Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the tag “Führer”

GENERAL CEMENTS PLAN TO END OBAMA’S REIGN


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.wnd.com

 

Posted by:DREW ZAHN

author-image

What to do about the alleged unconstitutional and unlawful actions of President Barack Obama?

Some have proposed marches. Others hearings. Some have demanded the president’s resignation. Some have called for impeachment, even though a Democrat-controlled Senate would be unlikely to oust their party’s leader.

Polls show Americans of all parties are upset with the direction of the country, but what can they actually do to make a difference?

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, as chairman of Stand Up America, has been at the forefront of many of these rallying cries, encouraging Americans to take action in a number of ways.

But now the former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army in the Pacific has settled upon a battle plan he believes could actually work: a House-led, parliamentary style vote of “no confidence” in Obama’s administration.

“I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept,” Vallely wrote in an email to supporters obtained by WND. “If you agree with me that all confidence is lost, I urge you to then ask yourself what is in the realm of the possible. I implore you to push aside the urge to try and fix everything in one fell swoop.

“Now is the time for something a dear friend calls ‘conviction without eviction,’ an end that can be brought on through a vote of no confidence, locally, statewide and nationally,” Vallely claims. “This is just a first step in what can only be repaired over time, but it is achievable in the short term and starts to remove Obama’s ability to continue his ruinous ways now.”

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (ret.)

In a blog post on the battle plan posted Dec. 15, the general explained he already has a man on the ground in Washington working to make it happen.

Vallely quotes “a prominent Washington, D.C., insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating –and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of no confidence” as offering the following justification for this novel course of action:

“First, in most of the world’s so-called ‘democracies’ – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of ‘no confidence’ by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the party in power and, in a ‘recall’ of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days,” the insider reportedly reasons. “Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, 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 of the reasons stated in such a resolution.

“Second,” he reasons, “it would be much easier to cosponsor [than impeachment articles], to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s ‘conviction without eviction’ – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.

“We know there is no legal standing in a vote of ‘no confidence’ that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur: We take back the power of discourse,” the insider contends. “What do we do? We conduct a national ‘vote of no confidence.’”

“We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign,” Vallely adds, “but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in [Obama].”

Vellely contends the vote also would defuse some of the partisan finger-pointing that infects not only D.C. but the entire country.

“You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event,” he explains. “Rather, what you are doing is telling the world that ‘I have no confidence in him or his team anymore.’ They cannot take that away from you or attack you for it.

“A vote of ‘no confidence,’ albeit symbolic, at least focuses the discussion on something you can own as I own. This ownership is in your opinion; one based in fact and close analysis, not in emotion, ‘talking points’ or ulterior motives,” Vallely continued. “If asked or challenged tomorrow by his supporters that my lack of confidence is a political ploy, I will say, ‘No, I own my conclusions, I own my opinions and I have a deep sense of no confidence in Obama.’

“The House of Representatives must follow our lead and take up a resolution of no confidence,” the general contends.

Vallely’s calls to action have been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other examples they cite as evidence of disregard for law and the Constitution are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

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

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.”

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.

“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 in December.

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:

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/2014/01/general-cements-plan-to-end-obamas-reign/#CvgJovFGHSdZUi4R.99

OBAMA: EVERYBODY HATES ME!!!


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.nationalenquirer.com

 

Posted by:NATIONAL ENQUIRER online staff

OBAMA: EVERYBODY HATES ME!!!

AS his popularity plummets to historic lows and his presidential legacy is in tatters, BARACK OBAMA has suffered a shocking secret meltdown.

Oh did the little boy get his feelings hurt well think about all of the folks that lost their insurance because of YOU !!!!!

White House insiders say the deeply depressed Commander-in-Chief is hardly eating or sleeping, hasn’t talked to First Lady Michelle, 49, in weeks and is convinced everyone hates him!

“Barack is shattered that his presidency and his life are in free-fall,” says a source.

 “He can’t believe the American public has turned on him so viciously, mainly because of the Obamacare disaster. No one has been able to help him.

“Michelle has tried everything she can to comfort him, but he just snaps, ‘Go away. Leave me alone.’

“Barack watches news reports, reads the papers and sees the shocking poll results – and he loses it.

“When he saw one report that his approval rating had plummeted to a staggeringly low 37 percent, he had a total meltdown.

“He buried his head in his hands, saying, ‘Everybody hates me.’ When he raised his head, his eyes were glistening with tears.

“He’s lost the confidence and affection of the public that he so desperately needs to go on with the hardest job in the world.

A recent CBS poll said the 52-year-old President has a lower job approval rating than Toronto Mayor Rob Ford – who admitted to smoking crack and is still five points HIGHER than Obama!

“That was the last straw for Barack,” says the insider. “He was mortified and humiliated.”

OH WELL LIVE WITH IT YOU SCREWED IT UP NOW LIVE WITH YOUR MISTAKES JACKWAD

 

Surprise Surprise and it keeps going! Where Are Obama’s Daughters’ Baby Pics & Birth Records?


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://beforeitsnews.com

 

Posted by:Dave McMullen

I got an email this morning from FOTM reader Dave McMullen, asking why there aren’t baby pictures of Obama’s two daughters, Malia and Sasha.

Wikipedia says Barack and Michelle Obama have two daughters: Malia Ann, born on July 4, 1998, and Natasha (known as Sasha), born on June 10, 2001.“

So I did a Google Image search for Obama’s daughters. I couldn’t find any baby pics of Malia or Sasha; neither could Dave.

The youngest-looking pic of the girls I found (see below) was in an article extolling Michelle Obama, dated August 20, 2007, on the website Afrobella. The pic is undated. If we go by the date of the Afrobella article, Malia would be 9 years old and Sasha would be 6 years old.

Afrobella pic of O family

In contrast, Dave found a website with a pic of Laura Bush, wife of President George W. Bush, holding their two-month-old twins, Jenna and Barbara.

Laura Bush with babies

I have seen pics of Barack and Michelle’s wedding, like this one below, but none of Michelle pregnant with child.

obama_Wedding

Then I went on the website Ancestry.com, and searched for birth records of Malia Obama, b. 1998, and Natasha Obama, b. 2001. These are the results:

Malia Obama 3

Natasha Obama3

In other words, Ancestry.com has no birth records for Malia or Natasha Obama.

Then I paid $9.95 for a trial membership in GenealogyBank.com so that I can search that website for the Obama girls’ birth records.

Below is a screenshot I took from genealogybank.com of the result of my search for Malia Obama. I’ve circled in read the date and time when I accessed the website. Click the image below to enlarge.

Malia Obama1

As you can see in above, the only thing genealogybank.com has in its newspaper archives on Malia Obama is an article by Sen. Obama titled “Progress on campaign finance reform,” in the Chicago newspaper Hyde Park Herald of August 26, 1998, in which Obama (presumably) mentioned Malia. Here’s the newspaper clip (the words are rather blurry):

Malia Obama2

Below is a screenshot I took from genealogybank.com of the result of my search for Natasha Obama. I’ve circled in read the date and time when I accessed the website. Click the image below to enlarge.

Natasha Obama1

The only thing genealogybank.com has on Natasha Obama is an article in CHyde Park Herald of  July 4, 2001, again by Sen. Obama titled “Tallying wins and losses in Springfield Springfield report,” in which he wrote “The newest edition to the Obama family — Natasha — was born on June 10th, and Michelle and I have been busy changing diapers.” Click image below to enlarge.

Natasha Obama2

In other words, I couldn’t find any birth records of either Malia Obama or Natasha Obama on either ancestry.com or genealogybank.com.

The same Wikipedia entry I had referenced at the beginning of this post states that Malia and Natasha Obama “were both delivered by their parents’ friend Dr. Anita Blanchard at University of Chicago Medical Center.”

Wikipedia’s source of that assertion is an article of Jodi Kantor titled “Obama’s Friends Form Strategy to Stay Close,” in The New York Times of December 13, 2008. The article is about a group of Obama’s closest friends in Chicago, among whom are Valerie Jarrett (now Obama’s senior White House adviser) and a black man named Martin Nesbitt who is now a real estate estate. Nesbitt’s wife is Dr. Anita Blanchard.

O's Chicago friends - Martin Nesbitt, Valerie Jarrett, Dr. Eric Whitaker

l to r: Martin Nesbitt, Valerie Jarrett, BHO, Dr. Eric Whitaker

Alas, the NYT article does NOT say that Dr. Blanchard had delivered Obama’s daughters. Instead, what the article says is “Mr. Nesbitt’s wife, Dr. Anita Blanchard, delivered nearly all the children [of the group of Obama’s close friends in Chicago], and the adults became their godparents.”

If anyone can find baby pictures and birth records of Malia Obama and/or Natasha Obama, please let me know!

H/t FOTM’s Dave McMullen

~Eowyn

It just keeps getting deeper and deeper of BS from obama, man cannot stop lying and hiding .

 

Exposed: Names and Identities of Muslim Brotherhood Operatives in U.S.


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.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Raymond Ibrahim

El Watan, one of Egypt’s most widely circulated and read newspapers, has published a report discussing the Muslim Brotherhood‘s influence over the United States, especially in the context of inciting pro-Brotherhood policies against Egypt’s popular June 30 Revolution, which resulted in the ousting of Muhammad Morsi and the Brotherhood from power.

Titled (in translation), “With Names, Identities, and Roadmap…  El Watan Exposes Brotherhood Cells in America,” it’s written by investigative journalist Ahmed al-Tahiri, who begins the report by saying:

In the context of El Watan’s ongoing investigation concerning the Brotherhood’s cells and lobby inside America that support the regime of the ousted [Morsi], and which intensified their activities to attack and defame the June 30 Revolution, informed sources have disclosed to El Watan newspaper the names and cell entities of the Brotherhood and their roadmap of activities all throughout the United States of America.

The sources said that these organizations, which are spread throughout the States, agitated for and were supportive of the decisions taken by Muhammad Morsi’s project to “Brotherhoodize” and consolidate power [in Egypt] and gave a favorable opinion to the general American public that Morsi’s decisions were welcomed by the public [in Egypt]. Following the June 30 Revolution, these groups  launched a malicious war in order to incite the American administration to take hostile decisions against Egypt, with the aim of bringing back the Brotherhood to the power.

El Watan then goes on to name names, saying that the following activists and entities are Brotherhood operatives working within the United States (reproduced verbatim):

  • Union of Egyptian Imams in North America, represented by Sheikh Muhammad al-Bani
  • The Egyptian American Foundation for Development
  • Dr. Khalid Lamada, New York
  • Dr. Hassan al-Sayah, Virginia
  • The Egyptian Network in America, led by Dr. Muhammad Helmi
  • Dr. Akram al-Zand, Sa’ad Foundation
  • Muhammad al-Khashab, Head of ART channelsin America
  • Sameh al-Henawi, member, Business Association of America
  • Dr. Hany Saqr, member, Egyptian Association in America
  • Dr. Khalid Hassan, Maryland
  • Dr. Muhammad Abdel Hakem, Seattle
  • Dr. Ahmed Ismat al-Bendari, President, Islamic Society of America
  • Walid Yusari, Chicago
  • Ahmed Shadid, New Jersey
  • Ahmed al-Hatab, Indiana
  • Dr. Muhammad Morjan, Boston
  • Ramadan Ridwan, Houston
  • Ahmed Fayez, Las Vegas
  • Dr. Amru Abbas, member, Egyptian Foundation in Michigan
  • Dr. Safi al-Din Hamed, Pennsylvania
  • Dr. Hamdy Radwan, North Carolina
  • Ahmed Shehata, Director, Egyptian American Organization for Democracy and Human Rights
  • Dr. Iman Shehata, New York
  • Dr. Muhammad Amru Attawiya, member, Organization of Islamic Relief in the United States
  • Dr. Khalid al-Sayes, member, Rebuilding of Egypt Foundation
  • Dr. Tariq Hussein, member, American Islamic Relations Council (CAIR)
  • Dr Hisham al-Gayar, member, Egyptian Foundation, Michigan
  • Amin Mahmoud, Maryland

As a most recent example, El Watan quotes from an American op-ed published on October 16 (just two days before the publication of the El Watan report itself).  Titled “Egypt: 100 days later” and written by Ahmed Shehata of the Egyptian American Organization for Democracy and Human Rights, the piece appeared in The Hill, the Capitol’s most widely circulated newspaper, published specifically for Congress.

The op-ed is certainly a prime example of pro-Muslim Brotherhood propaganda that actually tries to “shame” U.S. policymakers into returning the Brotherhood back to power in the name of “democracy.”

Key excerpts follow:

While the U.S. must consider its own interests in the region, it is baffling and disheartening to think the current administration would choose to discount the suffering that continues to occur on a daily basis as well as the complete violation of democratic principles which it espouses to the rest of the world….  As this past week marked 100 days since the coup and the lives of the Egyptian people continue to be sacrificed, the United States cannot be silent any longer for the sake of their own interests and convenience….  To that end, Egypt represents a golden opportunity for the U.S. to uphold democratic values by pushing for the reinstatement of the democratically elected government, despite their shortcomings. This would aid tremendously in showing the world that, above any one particular physical interest, stands the mantle of freedom and the rule of law.

Anyone familiar with the real happenings of Egypt knows that Shehata’s assertions are complete opposites of the truth: the military ousted the Brotherhood in response to the will of millions of Egyptians — the people, the demos, as in democracy — who took to the streets protesting against the totalitarian Morsi government.  Moreover, it is the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters who have been committing numerous human rights atrocities — including the slaughter and persecution of Christians, the torture and murder of many Egyptians (including before the revolution), and the destruction and torching of some 85 Christian churches.

Shehata seems to think that if the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters terrorize, murder, destroy, persecute, and betray their nation — which is precisely why tens of millions of average Egyptians rose up against them (though you might not know that following Al Jazeera-led Western media that distorted the popularity of the revolution) — as long as they won “elections” (which from the start many authorities insisted they didn’t), then that is all that matters; and, if need be, the U.S. must war with Egypt’s military and people on behalf of the ousted terrorists — all in the name of “democracy” and “human rights,” as Shehata’s U.S.-based Brotherhood front is laughably called.

That such a shameless piece of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda can be published in the most influential and widely read Capitol Hill publication certainly goes a long way in validating El Watan‘s claims that the Brotherhood has its tentacles all around the United States’ points of influence.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/exposed_names_and_identities_of_muslim_brotherhood_operatives_in_us.html#ixzz2jZ3GSLxF

 

Obama’s Military Purge


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:Arnold Ahlert 

usa-nazi-banner

Author

Is the Obama administration in the midst of a military purge? This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort. “I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website. “Remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.” The general spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still provides the government with services and believes this administration would retaliate against him.

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a “stand down” order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham “retired” less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three for the Navy, was relieved of duty for allegedly using profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.” Though he was cleared of criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, administrative penalties have effectively ended his career. In testimony regarding Benghazi, Gaouette, who was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea on the night of the attack, told Congress there may not have been time to get flight crews to Libya. But under cross examination, he admitted he could have sent planes to that location.

Major General Baker, a two-star general who served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa, was fired for alcohol and sexual misconduct charges. The U.S. reportedly runs counter-terror operations out of Djibouti, and once again, military officials told TheBlaze Baker was involved in some aspect of Benghazi.

The other six were terminated for a variety of alleged offenses. Army Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, commander of Fort Jackson beginning in 2011, was fired for adultery. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, was terminated over a successful attack on that facility by the Taliban, resulting in two American deaths and the destruction of eight American planes. Sturdevant claims British forces were responsible for security at the base prior to the attack.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus was terminated for questioning the “winning hearts and minds” policies that led to “green on blue” murders of American officers by “trusted” Afghan recruits. Other Afghan recruits led a platoon into an enemy ambush. Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship,” according to the Department of Defense. A blog written by a 26-year-old cadet medically discharged from West Point claims the three-star general was under investigation because a West Point Superintendent “improperly used” his office, and because of an insufficient investigation of a lewd email chain perpetrated by the men’s rugby team. Nothing was officially released by the DoD regarding any of the charges.

The last commanders, three-star Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, and Major General Michael Carey, were fired within 48 hours of each other. Giardina was the deputy commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, an entity that oversees all nuclear-armed missiles, bombers and submarines. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Groups 9 and 10, which comprise all 18 of our nuclear-armed submarines. He was fired for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino. Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force, a role that put him in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings, was fired “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment,” said Air Force spokesman Brig. Gen. Les Kodlick. The decision to fire Carey was made by Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the head of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Obama fired Giardina.

The firing of military leaders goes much further than top generals, however. On its Facebook page, Breitbart.com compiled a list of more than 197 military commanders, mostly at the rank of Colonel or above, who have been purged by the Obama administration since 2009.

According to military.com, allegations of sexual misconduct account for the firing of 30 percent of military commanders over the past eight years. That figure that increases to 40 percent when “ethical lapses” such as sexual assault and harassment, pornography, drugs and drinking are lumped together. But there are other dubious reasons why these commanders have been terminated, ranging from unspecified dereliction of duty, to improper saluting.

One of the largest purges occurred on the last day of November in 2011, when the administration terminated 157 Air Force Majors, a move the Chapman University of Military Law and its associated AMVETS Legal Clinic characterized as illegal. They noted that the Department of Defense specifies that absent extenuating circumstances, service members within six years of retirement would ordinarily be retained, and allowed to retire on time and collect benefits.

The Air force cited budget shortfalls as their primary reason for the terminations. Yet as institute director Maj. Kyndra Rotunda explained, based on the Defense Department’s Instruction 1320.08, “derogatory information” is the only reason officers can be terminated. “The defense department’s own regulation does not authorize what the defense department is doing,” Rotunda contended at the time. “The Airmen relied on the law when they entered service and now the Secretary wants to change that law, without authority.”

Earlier that same month, two-star Major Gen. Peter Fuller was relieved of his command in Afghanistan, after he told Politico that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials in that country were “isolated from reality.” Ironically, Fuller was fired by Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who was himself the subject of an FBI investigation a year later, for his role in the sex scandal that led to the resignation of CIA Director and retired general David Petraeus. Despite the FBI informing the Pentagon it had uncovered thousands of pages of emails between Allen and Florida socialite Jill Kelley, President Obama subsequently expressed “faith” in Allen’s ability to continue doing his job. It is impossible to determine whether Allen’s ideology played a role in maintaining that faith.

2012 also saw several terminations of officers based on questionable rationale. In May, Commander Derick Armstrong, commanding officer of the guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans, was relieved of duty by Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe “as a result of an unprofessional command climate that was contrary to good order and discipline,” according to a Navy news release. A week earlier, the Navy relieved Cmdr. Dennis Klein of command of the submarine USS Columbia, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to serve effectively.

Stars and Stripes listed several other Navy commanders relieved of duty in 2012. While some on the list were terminated for seemingly legitimate reasons, a curious lack of specificity applied to others. They include Capt. James CoBell, commanding officer of Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic, who was let go for “leadership issues”; Cmdr. Franklin Fernandez, commanding officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24, for a “loss of confidence” in his ability to command due to allegedly “driving under the influence”; Capt. Marcia Lyons, commander of Naval Health Clinic New England, for problems with her “command climate”; and Capt. Sean McDonell, commander of Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 in Jacksonville, FL, for mismanagement and unspecified “major program deficiencies.” Several others were fired for “inappropriate personal behavior” or “personal misconduct.”

Theories for these purges run the gamut. One posits that anyone associated with Benghazi had to go. Another states that many of these firings are an effort to clean up “operational failures,” most notably a 2007 incident in which six nuclear-tipped missiles went missing for 36 hours. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, believes it is part of the president’s strategy to reduce America’s standing in the world. “[Obama is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he contended.

Vallely’s assessment was echoed by a source at the Pentagon who wished to remain anonymous because the source was not authorized to speak on the subject. He or she contended that “young officers, down through the ranks, have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job—just keep your mouth shut.”

This theory finds validation when one considers the Obama administration’s larger assault on the military. The military is the last organized bastion of conservative values, due in large part to the nature of the military itself. Yet, in recent years, the push to embrace progressive values, such as openly gay servicemen, women in combat and diversity worship have been pursued with vigor. Even the aforementioned effort to “win the hearts and minds” of Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to pursuing victory, marks a sea change from traditional military values.

Not only is the Obama administration apparently on a mission to undermine the integrity of the military in this way, but it has also revealed itself to be entirely intolerant of dissent of any kind. Whether it is reporters or domestic opposition groups such as the Tea Party, Obama has made clear he will aggressively pursue anyone who defies his agenda. Now it seems that chilling message his been sent to the military as well.

 

 

 

Killing ObamaCare


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.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Jay Clarke

The ObamaCare disaster is in its early stages and already, Americans of every political stripe are in shock as millions of insurance plans are canceled, premiums skyrocket, hours are cut, jobs are lost, businesses are decimated, and our choices evaporate. Even the left-wing media are beginning to realize that Obama‘s signature domestic achievement is a catastrophe.

The complete flop of the http://www.healthcare.gov/website launch has deeply embarrassed Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that created the ObamaCare monster in the dead of night. Using shady parliamentary maneuvers and against the will of the American people, they imposed and inflicted upon the entire nation a bill they hadn’t read and didn’t understand. And now their chickens are coming home to roost as government (and their own) incompetence is put on full display.

But it is possible that We the People can stop this thing before it’s too late and before Barack Obama’s socialist makeover of America becomes permanently entrenched. We should stop feeding this beast and allow it to die a slow, lingering death.

We should starve ObamaCare.

Since http://www.healthcare.gov went live almost four weeks ago, the fear of this very thing has descended upon the left and their media buddies. It goes like this:

The ObamaCare website launch is a PR disaster of epic proportion which strains the credibility of Barack Obama as super-genius and the entire concept of ObamaCare. If people do not have faith in the system (or its chief proponent) they may not enroll in ObamaCare and if they do not enroll, especially the younger and healthier types, ObamaCare may actually fail. If only very poor, very unhealthy people enroll, the signature domestic policy achievement of Barack Obama (force-fed to the American public) will collapse.

An even bigger fear on the left is that the ObamaCare debacle will cause Americans en masse to question the cardinal doctrine of leftism. Namely, that the government is the best instrument for delivering the basic necessities of life and establishing social justice by redistributing wealth. When the people stop believing that government is the answer to our problems, liberalism will have been dealt a serious, possibly fatal, blow.
So, what would happen if young people and middle-aged and older folks just refused to participate?

What if we all just… said… “NO!”?

What if millions upon millions of Americans refused to be a part of the ObamaCare national takeover and refused to purchase insurance through the exchanges?

What if tens or hundreds of thousands of young, healthy people refused to purchase health insurance at all?
Answer: ObamaCare would fall.

This would mean buying coverage outside of the exchanges or not buying it at all. Due to ObamaCare’s coverage mandates, buying insurance outside the exchanges will be costly as insurers implement new requirements. One answer may be to purchase a high-deductible plan at a lower cost and then purchase supplemental plans that will help pay your deductibles and out of pocket costs. Many licensed health agents understand this process called “bundling” and have used it for years to help their clients. Still, you’ll probably pay more for health insurance than you’re paying now.

However, buying insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges is to accept tax credits and subsidies which are nothing more than redistributed wealth stolen from our fellow Americans. Much of it, $700 billion, stolen from our parents and grandparents by Obama’s raid of Medicare. Participating through the exchanges therefore, helps to empower the socialist agenda of the radical left and, if at all possible, it must be avoided.

Clearly, we are talking about a rebellion of sorts. A massive demonstration of civil disobedience (typically beloved by the left) which would certainly cause panic in the White House and liberal halls of power as regular Americans defy the strong-arm tactics of Barack Obama and his Democrat allies.

Some might think this is a radical idea. But, when a government becomes destructive of the God-given rights of the people, the people have no choice but to disobey. Any laws passed by government that are clearly unconstitutional or destructive of the natural rights of free men and women must be opposed. Our most effective weapon is the tried and true practice of peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience much like that witnessed in the 1960s.

Of course, this type of action may come with a price tag for those who choose this path. In the 1960s, civil rights protesters were attacked with dogs, water cannon, beaten with batons, and assassinated.

But, the cause was worthy of the suffering endured.

And so it is today.

Civil disobedience is not for the faint of heart. In this battle, the IRS may come knocking and seek to penalize those who do not purchase health insurance. For the moment, the IRS’s primary mechanism for penalizing such people is to withhold their tax refunds. So, what if we saw to it that no excess funds are withheld from our paychecks? When the IRS goons look to seize our tax refunds as a penalty, they’ll have nothing to withhold. If millions of Americans adopted this approach, the IRS would be unable to effectively enforce ObamaCare’s penalty provisions.

In 1776, fifty six men signed the Declaration of Independence and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Every one of them paid a price for his patriotism and refusal to yield to the tyranny of King George III.

Today, America is in peril. We face an encroaching tyranny which is as profound as that faced by the signers of the Declaration. Our federal government is lawless, out of control and shows no respect for the Constitution. The ability of our children and grandchildren to live as free people is under tremendous threat from radical leftists who seek nothing less than the total transformation of our nation into a socialist state.

ObamaCare is the linchpin of that transformation.

Absent the actions of the American people, the radicals will succeed, resulting in a continual and perpetual loss of personal freedom until America is America no more. We and our descendants deserve to live in freedom. Our families and our ancestors paid for it in blood. It is our birthright.

Faced with such an existential danger from within our own federal government, the act of civil disobedience is no longer a choice for free men and women. It is a moral and patriotic imperative.

How do we battle this onslaught?

Defiance.

Refuse to comply with immoral and illegal laws.

Refuse to participate in ObamaCare. Defy its mandates and penalties.

Refuse to accept ObamaCare’s subsidies and tax credits stolen from fellow Americans.

This is where this American generation must draw the line and where we must make our stand for freedom.

Today, the barbarians aren’t at the gates, they are within them — within the White House and the United States Congress.

The fight over ObamaCare is for all the marbles. It is the cornerstone of the radical leftist transformation of America and it must be defeated.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”

— Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/killing_obamacare.html#ixzz2j4bWC6Hr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Obama’s Valerie Jarrett: Often Whispered about, But Never Challenged


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.

Reblogged from

Posted by John Fund

 

President Obama’s aides went to extraordinary lengths to uncover the identity of a senior official who was using Twitter to make snarky comments about White House staffers. Suspicion gradually centered on Jofi Joseph, the point man on nuclear nonproliferation at the National Security Council. So at a meeting in which everyone was in on the scam an inaccurate but innocuous news tidbit was revealed. When Joseph used his anonymous Twitter handle #natlsecwonk to broadcast the tidbit he was caught and promptly fired. He was not fired for revealing any secrets, but for making disparaging comments about thin-skinned administration players ranging from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

What apparently intensified the campaign to identify the “snarker” was a comment about Valerie Jarrett, the senior Obama adviser who has her own Secret Service detail and appears to exercise an inordinate amount of power behind the scenes. Joseph tweeted “I’m a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me.”

Jarrett, an old Chicago friend of both Barack and Michelle Obama, appears to exercise such extraordinary influence she is sometimes quietly referred to as “Rasputin” on Capitol Hill, a reference to the mystical monk who held sway over Russia’s Czar Nicholas as he increasingly lost touch with reality during World War I.

Darrell Delamaide, a columnist for Dow Jones’s MarketWatch, says that “what has baffled many observers is how Jarrett, a former cog in the Chicago political machine and a real-estate executive, can exert such influence on policy despite her lack of qualifications in national security, foreign policy, economics, legislation or any of the other myriad specialties the president needs in an adviser.”  

Delamaide believes the term “vacuous cipher” that was applied to Jarrett stung so much because it could be used as a metaphor for the administration in general. He writes that what “has remained consistent about the Obama administration is that vacuity — the slow response in a crisis, the hesitant and contradictory communication, a lack of conviction and engagement amid constant political calculation.” The stunning revelation that President Obama wasn’t kept properly apprised of problems with Obamacare’s website is just the latest example of how dysfunctional Obama World can be. 

Whether Jarrett’s influence is all too real or exaggerated is unknowable. What is known is the extent to which she has long been a peerless enabler of Barack Obama’s inflated opinion of himself. Consider this quote from New Yorker editor David Remnick’s interview with her for his 2010 book The Bridge.

“I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them, and I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”

Up against a court flatterer of that caliber it’s no surprise that Jarrett has outlasted almost everyone who was in Obama’s original White House team — from chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to political guru David Axelrod to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. All are known to have crossed her, and all are gone. As one former Obama aide once told me: “Valerie is ‘She Who Must Not be Challenged.’”  

When the revealing histories of the Obama White House are written it will be fascinating to learn just how extensive her role in the key decisions of the Obama years was.

 

GOD FORBID DEA Warns Federal Shutdown Will Lead to Resurgence of Illegal Lemonade Stands


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!

This is a Reblogged from girlsjustwannahaveguns.com

Posted by Patrick Kane

lemonade-standTHE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS SATIRE:

FOLLOW GIRLS JUST WANNA HAVE GUNS ON FACEBOOK!

Washington DC– In the wake of the shut down of the Federal Government, DEA officials warn the public of the impending resurgence of illegal lemonade stands. Reports of children as young as five years old selling lemonade on street corners all across the country have been pouring in ever since the shut down of the federal government. Officials warn that, if gone unchecked, these stands will engulf every street corner in every suburb across the country.

Using children as underage laborers, these stands make hundreds of dollars every year in non taxable income. Illegal lemonade is, of course, an all cash business, making the flow of the money very difficult to trace. While authorities are unsure, it is estimated that over one thousand dollars of illegal lemonade were purchased in the last week alone, and that anywhere from 300-500 children in any given city are involved in the manufacturing and distribution of illegal lemonade.

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told reporters today that these illegal stands contribute to one of America’s most dangerous black markets, and that “immediate action must be taken to keep this scourge off the streets”.

“Not only do these illegal lemonade stands violate minimum wage laws, they violate child labor laws, and health codes as well. We don’t know what are in these toxic concoctions. There can be as much as 20 grams of sugar per cup, and this street lemonade is almost always made by children under ten years old in unsanitary conditions. There have even been reports of lemonades being sold in quantities over sixteen ounces.”

In a harrowing study commissioned by the DEA, researchers outline the structure of the underground lemonade market and study the unintended consequences of illegal street lemonade.

“Not only are children forced to make these drinks, but children are the target market as well. These lemonade pushers will set up near suburban areas, parks, and playgrounds where they know they can find kids, and get them hooked. While the first glass may cost only twenty-five cents, lemonade pushers know once they can get a child to try it once, they’ve got a customer for life. Soon these kids will become so dependent on the saccharine drinks that they will go into the illegal manufacturing of lemonade themselves, thereby perpetuating the circle of abuse and addiction.

Street lemonade has become such an epidemic, that the DEA has set up an entire branch just to deal with street corner lemonade stands. When interviewed, an anonymous DEA agent told reporters that before the shut down, the DEA staffed almost three thousand armed agents to investigate and prosecute lemonade related offenses. However, since the federal government shut down, the DEA has had to rely solely on volunteers and vigilantes to help curb street sales of illegal lemonade.

“We’ve been working around the clock to try and keep this garbage off of the streets. Thankfully we’ve had some volunteer support from local busy bodies and control freaks, but it just isn’t enough to stop the organized juggernaut of street lemonade.”

While it is an uphill battle, authorities have made some encouraging progress in stopping the flow of illegal lemonade since the shutdown. In a raid conducted tuesday in a small DC suburb, authorities were able to confiscate over four kilos of uncut South American cane sugar, over 10 bags of Quicktime lemonade mix, and almost forty-five dollars in marked bills. Three area elementary school students have been taken into custody awaiting a trial.

“We need to send a message to people everywhere that if you want to sell lemonade on the streets, the government is watching you, and we will catch you.”

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/10/dea-warns-federal-shutdown-will-lead-resurgence-illegal-lemonade-stands/#70P1RcePk1OZf7lE.99

 

New signs of rising illegal immigration into US


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!

This is a Reblogged from Associated Press

Posted by Erica Werner and Christopher Sherman

 

news-politics-20130923-US-Illegal-Immigration

FILE – In this June 13, 2013 file photo, US Border Patrol agent Jerry Conli…

WASHINGTON (AP)The number of immigrants crossing the border illegally into the U.S. appears to be on the rise again after dropping during the recession.

The total number of immigrants living in this country unlawfully edged up from 11.3 million in 2009 to 11.7 million last year, with those from countries other than Mexico at an apparent all-time high, according to a report released Monday by the Pew Research Center‘s Hispanic Trends Project.

The change is within the margin of error, and there will be a more precise census measure released later this year. Still, based in part on other factors such as increased U.S. border apprehensions, the sharp decline in illegal immigration from 2007-2009 has clearly bottomed out, with signs the numbers are now rising, Pew said.

Pew said that among the six states with the largest numbers of immigrants here illegally, only Texas had a consistent increase in illegal immigration from 2007 to 2011, due in part to its stronger economy. Its number was unchanged from 2011 to 2012. Two states — Florida and New Jersey — had an initial drop but then increases during the same 2007-2011 period. Three states — California, Illinois and New York — showed only declines.

“As a whole, with the recession ending, the decrease in illegal immigration has stopped,” said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew.

Passel noted that historically the level of illegal immigration has been closely tied to the strength of the U.S. economy and availability of jobs. Since 2009, the average U.S. unemployment rate has dropped from 9.3 percent to 8.1 percent last year, with signs of strength in the construction industry, which yields jobs generally attractive to newly arrived Latino immigrants.

The Pew analysis is based on census data through March 2012. Because the Census Bureau does not ask people about their immigration status, the estimate on illegal immigrants is derived largely by subtracting the estimated legal immigrant population from the total foreign-born population. It is a method that has been used by the government and Pew for many years and is generally accepted.

Analysts said it was hard to predict whether immigrants in the country illegally could eventually exceed the record total of 12.2 million in 2007. Continued modest increases are possible, but another big surge like the one seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s isn’t likely, due in part to demographic factors such as Mexico’s aging workforce.

“Labor demand in the U.S. is still slack and wages are eroding, whereas there are jobs in Mexico and wages are slowly rising as labor force growth there decelerates,” said Douglas Massey, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University who is co-director of the Mexican Migration Project. “The pressures for mass migration are diminishing for now, but who knows what kind of disasters lie ahead?”

Analyses of census data from the U.S. and Mexican governments show that the number of immigrants here illegally peaked at 12.2 million in 2007, during the U.S. housing boom, and before the recession hit. It then dropped roughly 7 percent to 11.3 million in 2009, the first two-year decline in two decades, due to the weak U.S. economy which shrank construction and service-sector jobs. Much of the decline came as many Mexican workers who already were here saw diminishing job opportunities and returned home.

Since then, the U.S. economy has shown some improvement, while public opinion regarding immigrants has shifted in some cases in favor of granting legal rights. For instance, some state legislatures this year have passed immigrant-friendly measures such as college tuition breaks and rights to driver’s licenses, even as others enacted laws aimed at tightening the system.

A look at some immigration details, by the numbers:

—In all, the number of Mexicans here illegally stood at roughly 6 million last year, down from the 2007 peak of 6.9 million and largely unchanged since 2010. Mexicans now make up 52 percent of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, down from 57 percent in 2007.

—The level of illegal immigration from countries other than Mexico rose to a record 5.65 million, higher than the 5 million in 2009 and apparently surpassing the 2007 peak of 5.25 million. The record number in 2012 is a preliminary determination because of margins of error in the surveys.

—In past surveys, non-Mexican immigrants here illegally have come primarily from Central America, at roughly 15 percent; followed by South America, the Caribbean and other parts of Latin America at 12 percent; and Asia, at roughly 10 percent. The Obama administration has recently said that unrest and poverty in many Central American nations are a large factor behind illegal immigration into the U.S.

—Separately, U.S. Border Patrol data show a modest increase in the number of apprehensions at the Mexican border from 2011 to 2012, increasing to 365,000. That was because of growing apprehensions of non-Mexicans, as opposed to Mexicans, which declined. Historically, increases in border apprehensions have tended to coincide with increases in illegal immigration.

—In particular, analysts have said that immigrants are shifting their migration paths from Arizona to deep southern Texas, due in part to that state’s stronger economy, as well as increases in Central American immigrants who seek a more direct route to the U.S. Agents from the Border Patrol in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley have apprehended nearly 150,000 so far this fiscal year, a 58 percent increase over 2012. About 94,000 of those border crossers arrested have been from countries other than Mexico.

The latest numbers on illegal immigration come as prospects for passage of a comprehensive U.S. immigration bill appear dim. A bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate and backed by the White House includes billions for border security as well as a 13-year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants already here illegally.

But most House Republicans have rejected this comprehensive approach, and the House Judiciary Committee has moved forward with individual, single-issue immigration bills that could come to the floor sometime later this year or next. It’s unclear whether the GOP-dominated House will ever pass legislation that could form the basis for a final deal with the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Steve A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that advocates tighter immigration policies, said the immigration issue will be tough to resolve.

“The numbers remind us the problem of illegal immigration isn’t going away anytime soon,” he said, “unless we take steps to enforce the laws or have legalization of those here illegally.”

———

Associated Press writers Erica Werner in Washington and Christopher Sherman in McAllen, Texas, contributed to this report.

———

LAWMAKER ‘CONFIDENT’ CIA GAGGING EMPLOYEE


Here is some information and my rules:

I do not like Liberal Ideology;

Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

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

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.wnd.com

Posted by: GARTH KANT

Stands by story after agency calls his Benghazi charge ‘false’

author-image

WASHINGTON — It’s not everyday the CIA effectively calls a member of Congress a liar, especially a veteran who is so well-respected on both sides of the aisle.

But Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., isn’t backing down and is too seasoned to be intimidated.

He is standing by his comment that a CIA employee has been suspended for refusing to sign a nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, preventing him from discussing the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The Washington Free Beacon reported the CIA told a reporter Wolf’s allegations are “categorically false.”

Wolf is too diplomatic to get into an argument with the CIA in the media.

But he told WND he is “confident” what he says is true.

Wolf also told WND how the whole issue arose.

He said his office received a tip about an “employee of the CIA who is being disciplined because he wouldn’t sign a nondisclosure agreement.”

The congressman’s office contacted the law firm representing the employee, and the firm confirmed “there is a person there who is their client” and “they gave us a name, I think, by accident.”

The law firm declined his assistance, as Wolf said they told him, “We will work this thing through the normal legal process, and we don’t need any congressional help.”

He explained, “I don’t know what their plans were. We offered to help. My office works on a lot of whistleblower cases, and they said, ‘No, they were going to go through the normal procedure,’ and I’m not sure what normal procedure they’re talking about.”

But, Wolf said, “We have given people the names of who’s involved.”

WND asked the congressman if he has been in contact with the numerous people forced to sign NDAs.

“We’ve been in touch with people who are in touch with people,” he said. “There are different nondisclosure agreements. There are NDAs signed by the CIA, and NDAs signed by people on the ground who were not employees of the CIA,” such as independent contractors.

Asked why the CIA would call Wolf’s claim false, he replied, “I’m not going to get into an exchange back and forth. Maybe John Brennan knows, I don’t know.”

CIA Director John Brennan denied a CNN report that the agency has forced employees to sign NDAs and take polygraph tests.

CNN called it “an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.”

In the past Wolf had declined to speculate why the administration is trying to keep people quiet, but WND asked the congressman if he’d heard anyone discuss possible reasons for the pressure.

“Well, would it be fair to say they don’t want people to know what happened?” he asked rhetorically.

“I think everyone who was on the scene at the time of the attack ought to be brought before Congress, subpoenaed, because that protects them, and given the opportunity to testify under oath in public.”

Wolf has been leading the charge to form a bipartisan select committee to investigate Benghazi, and has extensively discussed with WND his reasons for that on a number of occasions.

His bill to establish a select committee currently has 171 cosponsors, which is nearly three-fourths of the Republican majority in the House.

The Virginian said it would be very easy to find out who should testify, “because the CIA and others know who was on the ground, their human resources (departments) know, so the committee could find out.”

While he seemed frustrated with what appears to be an administration stonewall on Benghazi, the senior statesman remained optimistic.

“I think eventually the truth will come out, but it will come out slowly,” he said. “And perhaps in six months or a year, somebody will come forward. Eventually these things come out.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/lawmaker-confident-cia-gagging-employee/#pVscCbPBlU6LPcsl.99

 

Are You Kidding IDIOT ALERT!!


Here is some information and my rules:

I do not like Liberal Ideology;

Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

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

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!

 

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania . This guy’s response is hilarious, but read The State’s letter before you get to the response letter.


Dear Mr. DeVries:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:


Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.
A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity.. A review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.


The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially fail ed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2007.


Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action..


We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.


Response


Dear Mr.Price,
Your certified letter dated 12/17/06 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane , Trout Run, Pennsylvania .


A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood ‘debris’ dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials ‘debris.’


I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.


My first dam question to you is:


(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or


(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?


If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)


I have several dam concerns. My first dam concern is, aren’t the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.
The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.


If you want the dammed stream ‘restored’ to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers — but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English..
In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers’ Dams).


So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2007? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice by then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.


In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your dam step! The bears are not careful where they dump!


Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.
THANK YOU,
RYAN DEVRIES
& THE DAM BEAVERS

 

 

Obama ‘Imploding’ in the House


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!

This is a Reblogged from 

Posted by Rich Lowry

I was just talking to a Capitol Hill source who thinks there are maybe two dozen Republican votes for the authorization, no more — and there probably won’t be more. It’s hard to know because the situation is fluid, and the vote is so sensitive that Republicans members don’t even want the leadership keeping a tally of votes, for fear that it will lead to an effort to influence them.

He cites a couple of incidental factors at play here:

1) The debate started while members were scattered to the winds on recess, making it impossible for the White House to do any persuasion in person;

2) The chickens are coming home to roost in terms of the non-existent White House relationship with Capitol Hill. He shared a few stories of the chief White House lobbyist either not knowing key players he should know or not being recognized himself by key players (tellingly, my source doesn’t know his name);

3) Even as the vote is swinging the wrong way, there seems to be no urgency on the part of the White House, which should be in a near panic.

Of course, the bigger influence on Republicans is the deluge of calls and e-mails in opposition, as we’ve reported here and here.

If only a couple of dozen Republicans are in support, that means almost all Democrats have to vote in favor. Absent a big change that shifts dozens of votes all at once, my source expects the authorization to lose. “It’s hard to find a precedent for a president imploding on something this big,” he says.

 

Liberals in Retreat


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!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.nationalreview.com 

Posted by John Fund

Three elections across the globe deliver an unpleasant shock to liberal ideologues. Recall supporters walk the line in Colorado. John Fund   Three elections in the last week have challenged long-held liberal premises about how elections are fought and what the public wants. It’s worth examining those results in such widely separated places as Australia, Norway, and the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. In Colorado, liberals are already in denial about the fact that two Democratic state senators were recalled from office in districts Barack Obama carried by some 20 percentage points only ten months ago. The recalls were organized by citizens upset with the lawmakers’ votes in favor of a gun-control measure. The two senators also helped pass bills perceived as being against the interests of rural areas and helped push through a fraud-prone election law that shifted the Centennial State to all-mail voting.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee’s chairwoman, said the results simply reflected voter suppression, pure and simple.” Matt Vespa of Red State scoffed at her flimsy explanation: More Democrats and independents signed the two recall petitions than did Republicans, he noted, which “only further discredits DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s insane claim that her side lost due to voter suppression.”

Liberals are also claiming that the black arts of the National Rifle Association skewed the results. But the gun-rights group came very late to support the recalls, and the Denver Post reports that pro-gun-control groups spent some $3 million versus only $540,000 by recall supporters. Grover Norquist, a board member of the National Rifle Association, claims once again that liberals mistook “position for passion” on an issue. In the wake of the Newtown massacre of last December, the Left believed public opinion had finally turned in favor of gun control; in support of this view, they cited surveys showing overwhelming support for background checks and limits on ammunition magazines. As Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wrote, “You cannot oppose the will of 90 percent of the public and expect no consequences.” But in terms of intensity, the advantage goes to those who oppose restrictions on gun rights and believe that even the most modest of them will only embolden those who ultimately aim to restrict access to guns even further.

As Norquist explains it: “The polls showed many people wanted some new gun-control laws at the same time they told pollsters they didn’t think they would prevent future Newtowns. Understandable outrage at murders accompanied by an acknowledgement it won’t make things better doesn’t make a passionate voter. Gun-rights supporters are always passionate, which is why more laws expanding gun rights have passed since Newtown than laws restricting them.”

What should worry Democrats is that the two Colorado districts that recalled their senators last Tuesday represent the two sides of their electoral coalition. The district in downtown Colorado Springs was urban, trendy, and filled with upper-income social liberals; it voted 59 percent to 38 percent for Obama. The other district in nearby Pueblo and its suburbs was Hispanic, moderate-to-lower income, blue-collar, and more culturally conservative; it voted 58 percent to 39 percent for Obama. “The recall in Pueblo was started by two plumbers and an electrician,” notes Jon Caldara, head of the pro-recall Independence Institute. “Hispanics and blue-collar voters resented interference in what they regarded as their local rights.” And as for the NRA, the Democratic survey firm Public Policy Polling found voters in Pueblo had a positive view of the group. If the Colorado results showed the limits of liberal paternalism’s appeal, voters in prosperous Australia and Norway rebelled against liberal governments they perceived as incompetent and too focused on peripheral issues. In Australia, conservative leader Tony Abbott made opposition to the Labor government’s carbon tax the signature issue of his campaign. Polls showed that the public expressed general concern about global warming, but Abbott knew the polls also showed voters didn’t believe a carbon tax could do much about the climate and would probably serve as an excuse to extract more money from taxpayers. “Labor forgot about the basics of how to practice competent economic policy and went off on wild tangents to appeal to its special-interest backers,” Tim Andrews of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance told me. In Norway, after the 2011 massacre of dozens of teenagers by a white-separatist madman, the ruling Labor government was convinced that their conservative opposition would be discredited and that they could retain power in an economic climate where growth fueled by the nation’s abundant oil reserves was averaging over 3 percent a year. But an independent investigation of how the killer was able to evade capture for hours pointed out incredible bureaucratic incompetence in the national police bureaucracy, and even called into question rules banning almost all policemen from carrying guns. In addition, the leaders of the Conservative party and the libertarian Progress party succeeded in persuading voters that high taxes and suffocating regulations were preventing Norwegians from creating non-oil entrepreneurial ventures that employed people. “As rich and generous as Norwegians are, they want their children to inherit a real economy, and they demand better accountability from their government for the taxes they pay,” Jan Arild Snoen, a Norwegian political analyst, told me last August when a National Review cruise visited Norway. Michael Barone, the co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and an analyst of international elections, tells me that many people driven by ideology often feel elections should revolve around their concerns and reflect their priorities. “That can happen on the left or on the right,” he says. “But liberals are especially prone to not recognizing the public does care if their policies actually work in practice and are in sync with their everyday concerns.” In all three elections held in the last week — from Australia to Norway to Colorado — liberals forgot that their priorities aren’t often those of the average voter. In each case, they were punished for it. — John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.

Russian Paper: Once Drug Addict Obama Cannot Fight Against Vladimir Putin


How many people could ever have thought of Barack Obama making a statement that he was going to send missiles into any country, much less Syria? Then we have to ask why has he gone from a roaring lion to a paper tiger? Obama was going to attack first and ask questions later, he was drawing the line in the sand, yet when time came and that line was allegedly crossed, like a school yard bully, he says “That was the world’s red line, I never did that!” Now that we have seen the United States snickered at and in some places laughed at like the Rodeo Clown Obama and his friends demeaned, we see a man that is lost and has no way out. Just what does Russia think of him? They laugh as if Obama is the clown, and he is not in any sort of rodeo! Should anyone wonder just what some, if not all the people of Russia and maybe the world, think of Obama right now? All we have to do is look at recent articles about Obama in the Pravda paper, which is a Russian publication.

The following commentary comes from just one of many articles popping up all over Russia and the world especially after Obama drew the “red line,” then another and then another!

The following words are from Xavier Lerma:

Even though the US thinks they are in charge of humanity the reality is they are not. In their imaginary world the toothless media supports their spit ball shooting president. They actually think their words are supreme and final. Kerry and McCain keep dancing in a parade trying to influence a congress which is neither conservative nor moral but nevertheless war weary. The once drug addict now US leader cannot fight against Vladimir Putin who brought Russia from poverty in the 90’s to a more stable economy today. Obama’s buffoonery selling the war against Syria has hit a wall thanks to President Putin’s firm stance and leadership.

Putin Interview w/Channel One & AP

Putin’s Interview with Channel One and Associated Press news agency Focusing on war instead of a trillion dollar debt, Obama’s forte is to spread chaos not only in America but in the world. Like a fire bug his wake has left North Africa burning and he now supports terrorists the US once fought against. Bush once said that when Obama got into office that Barry would have to do the same and continue fighting in the Middle East. “Mr. I’ll bring home the troops next summer” has broken that promise and kept his “YES WE CAN start more wars” pledge. As they say in America, “he’s Bush on steroids”.

With just these words, the United States looks like a 3rd world nation rather than a leading nation. But this is just what the Marxist Obama wanted as he laid claim to being a staunch Marxist while he sat below the huge painting of Karl Marx and not just studied Karl Marx, but also wished he could direct a nation into oblivion like Karl Marx did! Yes Obama did say that many times while at Occidental College in California! Now he sits down when Putin talks and he listens like a good little school boy should, but why not, after all this is just what he had hoped for while studying Marxism in California! Now let us continue on with this article and see just what Obama is thought of outside of our nation where he should be respected!

 

“Although US public opinion is against another war the Bush haters will not protest Obama’s wars. I guess their feet hurt or Soros ran out of money. Code Pink went home to bake cookies or those in charge feel nothing can stop them now. Well, Putin is still in charge of the Middle East. The blood thirsty west can only grind its teeth, wail and scream, writhe in agony, spitting out lies, threats and accusations against Russia. Like Hitler and Napoleon, they will also meet their end.

Russia, who has slain its Red Dragon (Communism) long ago, is now facing Puff the Magic Dragon. Blowing smoke in his people’s eyes and spreading democracy with bombs. Magic that cannot fight against the truth. Puff must face reality and will try to save face. He will blame the Republicans who stand in his way and his worshipers will pity and love him. Playing the race card once again will bring more power to his throne.

The Saudi King whom Obama bowed to and Bush kissed will try again and again. Demanding Obama attack Syria. Trying to bribe Putin or threatening Russia with terrorists. He cannot let Russia, the largest country and the number one oil and gas producer, stand in their way. They want the world coming to them for oil and they know Russia will become more powerful in the future supplying Europe, China and other major countries. The Saudis must have complete control of the Middle East now before it’s too late.”

Mr. Lerma shows the discontent with Obama and just how people in other parts of the world see him. Obama is now showing himself to be such a weak President that few nations will even help him go into any sort of war! Many would bash and cut to pieces President Bush for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when he mentioned it he had the backing of over 21 different nations that not only supported him, but were willing to send troops also. Obama, on the other hand, is lucky if he can gather together people from his home nation of Kenya, much less any amount of other nations.

Is it not strange that Obama has come out throwing punches like a drunken fighter, only to be knocked out before making center ring by Putin? Some say this is Obama’s master plan; to diminish the United States standing since he has always harbored a hate for our nation due to the actions across the globe. We do not know that to be a fact. However, one does have to wonder why did he even take up any ideas on Syria without first finding out who would support those ideas? 

We should pay attention to what the world sees and writes which our own so-called newspapers seem to refuse to write. Mr. Lerma gives us insight into what some in Russia think of not just Obama, but some of the conservatives too, since it seems that some of those conservatives have in some cases seem to have crossed the line and followed behind Obama rather than lead from in front of him, men like the Speaker of the House John Boehner, who at times cries like a baby. What have we as a people done to allow a man who cries like a baby be a leader? However, we cannot just stop here, let us call into play the Vietnam Veteran Senator John McCain, who seems willing to jump the fence like a lost sheep. With leaders like these, we have become our own enemy! Let us not get caught up with these and let us get back to what is written about Obama in Russia.

Lerma continues: 

“Conservative Americans and those in the world are seeing Barry falling apart at the seams when he goes against Putin. They see a weak- kneed, lying, war mongering punk against a well-educated, confident and successful leader.  President Putin can stand alone and speak without a teleprompter or notes and argue reasonably. He can give interviews anytime without worry because he does not have to try to remember a lie or wonder what to say. He only has to gives facts which are easy to remember.  His conservative economics and religious views are admirable in their eyes.

Forgotten or ignored by the west are the Christian men and women of Russia who prayed, suffered and died for today’s free and united Russia. Last century they were attacked by Hell itself yet they endured and rebuilt Christ’s Church. Over 58 Million were killed in Communist Russia but the Faith survived. It is one of the greatest miracles in world history. The western media prefers to shriek like spoiled brats against Putin.  “Evil dictator!” they shout, while they themselves have rejected the Holy Spirit and proudly wear the seal of the Antichrist. They laugh but God is not mocked. Christ is Victorious in Russia where homosexuality is still a sin; blasphemy a crime; where crosses and holy images are in public view. A renewed faith in Christ our King has become our fortress. This is the wall Putin stands on and the wall that will cause Obama’s fall.”

Here, we see just what is written about Barack Obama in the Russian paper, Pravda, yet should we take this with a grain of salt? We should read this as a lesson learned, we should never vote another person into the office of President who only has experience as a “community organizer” because a local community is much smaller and different than a world of people. We should also make a note that in this article, Lerma openly called Obama a “liar,” something we have openly referred to Obama as, yet few seem to have noticed. Perhaps now that another country is making this statement, someone may well take heed and check out just what has he lied about.

We wouldn’t have to look hard to find out what Obama has lied about. Just one year ago, Obama was the biggest liar when it came to the terrorist attack in Benghazi! He could also be called a weak kneed man because he had many chances to capture at least one of those who killed the 4 men in Benghazi, yet Obama could not find them. Meanwhile, the very same press that loves Obama could not just find the first suspect charged in the Benghazi attacks, but they had interviews with him! We may not like the words Mr. Xavier Lerma writes, but we should ask if maybe the so-called news writers in our nation could be as bold? Maybe if the American reporters would be as bold as Mr. Lerma, our nation would not be the laughing stock of the world!

Maybe the Rodeo Clown knew just what he was doing when he wore a mask of Obama! 

 

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/russian-paper-drug-addict-obama-fight-vladimir-putin/#OI3Vh2Vea5alyMB8.99

 

The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime


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!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.canadafreepress.com 

Posted by Doug Patton 

Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything

Author

Obama: The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime

Speak softly and carry a big stick.” — Teddy Roosevelt
“The buck stops here.” — Harry Truman
“I didn’t set a red line.” — Barack Obama

Barack Obama is, without question, the most embarrassing president of my lifetime — and that is saying something, since my life so far has encompassed 12 presidencies, some of which have brought a lot of embarrassment to the nation. Even Richard Nixon, with his Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter, with his malaise, and Bill Clinton, with his lewd behavior in the Oval Office, could not top this president for pure, unadulterated disgrace.

Of course, in Obama’s case, it is not a matter of personal scandal like it was for Clinton. By telling the world a year ago that he was drawing a red line in the hot desert sands of Syria — that red line being the use of chemical weapons — he created the debacle that currently threatens to engulf the Middle East. He blustered at the time that if the regime of Bashar al-Assad crossed that red line, there will be a price to pay. No one yet knows what that price will be, but from the current discussion, it appears that it will involve the destruction of at least three camels, four sheep, a half-dozen goats and an abandoned aspirin factory. That oughta show ‘em!

What it will do, in all likelihood, is unify the Islamic crazies in the Middle East and turn Assad into a regional hero, emboldening him to attack Israel, secure in the knowledge that the United States has no stomach for a wider war.

Congressional offices on Capitol Hill are reporting phone calls coming in at a rate of more than 200 to 1 against approving Obama’s plan to attack Syria. Republican and Democrats alike are being bombarded with negative responses from their constituents. Still, there are those among the insulated legislative class — John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, etc. — who have not gotten the message that the American people are about as enthusiastic about Obama’s proposed war plans as they are about undergoing a quadruple root canal. In fact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve a resolution to allow Obama to use force.

Meanwhile, Facebook postings from members of our military are appearing with sentiments like this: “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al-Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.”

Yet there was the ever-arrogant Barack Obama, standing at the podium in Stockholm on Wednesday, embarrassing himself yet again (and, by extension, the fools who elected him) by announcing in response to a reporter’s question about his crumbling credibility, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”

Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything. Therefore, when something goes wrong among his cockamamie plans, it must be someone else’s fault. Usually, of course, it would be George Bush’s fault, but even Obama couldn’t bring himself to tell that one again, not in this case. No, this time it’s the whole world’s fault. And Congress. And America. It’s American credibility that will suffer, he told the world, not his. Unbelievable.

The questions that need to be asked are these: What is the national security interest of the United States of America in attacking Syria? Will our intervention accomplish anything more than assuaging the ego of an arrogant president who has no knowledge of military matters? Will the consequences for the wider region, and for the interests of the United States, be improved if we attack Syria? And the most frightening question: have we elected a president who so admires Islam and so hates Israel that he would deliberately aid al-Qaeda while provoking a brutal Arab tyrant to attack our tiny but crucial ally?

I fear the answers to these questions are as follows: none; no; no; and, unfortunately, yes.

Obama: I understand; American people aren’t with me on Syria strike


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!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.cbsnews.com 

Posted by Scott Pelley

 

Scott Pelley interview

(CBS News) WASHINGTON — In an interview Monday, President Obama responded to a surprising late proposal that could head off a military strike against Syria. The Syrians agreed to a Russian proposal to put their chemical weapons under international control and destroy them.

I talked to President Obama about that, and about a threat Syrian dictator Bashar Assad made during an interview with Charlie Rose.

SCOTT PELLEY: Can you accept the Russian/Syrian proposal?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we don’t know the details of it yet. But I think that it is a potentially positive development. I don’t think that we would’ve gotten to the point where they even put something out there publicly, had it not been — and if it doesn’t continue to be a credible — military threat from the United States and those who support Syria’s responses to what happened inside of Syria. But, you know, my central goal throughout this process has not been to embroil ourselves in a civil war in Syria.

I have shown great restraint, I think, over the last two years, despite the heartbreak that’s happened there. But what I have said is that the ban on chemical weapon use is something that is of U.S. national interest. It protects our troops, so that they don’t have to wear gas masks whenever they’re in theater, the weapons by definition are indiscriminate and don’t differentiate between somebody in uniform and a child.

And when we see images of 400-plus children being slaughtered without a mark on their body through these weapons, I think it is important for the international community and the United States to stand up and say, “This cannot happen.” Now the good news is I think that Assad’s allies, both Russia and Iran, recognize that this was– this was a breach, that this was a problem.

And for them to potentially put pressure on Assad to say, “Let’s figure out a way that the international community gets control of– of– of these weapons in a verifiable and forcible way” — I think it’s something that we will run to ground. So John Kerry will be talking to his counterparts in Russia, we will contact the U.N. Security Council members as well as the Secretary General of the U.N. And let’s see what happens over the next several days to see if in fact what they’re talking about is realistic.

President Obama spoke with Scott Pelley at the White House Monday.

President Obama spoke with Scott Pelley at the White House Monday.

/ CBS News

SCOTT PELLEY: What do you need to see in a diplomatic deal?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said, the key is — to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that we don’t just trust, but we also verify. And so the– the importance is to make sure that the international community has confidence that these chemical weapons are under control, that they are not being used, that potentially they are removed from Syria and that they are destroyed. And there are a lot of stockpiles inside of Syria, it’s one of the largest in the world.

Let’s see if they’re serious. But we have to make sure that we can verify it and enforce it, and if in fact we’re able to achieve that kind of agreement that has Russia’s agreement and the Security Council’s agreement, then my central concern in this whole episode is resolved. It doesn’t resolve the underlying terrible conflict in Syria.

And, you know, that I’ve always said is not amenable to a military solution. We’re gonna have to get the parties to arrive at some sort of settlement. But this may be a first step in what potentially could be an end to terrible bloodshed, and millions of refugees throughout the region — that is of deep concern to us and our allies.

SCOTT PELLEY: Is the only agreement you would accept one in which we can be assured that all of Syria’s chemical weapons are destroyed?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I– you know, I think it’s premature for me to start drafting language. I think I want to see what exactly is being proposed, and in the interim, it is very important for Congress and the American people to recognize that we would not be getting even ticklers like this if it weren’t for the fact that we were serious about potentially taking action in the absence of some sort of movement.

And so we– we need to keep the pressure on, and tomorrow I’ll have the opportunity to explain to the American people just why it is that this chemical weapons ban is so important. It’s it in part humanitarian. Any parent who sees those videos of those children being gassed I think understands what a human tragedy it is.

But I want people to understand that this ban that almost every country in the world has signed onto and has been observed in conflicts around the world is something that helps protect our people, our troops. You know, it means that there’s less production of chemical weapons, which means it’s less likely to fall into the hands of terrorists who would have no compunction about using it in the United States of America. And that norm is worth protecting, particularly if we can do it in a limited, surgical way that does not involve troops on the ground or a long air campaign that would be both costly and could draw us into this long-term conflict.

SCOTT PELLEY: What could Syria do right now to show its good faith?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the first thing that we’re gonna want to see is both the Russians and the Syrians putting a serious proposal on the table, and let’s take a look and see what it says.

Syria says it “welcomes” Russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control
Hillary Clinton supports military strike on Syria
U.S.: 14 more nations back “strong” response to Syria
Majority opposes military attack on Syria, poll says
Complete Coverage: Crisis in Syria

SCOTT PELLEY: Assad essentially put you on notice today. In the interview with Charlie Rose, he said of the United States, “If you strike somewhere, you have to expect the repercussions somewhere else in a different form, in a way that you don’t expect.” He brought up 9/11 as an example of the kind of thing America did not expect. Do you take that as a threat?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think it was intended as a threat. I don’t take it as a credible threat in the sense that Mr. Assad doesn’t have the capacity to strike us in a significant way. Some of his allies like Iran and Hezbollah do have the capacity to engage in asymmetrical strikes against us. Our intelligence, I think, is very clear that they would not try to escalate a war with us over limited strikes to deal with this chemical weapon issue.

Keep in mind, Iran was subjected to chemical weapons use by Saddam Hussein. So the Iranian population thinks chemical weapons are terrible and probably consider what Assad did to be a grave mistake. So I don’t think they would start a war with us over that. But what is true is that, you know, our embassies in the region, U.S. personnel in the region, they’re always potentially vulnerable to asymmetrical attacks. But the truth of the matter is, those threats already exist from a whole range of groups. And we understand what those threats are and take those precautions very seriously.

SCOTT PELLEY: Mr. President, the administration has described evidence to the American people and the world but it hasn’t shown evidence. And I wonder at this point, what are you willing to show? What are we going to see in terms of the evidence that you say we have?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind what we’ve done is we have provided unclassified evidence. But members of Congress are getting a whole slew of classified briefings. And they’re seeing very directly exactly what we have. Keep in mind, Scott, that the– this is not a problem I’m looking for. I’m not looking for an excuse to engage in military action.

And I understand deeply how the American people, after a decade of war, are not interested in any kind of military action that they don’t believe involves our direct national security interests. I– I get that. And members of Congress I think understand that. But in this situation where there’s clear evidence that nobody credible around the world disputes that chemical weapons were used, that over a thousand people were killed, that the way that these weapons were delivered makes it almost certain that Assad’s forces used them, when even Iran has acknowledged that chemical weapons were used inside of Syria.

In that situation, I think the issue is not the evidence — most people around the world are not questioning that chemical weapons were used. I think the question now is what– how does the– how does the international community respond. And I think it is important for us to run to ground every diplomatic channel that we can. There’s a reason why I went to Congress in part to allow further deliberation, not just here domestically but also internationally.

But I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we understand this is important. And if the American people– are not prepared to stand up for what is a really important international norm, then I think a lot of people around the world will take that signal — that this norm is not important.

SCOTT PELLEY: The people aren’t with you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, well, not yet. And I, as I said, I understand that. So I’ll have a chance to talk to the American people directly tomorrow. I don’t expect that it’s gonna suddenly swing the polls wildly in the direction of another military engagement. If you ask the average person — including my household — “Do we need another military engagement?” I think the answer generally is gonna be no.

But what I’m gonna try to propose is, is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground, nothing like that. This isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Afghanistan, it’s not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important.

And that we should all be haunted by those images of those children that were killed. But more importantly, we should understand that when when we start saying it’s okay to — or at least that there’s no response to the gassing of children, that’s the kind of slippery slope that leads eventually to these chemical weapons being used more broadly around the world. That’s not the kind of world that we want to leave to our children.

SCOTT PELLEY: Thank you.

What a lying sack of BS

 

Cronyism, corruption, cover-ups cited as ‘Impeachable Offenses’


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!

Explosive book connects dots with results ‘president’s defenders will find troublesome’

A brand-new book lays out the blueprint for impeaching President Barack Obama, alleging high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution and the limitations on the executive office.

“Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office,” by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, is slated for release Aug. 27.

Already, the Daily Mail of London has called the work “explosive,” reporting the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.

“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.

“Impeachable Offenses” promises to be the biggest summer blockbuster, presenting an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines. Order it today at WND’s Superstore.

The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
  • From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
  • New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
  • The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
  • Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Already, the White House is hitting back, calling the book’s impeachment effort “foolhardy.”

“If the Republicans in the House want to try something that foolhardy, it will probably be run by the same group of lawmakers who have voted more than 40 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act,” an unnamed administration official told the Daily Mail.

“Like most of the partisan actions coming out of the House, the Senate would never stoop to dignify it,” the official added.

Klein and Elliott acknowledge that impeachment of a sitting president “is certainly a matter of the utmost gravity, and not a charge to be undertaken for what our Founding Fathers would have called mere ‘factional’ advantage.”

“We will show how Obama has not hesitated to go beyond democratic, legal and constitutional means to advance his radical agenda,” they write.

Aaron Klein is a New York Times bestselling author, journalist and radio host. He is a senior reporter for WND and hosts the No. 1-rated local weekend radio show, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s WABC Radio.

His previous books include “Fool Me Twice,” “Red Army,” “The Manchurian President,” “The Late Great State of Israel” and “Schmoozing with Terrorists.”

Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. She is the blogger who created RezkoWatch (RW), TheRealBarackObama (RBO) and RBO2.

She has appeared on hundreds of local and national radio shows, has contributed to numerous articles and publications and is the co-author of “Fool Me Twice,” “Red Army” and “The Manchurian President.”

What The Hell Just Happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’


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!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.redflagnews.com 

Posted by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D. 

What the hell just happened? That is the question that many Americans should be asking themselves following the news conference where Obama unveiled his plan for destroying the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. At first glance it appeared to be a case of Obama shamelessly using the deaths of innocents, and some live children as a backdrop, to push for the passage of radical gun control measures by Congress. Most of these have no chance of passing, yet, Obama’s signing of Executive orders initiating 23 so called Executive actions on gun control seemed like an afterthought.

Unfortunately, that is the real story, but it is generally being overlooked. The fact is that with a few strokes of his pen Obama set up the mechanisms he will personally use to not only destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but also the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. It will not matter what Congress does, Obama can and will act on his own, using these Executive actions, and will be violating both the Constitution and his oath of office when he does it.

Here are the sections of the Executive Order that he will use:

“1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”

What exactly is relevant data? Does it include our medical records obtained through Obamacare, our tax returns, our political affiliations, our military background, and our credit history? I suggest that all of the above, even if it violates our fourth Amendment right to privacy will now be relevant data for determining if we are allowed to purchase a firearm.

“2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”

This should be read in conjunction with section 16 of the order that says:

“16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

One of the few amendments successfully placed in Obamacare by conservatives does appear to prohibit doctors from asking such questions. Yet, with these two Executive actions, Obama is illegally amending an act of Congress and setting up a procedure for him to force doctors to gain information from patients about gun ownership, and to get our medical history.

Section 3 of Obama’s order states:

“3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”

Once again, what does this mean? What information does the Federal government want from the states? Copies of state personal and business income tax returns or court records of divorce and child custody cases are possibilities that come to mind as well as our voter registrations showing our party affiliations. How does any of this figure into our right to purchase a firearm?

One of the most dangerous and troubling sections of the Obama order in Section 4 that states:

“4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

This section directs Eric Holder, the architect of Operation Fast and Furious that illegally transferred several thousand semi automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and several U.S. border patrol agents, to now add people indiscriminately to the list of Americans ineligible to purchase firearms. Who might be added to the list?

Well, let’s look at the record of the Obama administration. Shortly after being appointed as the Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent a list of potential domestic terrorists to law enforcement agencies around the country. The list included individuals who were pro-life, who supported the Second Amendment, who had Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, and most disturbing, all members of the military returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The list has recently been supplemented to include individuals who hoard more than a week’s supply of food and water, and those who support individual liberties and oppose big government. I belong on most of these lists and I suspect that Eric Holder will be adding all of us to the list of dangerous people not qualified to own guns. In other words, you will no longer have to be a convicted felon or mentally ill to make the list; you will qualify simply by being an American patriot.

This is not a conspiracy theory, at the United States Justice Foundation we are seeing increasing evidence that military veterans are being specifically targeted by the Obama administration when it comes to prohibitions against purchasing firearms. Any veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in danger of being banned from owning a firearm. Even those veterans suffering from mild depression are being added. None of these conditions constitute a mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

However, in Obamaland veterans who took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, are definitely considered a threat to the new Fuehrer and must not be allowed to own firearms.

If we skip to Section 6 of the order we get a good idea of Obama’s real intentions when it comes to gun control. That sections states:

“6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

This is particularly interesting because one of the legislative proposals is to require universal background check requirements for any firearm transfer even between private citizens. In other words, you can’t sell your firearm or even give it to someone s a gift without Federal government approval. It is doubtful that this proposal will pass in the House of Representatives, yet Obama is already setting up the mechanism for enforcing the requirement. That is a clear signal that he doesn’t care what Congress does, he is going to violate the Constitution and bypass the Legislative branch in order to push his agenda to disarm the American people. I suspect he will ultimately use Executive orders to ban many weapons including most rifles and pistols.

There are numerous other actions dictated in the Obama order, but I think you get the idea. Our Second Amendment right is going to be taken from us for whatever reasons Obama decides. The simple act of opposing these actions can cause the Attorney General to place you on the list of “dangerous people”. Our privacy will be violated and all of this will be done without due process of law. That is what just happened.

 

Obama’s Gestapo


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!

This is a Reblogged from http://www.westernjournalism.com 

Posted by LOUISE HODGES 

 

obama hitler Obamas Gestapo

The Nazis were brutal spymasters. If we break it all down, it looks strangely familiar to what we accept as national security today. Let’s examine the similarities.

Hermann Goring was the commander of the Geheime Staatspolizei. We don’t often hear it by its long name. We know it as Ge-Sta-Po. They followed, arrested, interrogated, and interned enemies of the state.

Himmler, you know him, directed the Schutzstaffel, the SS, the Protective Echelon, and the elite paramilitary corps, integrating all of Germany’s police.

Then we have the Kriminalpolizei and the Sicherheitspolitzei, (secret police, or SIPO), which joined the intelligence branch of the military (called the Sicherheitsdienst/SD/Security Service.)

Sipo was known as the Reichssicherheitshauptampt RSHA, headed by Reinhard Heydrich (aka the spymaster of the Third Reich.)

Now let’s compare the Nazi national security super-structure with our own. There are 17 Intelligence Agencies with police power to follow, arrest, interrogate, and intern enemies of the state, within the United States Intelligence Services, according to their website:

http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/

Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance office
National Security Agency
Navy Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Members of the IC (Intelligence Community) collect and assess information regarding international terrorist and narcotic activities; other hostile activities by foreign powers, organizations, persons, and their agents; and foreign intelligence activities against the United States. As needed, the President may also direct the IC to carry out special activities in order to protect US Security interests against foreign threats.

With friends like this, who needs enemies. Who exactly are we protecting here?

 

FEMA signs deal with Russian Emergency Situations Ministry to “exchange experts”


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!

This is a Reblogged from Infowars.com 

Posted by Paul Joseph Watson 

 

As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide “security at mass events” in the United States, a scenario that won’t sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil.

Russian troops. Image: Wikimedia Commons

According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations.

In addition to agreeing with FEMA to “exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters,” the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing “security at mass events” in the United States.

This suggests that events designated as “National Special Security Events”by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security.

The meeting last week also agreed on the conclusion that US and Russian emergency authorities will increase their co-operation, “in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters.”

The use of foreign troops or other officials in a law enforcement capacity providing “security” inside the United States is illegal under Posse Comitatus. Capt. William Geddes of the U.S. Army Reserve acknowledged last year that it is against federal law to use US troops to conduct police patrols, despite the fact that such occurrences are becoming increasingly common. The use of foreign troops is an even more clear cut violation of Posse Comitatus.

Last year we reported on how Russian troops were invited to the US as part of a Fort Carson, Colorado drill focused around anti-terror training. Aside from learning how to target terrorists in America, the Russian soldiers were also out in the local community attending a baseball game in Colorado Springs.

As Mac Slavo writes, “Rumors have circulated for years about the possibility of foreign troops being deployed on U.S. soil in the event of a widespread declaration of a national emergency. For quite some time there have been anecdotal reports to support the claim that the U.N., Russia and other nations would be used in a policing capacity should some critical event befall our nation.”

“The fear should such a scenario take place has been that these soldiers would act under the banner of their own flags, ignoring the fundamental protections afforded to our citizens, leaving Americans under the jurisdiction of people who don’t speak our language or respect our fundamental rights to self defense, to be secure in our homes, and to be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.”

Concerns about foreign troops being used on US soil have lingered ever since the release of State Department Publication 7277, which is a blueprint for the harmonization of US and Russian forces under a framework of United Nations-led global government.

Back in 2008 it was also reported that US and Canadian authorities had signed an agreement that would pave the way to using each other’s militaries on both sides of the border “during an emergency”.

Alex Jones has documented foreign troops being trained on U.S. soil to deal with “insurgents” since the late 1990′s as part of “urban warfare drills”.

Back in July 2010, our reporters covered the Operation Vigilant Guard exercises in Chicago which involved Polish troops training alongside U.S. National Guard troops in drills focused around raiding terrorists and drug dealers.

According to SFC Mark Ballard of the Illinois National Guard, the Polish forces were “integrating into some of the civil military units that are participating in this exercise” as part of Illinois’ partnership with the Republic of Poland, a relationship based around “integrative training” and blending military and civilian forces in the event of a national emergency, as well as making this process of integration with foreign troops more “visible”.

*********************

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

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

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

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

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

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

LeatherneckM31

Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: