgear as they tout the benefits of enrollment in insurance exchanges — was praised by Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey who said he supports “whatever it takes to get people enrolled.”

Participants in the two-minute video produced by the organization known as Out2Enroll sing a parody of the tune “Let It Snow,” which has new lyrics encouraging gays and lesbians to “Get Enrolled”:

Hope you’re stuffed from your Thanksgiving,
Now ’tis the season of giving.
‘Fore the doctor brings a lump of coal,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!
And when it’s time for resolutions,
A health insurance solution,
Don’t get left in the cold,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!
When you finally meet Mr. Right,
Never again will you be alone.
You’ll be glad you went to the site.
Together you’re a happy home.
Pre-existing conditions won’t stop ‘em.
New plans are better; can’t top ‘em.
Whether bronze, silver or gold,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!

It didn’t take long for leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans — self-described as the “only LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) advocacy organization on the ObamaCare Repeal Coalition,”  to issue a statement on Sunday denouncing the video for “exploiting gay stereotypes.”

“This cynical ad betrays the depths ObamaCare advocates will sink to in order to pad their pathetic enrollment numbers,” executive director Gregory Angelo declared. “As a self-proclaimed ‘fierce advocate’ of gay equality, President Obama would do well to distance himself from this nonsense and denounce it immediately.”
Angelo then noted:

This ad is also an example of the left promoting harmful stereotypes that gay men are nothing more than sex-crazed lechers. If anyone on the right made such a comparison, liberals would be apoplectic.
At a time when left-wing propagandists are
decrying Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson for equating homosexuality with promiscuity and deviance, Out2Enroll and others should take a look in the mirror and ask if the truth is that they are the ones responsible for promoting such harmful stereotypes.

Then on Monday morning, MSNBC Live anchor Craig Melvin played a clip of the controversial video and asked for Pallone’s response to it.

“Whatever it takes to get people enrolled,” the New Jersey Democrat said before attacking Chris Christie, the Republican governor of his state, for not using more of the $7.5 million allocated to promoting the ACA and driving up enrollment.
“At this point, whether it’s an ad, whether it’s, you know, TV ads, or newspaper ads, or people going door to door, I just want people to sign up because the more people that sign up, the larger the insurance pool, and the more likely it is that the insurance becomes affordable,” he noted.
“So I’m not going to prejudge what types of ads are being promoted,” Pallone added. “The main thing is to get people signed up.”
As NewsBusters has previously reported, this is far from the first time that advocates of ObamaCare have crossed the line between good and bad taste.
The first instance took place in Colorado during the month of October, when an ad targeting young men promoted “brosurance” because “Keg stands are crazy. Not having health insurance is crazier. Don’t tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills. We got it covered. Now you can, too! Thanks, ObamaCare!”
Just one month later,
an ad focused on young women was hammered for portraying them as “cheap sluts who don’t care about their health or well-being other than getting cheap birth control pills to have sex with strange men.”
And in December, ACA proponents released a display ad containing a
photo of a grown man in children’s pajamas holding a cup of hot chocolate. The text on the ad stated: “Wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about getting health insurance.” Ethan Krupp soon became known as “PajamaBoy”.
Before long, Krupp became the target of jokes from both sides of the political aisle. While some people considered him an “emblem” of people who are not white, others declared him “one of the whitest people on the planet.”
Who knows what kind of misfire the next promotion of ObamaCare will contain? It’s impossible to guess, so check back on this site regularly for coverage of the ACA defenders’ latest stumble. One thing is for certain: You won’t hear much about such ridiculous ads in the self-proclaimed mainstream media.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/12/25/new-obamacare-video-slammed-gay-republican-group-praised-new-jersey-demo#ixzz2ogs1AFNo

 

GENERAL CALLS FOR MASSIVE MARCH ON WASHINGTON


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

‘We need to get off our derrieres. … Hope is not a strategy’

author-image  obamafrowns

Video

The retired American military commander who earlier said in a statement released to WND that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.

The result was that the Egyptian Muslim Brother was removed from power and then-President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, Vallely explained,

His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining light on the hill for freedom when the electoral process, which resulted in two presidencies for Obama in 2008 and 2012, “are known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult, and he said, “I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

And he said processes like impeachment simply won’t happen.

Then he suggested the Egyptian model, and he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he suggested. And perhaps legislation that could create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said when there are those who are “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws,” it should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

Vallely has been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other things, they cite the Obamacare law, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

In a statement earlier to WND, Vallely said a vote of no confidence could be used.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said:

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

Vallely believes impeachment likely wouldn’t lead to conviction and doesn’t solve the problem, anyway.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”


The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, “a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic.”

Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route,” he said.

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)
  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)
  • And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
  • His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
  • To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
  • His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
  • To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
  • To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)
  • To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
  • To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
  • To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)
  • That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
  • And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)
  • Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
  • And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Vallely quoted commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that “absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. … and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a “recall” at the federal level, “there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution.”

He warned of growing “tyrannical centralized rule” without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

“Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” Vallely said.

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

Rep Trey Gowdy

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns earlier this month.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/u-s-general-calls-for-massive-march-on-congress-white-house/#THccKGm3xIZCQBpl.99

 

Report: Healthcare.gov couldn’t verify Barack Obama’s identity


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.examiner.com

 

Posted by:Joe Newby

Healthcare.gov could not verify Barack Obama's identity.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

December 24, 2013

President Obamanot exactly leading by example — was finally signed up for Obamacare in a symbolic move showing support for his own law. But, Fox News’ Ed Henry reported Monday, the healthcare.gov system couldn’t verify his identity, so his staff had to sign him up in person.

The reason, Henry said, is that Obama’s personal information is not in particular government data bases.

“So healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough,” Henry said.

I would think that, Social Security database would be used?

If so why wasn’t his SSN# showing up?

So Obama himself did not sign up for healthcare. Instead, an official told Politico that his staff went to the D.C. exchange in person to sign him up.

“Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

“Granted, he waited until the very last second to do it despite pleading with people for months not to wait,” a post at the conservative blog Hot Air said. “And sure, okay, his special status allowed him to bypass the website and delegate to his subordinates the aggravation of enrollment, unlike the millions of poor saps who had to be patient and keep trying during the Great 404 Meltdown of 2013.”

Nevertheless, Obama will now be paying hundreds of dollars per month for a plan he’ll quite likely never use just like millions of others. And, Hot Air observed, Obama also purchased a plan that appeals to many others — a “bronze” plan that is cheaper but carries such a high deductible one might as well not have insurance.

According to the White House, Obama’s plan will cost less than $400 per month, and does not cover the First Lady or his children.

“The president’s wife and daughters, who already have health care, did not enroll,” NPRsaid.

Of course, Obama will still get his health care from the military, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, so the move was symbolic in nature and had no real meaning.

Mark Levin warns: Obama preparing country for coup against Constitution


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.examiner.com

 

Posted by:Joe Newby

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Mark Levin says Obama preparing coup against Constitution

Earlier this week, conservative talk show host Mark Levin warned that Barack Obama is campaigning and preparing the country for what amounts to a coup against the Constitution over the debt ceiling, Breitbart.com reported Sunday.

Levin said that it’s clear Obama has moved on from the shutdown and is now focused on the debt ceiling, paving the way for low-information liberals to support him as he bypasses Congress and unilaterally seizes control of the nation’s economy, Dr. Susan Berry wrote..

“Default, default, default…why is he saying that? Just to scare people?” Levin asked. “Well, that’s part of it, obviously. But, it’s more than that, ladies and gentlemen. Barack Obama is plotting, that if he can’t get what he wants out of the House Republicans, that if he can’t get his Plan A, and get Boehner and the Republicans to buckle – not just on the Continuing Resolution – but on the debt ceiling, then he’s got his Plan B.”

And what, exactly is “Plan B?”

According to Levin, that plan involves Obama unilaterally raising the debt ceiling by citing the 14th Amendment.

In essence, Levin said, Obama effectively plans to “seize from Congress the power of the purse” in what he called “the most egregious attack on our Constitution by a President” in all of U.S. history.

Examiner’s Anthony G. Martinsaid the 14th Amendment does not give Obama the authority to usurp Congress’ role regarding the debt ceiling.

“Nowhere does the Amendment mandate that overall federal spending be increased at the whim of a president, or anyone else in government, not even Congress,” he wrote.

Levin went further, saying that Obama is being encouraged “by Marxists dressed up as Constitutionalists, by people in his own party, he’s being encouraged to conduct himself as a dictator, and to bypass Congressand to bypass the Constitution.”

“They want a full-blown Constitutional crisis. Please, listen to me, this is what they want! So they can continue to shred it!” he added.

This isn’t the first time the subject has been brought up.

Last December, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Obama should be given dictatorial power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling to infinity.

In July 2011, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, urged Obama to rule like a dictator on the debt ceiling. Other Democrats, like James Clyburn and former President Bill Clinton, have also suggested Obama bypass Congress and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.

Levin went on to warn listeners of dire consequences to the nation if Obama acts unilaterally.

“So, it is he who is prepared to extort and blackmail in ways that most of you, and most of my colleagues in this business can’t even imagine, or don’t even understand,” he said. “And, if the President of the United States unilaterally lifts the debt ceiling, you can kiss the core functions of Congress goodbye, you can kiss this Republic goodbye, once and for all.”

Indeed, it would be the ultimate “fundamental transformation” Obama promised at the beginning of his presidency.

 

New ObamaCare fees coming in 2014


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://nypost.com

 

Posted by:S.A. Miller and Geoff Earle

Modal Trigger

New ObamaCare fees coming in 2014

Photo: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

WASHINGTON — Here comes the ObamaCare tax bill.

The cost of President Obama’s massive health-care law will hit Americans in 2014 as new taxes pile up on their insurance premiums and on their income-tax bills.

Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.

But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”

The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.

The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.

There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site.

ObamaCare supporters argue that federal subsidies for many low-income Americans will not only cover the taxes, but pay a big chunk of the premiums.

But ObamaCare taxes don’t stop with health-plan premiums.

Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.

Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.

Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years.

Then there’s the new Medicare tax.

Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration touted a surge of more than 2 million visitors Monday at HealthCare.gov, plus about 250,000 calls to ObamaCare call centers.

“Volumes remain high but not equal to [Monday] and we have not had to deploy our queuing system on the site,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, referring to a virtual waiting room that is activated when the site is overloaded.

“We are taking thousands of calls at our call centers, which remain open until midnight, and we are seeing thousands of visitors complete enrollment online,” she said.

It wasn’t smooth sailing for everyone on the troubled site.

Software techie Jeff Karaaro tweeted in frustration: “Got three different codes trying to submit plan choices. No [one] can tell me what they mean. I nor call center can complete my application due to error.”

http://nypost.com

 

Disposable: Paul Ryan’s Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.businessinsider.com

 

Posted by:TONY CARR

, Paul Ryan budget

AP

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues.  In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”  

In doing so, he created a painful irony;  Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years  – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country.  In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.

The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation.  He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning. 

If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of  promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.

Ryan presents a classic false dilemma.  He wants us to believe the nation must choose between keeping promises to veterans and remaining secure. He admonishes us that “since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.” 

What he doesn’t mention is that when the $6T eventual price tag of those wars is counted, personnel costs will define a tiny percentage of their total price tag, despite the fact that any success we register from those conflicts will have been wholly earned not by machines, but by the people who fought and died to carry out the nation’s will.  Paying people isn’t something we do instead of staying secure as a nation . . . it’s the very way we stay secure.  People win wars, not machines, bureaucracies, or defense contractors.

What Ryan also doesn’t mention is that part of the reason money is running short these days is that he voted to authorize and expand the two wars whose costs have now finally become so inescapable that he and others can no longer deny them. 

As these costs fall due, the search is growing frantic for the most politically expedient way to ameliorate them, and politicians like Ryan are finding it easier to target troop pensions than to engage DoD in genuine reform. Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.

But notwithstanding that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force claims DoD wasn’t even consulted before the Ryan-Murray provision was inserted, what Ryan doesn’t advertise is that Hagel and the generals are struggling to make ends meet because Congress and the President have underresourced the department without granting it  mission relief, leaving them with a problem they can’t legally solve and have a solemn duty not to abandon. 

Hagel, Dempsey and the service chiefs desperately want reform, and are entitled to the presumption they’d rather not achieve reform in the predatory manner thus far undertaken.  But this isn’t reform.  This is the opposite — it’s the avoidance of reform. This is cheating . . . by saving money without having to engage in reform. This is back-door budgeteering. Nothing more.

Reform is deliberate, methodical, and transparent.  This is an attempted legal heist. Mr. Ryan clearly hoped it wouldn’t be noticed. He now laments being caught red-handed by veterans and their representatives, who now rightly wonder whether Congress has already forgotten what it promised in exchange for a dozen years (and counting) of voluntary misery. 

The unease now sensed from among the veteran population should be taken as a dire warning: haphazardly breached promises that send the wrong kinds of signals to current and past service members will fundamentally disrupt the eagerness of Americans to serve in the future.  Abraham Lincoln said this during the Civil War and it holds true still, especially  given the dozen years of abusive management practices that have already ground down our all-volunteer force.

Ryan wants to have an economic discussion masquerading as a moral one, but the veil he constructs is as thin as the paper upon which he scribbles down new promises certain to be broken when it becomes politically expedient.  Ryan admits he seeks to take $100,000 dollars out of the retirement accounts of veterans who earned that money by risking their lives in combat.

This is morally repugnant, but clearly Ryan and his colleagues are more compelled by economic convenience. He thinks veteran pensions are just another lavish government handout to be squeezed in the name of fiscal conservatism.  Incredulous, veterans find themselves on the wrong side of socialist impulses undertaken by an avowed counter-socialist; Ryan seems to be saying working age retirees don’t need  all that money, so it should be taken from them and given to some other budgetary recipient who needs it more.  Ryan has made a career railing against this very thing, saving his lone exception for a most unfortunate notion.

Paul Ryan says of military members, “[w]e owe them a benefit structure they can count on.”  This is the most revealing sentence in his editorial, because he uses the word benefit.  No, Mr. Ryan doesn’t owe them a benefit.  Military retirement isn’t a social benefit. He owes them the compensation promised by their country.  It’s not a benefit.  It’s a vested pension.  It’s earnings they already paid for.  That they earned those benefits in ways Paul Ryan doesn’t understand because he’s never served doesn’t change that fact.

He and his colleagues owe those who already acted in reliance on their promised pensions exactly what they were warranted, and not a penny less. Two million retired veterans (and hundreds of thousands currently serving) made career decisions based on this reliance, and cannot now go back and change those decisions.  Ryan understands the irrevocable nature of these decisions on some level, given that he now wants to make sure disabled retirees don’t lose any pension money. 

His theory is that they made decisions that ended up limiting their horizons.  What he seems to be missing is that most military retirees did the same thing.  Perhaps what he’s really saying is you only really earned your pension if you bled for it enough to be disabled.   Those who bled less, and merely risked life and limb for 20+ years, deserve something less. Again we find ourselves talking about who needs or deserves to be paid a pension, rather than starting by viewing an inflation-adjusted pension as the inviolate obligation we all understood it to be at the time it was offered in exchange for service in combat in time of war.

Mr. Ryan, speaking directly to you now, if you’re truly going to engage with veterans, you’ll have to learn to knock off the nonsense and talk straight.  Stop playing pretend, admit what you’re doing, and either stand by it or don’t.  You were part of the movement that imposed sequestration on the DoD, over the objections of everyone who knows anything about national defense.

Now that the generals are telling you they can’t maintain readiness without more funding or fewer missions, you’re looking to avoid tough decisions by grabbing for some easy cash, and have chosen the place where resistance is least likely – a constituency that isn’t allowed to speak out on its own behalf and has been socialized to refrain from complaining even when abused.

Well, you miscalculated.  We noticed.  We noticed you didn’t bother forcing DoD to reform itself (or even pass an audit based on current practices) before you allowed it to prop up a false narrative of runaway personnel costs – notwithstanding you and others voted for the current levels of compensation in order to carry out the wars you advocated without having to advertise their true costs to the American people.

We noticed you didn’t ask the President to shut down the war in Afghanistan any faster, even though doing so just one month earlier than planned would completely finance the  savings you instead chose to take from  pensions we earned with mortal risk and one kick in the gut after another over the last dozen years.  We noticed that you didn’t bother dialing up the uber rich – those who extract the most from the free-market system guarded by veterans – and asking them to contribute a little more in exchange for their freedom to earn riches insulated from threats to national security. To do so has long been an honorable American tradition.  You chose a different path, and we noticed.

Most of all, we noticed you didn’t acknowledge you were breaking a promise.  You, the President (as recently as September of this year), previous generals, and two previous Defense Secretaries reassured veterans time and again that any reform of the pension system would not touch the compensation of those who already paid their dues.

You haven’t acknowledged that by slipping this back-door provision into the budget, you spearheaded a successful effort to break those promises, which we consider sacred and fundamental.  But you underestimated the American veteran, who is typically an unselfish team player averse to complaint, but never stupid.  We have families who rely on us to fight for them, so we have no intention of going quietly while you pass off  quasi-larceny as “reform.”

Paul Ryan is a futurist.  He’s concerned with what runaway compensation costs might do to the national debt over the course of the next ten years.  Not so concerned that he wants to look at reducing Congressional pay or the pay of generals, admirals, and senior executives. Just concerned enough to cut the pensions of the military’s middle class.

Those who do the hard fighting for twenty years or so and exhaust themselves and their families in the process before heading out onto the open job market . . . where they find, at a disproportionately high rate, that learning to conduct organized violence isn’t always a boon in the private sector.  But before we trust his credentials as a futurist, we should consider what he foretold ten years ago.  He was then busy voting to send America’s sons and daughters into Iraq without a clear objective, a proper declaration, or even a legitimate cause.   He now wants to keep the benefits of his decision while disowning the obligations.  That is not only an impeachment of his futurist bona fides, but the textbook definition of doing the wrong thing.

The war Ryan supported in 2002 and doubled down upon in 2007 broke the spine of the all-volunteer force, and we’ve spent the subsequent years concealing that fact with personnel abuses and a heavy reliance on the sense of duty of our volunteers.  In that time, they’ve stayed because they believed in their teammates and knew someone had to help get this country out of the mess it had gotten into.

But they relied heavily on the fact they’d be able to take care of their families when the time came to re-purpose themselves, and in doing so came to depend on the pensions they earned. The Ryan-Murray provision has many of them feeling like they’ve been made fools for trusting their country’s word as a bond. If Ryan and his colleagues are allowed to proceed with taking the easy way out, Americans will regret ten years from now (or  sooner) that they allowed such casual promise-breaking to inflict a slow-bleeding but mortal wound upon the all-volunteer force . . . which depends fundamentally on the reliability of promises to function.

Paul Ryan wants us to do the right thing.  I agree with him.  Accordingly, I encourage Mr. Ryan and his colleagues to move swiftly in reversing course and grandfathering all currently-serving career military personnel and their predecessors who’ve already retired in any reforms. Anything less might save some money, but will do so at the cost of moral bankruptcy.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-budget-veterans-pensions-2013-12#ixzz2oZ61mMes

 

Details of the Obama forgery exposed


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Doug Hagmann

Author

Every American is the victim of one of the most insidious crimes ever perpetrated on the collective – the capturing of our nation from within. The set-up process occurred over decades, but culminated with the selection and installation of Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, as the front man in this silent coup.

One important piece of evidence to support this crime exists in the controversial Certificate of Live Birth, but not in the way you have heard, and not in the manner that you might suspect. The revelation of the manner and methods now exist in a document that the criminal elements of our government and the complicit media do not want you to see. And the evidence is as compelling as it is damning.

Based on the popularity of television shows like Criminal Minds, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, and Profiler from the late 1990s, a large number of people are fascinated by the investigative science of criminal profiling. One aspect of such behavioral profiling includes understanding the difference between a perpetrator’s modus operandi or “M.O.,”  and their “signature.”

While all criminals have a modus operandi, analyzing a perpetrator’s “signature” is a bit more involved. Signature behaviors serve to satisfy some need of the criminal, and might be viewed as a “calling card” of sorts that link them to the crime. This is particularly true in cases of forgery, where the forger leaves a usually well hidden “signature” to identify them as the creator of the forgery. The preceding is provided as a formal introduction to the most important forgery of our time: Barack Hussein Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.

So far, the managed mainstream media has ignored the October 18, 2013 filing of two affidavits, one public and the other sealed, that identify twenty-(20) points of forgery on the most controversial document concerning the most controversial figure of our time: Barack Hussein Obama. In my view, this is undoubtedly the most detailed and compellingly damning document ever created pertaining to the controversy surrounding the long form birth certificate.  It provides critical insight into the people behind the forgery, their methods, and more importantly, their mistakes.

Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years conducting an investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. Mr. Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood.

Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the “copy” that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an “authenticated copy” proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit.

Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the “signature” of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.

In my extensive research of the open source evidence revealed by Mr. Vogt in the affidavit publicly released, I have been able to connect the dots myself. Mr. Vogt released additional and even more specific details in a nearly 3-hour long radio interview last evening on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report.

The elements of the alleged criminality behind the creation of this forged document, along with the forgery of the short form birth certificate are indeed staggering. The phrase that was born out of the exposure to the crimes related to Watergate, “plausible deniability,” has now been thrust forward to the present day.

The release of the long form birth certificate at a press gaggle three days before the reported killing of Osama bin Laden seemed to be ripped from the playbook used by the men behind Nixon’s Watergate. Some who were involved knew exactly what was taking place, while others served as useful dupes to quiet the growing number intent on seeing evidence of Obama’s eligibility. Early on, the perpetrators made a few key mistakes that they could not undo. Instead, they attempted to cover their mistakes through additional forgery.

In addition to the errors they attempted to cover, the alleged forger of the COLB covertly “signed” the forged document, leaving her signature on one of the most important forgeries of our time. Whether it was done out of personal hubris or to provide her own level of “plausible deniability” in a most convoluted sense, it is apparent once you know where to look. Then, it all begins to make sense.

The affidavit filed by Mr. Vogt asserts that violations of federal law, from misprision of felony to misprision of treason occurred by the hands of Obama himself, his White House counsel, the Hawaii Department of Health, Savannah Guthrie and her employer at the time, certain other media companies, and those listed as “John and Jane Does” in the unsealed affidavit. The John and Jane Does are identified in the sealed affidavit.

Using a brilliant legal tactic unlike anyone else who has attempted redress against this treasonous activity, Mr. Vogt tapped into a section of federal law that necessitates action on the part of the federal judiciary via a federal judge – currently in the hands of the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

It is this method or loophole in the federal statutes that separates this filing with all others. Additionally, it makes this filing by orders of magnitude much more dangerous to those involved in the alleged conspiracy to insert a foreign agent in the highest office in America.
This is a very big deal. This is a very viable threat to those who believe they are impervious to legal action for their seditious and treasonous activities, and the very people who have and continue to facilitate them. This is the best evidence yet that America is a captured operation.

To listen to the most compelling presentation of the affidavit filed detailing the forgeries,

click here.
The affidavits filed with the U.S. Federal Court can be accessed
here and here.

Obama Took More Vacation on Average Than Private-Sector Workers 20 Yrs on Job


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://cnsnews.com

 

Posted by:Ali Meyer

Barack Obama

(AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, who is departing Friday for a vacation in Hawaii that will reportedly last until Jan. 5, took more annual vacation days on average in his first term than the average private-sector worker gets after 20 years on the job.

Obama took an average of 21.5 vacations days per year in his first four years as president. By comparison, private-industry workers in the United States who have at least 20 years on the job get an average of 19 days of paid vacation per year.

Obama Vacation

The Government Accountability Institute, headed by Peter Schweizer (who is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University), published a study of President Obama’s calendar on April 28, 2013 that included an accounting of the vacation days the president took from his inauguration on January 20, 2009 through March 2013.

According to GAI’s accounting, Obama took 21 vacation days in 2009, 34 in 2010, 20 in 2011, 7 during his re-election-campaign year of 2012, and 4 in January 2013 before his second inauguration on Jan. 20, 2013 marked the end of his first four years in office.

The 86 cumulative vacation days that Obama took in his first four years in office worked out to an average of 21.5 days per year.

Even if you do not count the four days of vacation Obama took in early January 2013—before the end of his fourth year in office on January 20, 2013—the 82 days of cumulative vacation he took in his first four calendar years in office equals an average of 20.5 per year, which is still more than the 19 paid vacation days per year that the average private-industry worker gets after 20 years on the job.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers in private industry get an average of 10 days of paid vacation after they have been at the job one year; they get an average of 14 days paid vacation after they have been at the job five years; 17 days after they have been at the job 10 years;and 19 days after they have been at the job 20 years.

– See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/obama-took-more-vacation-average-private-sector-workers-20-yrs-job-0#sthash.zt2jUO1y.dpuf

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: