Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the tag “Red Diaper Doper Babies”

Report: Obamacare provision will allow ‘forced’ home inspections by gov’t agents


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

Posted by::Joe Newby

Obamacare allows forced government home inspections

Win McNamee/Getty Images

 

 

Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in “home health visits” for those in certain “high-risk” categories.

Those categories include:

Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where
children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the “Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program” allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary.”

“The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks,” he said. “A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to ‘intervention’ in ‘school readiness’ and ‘social-emotional developmental indicators.’ A farm family may be subject to ‘intervention’ in order to ‘prevent child injuries.’ The sky is the limit.”

Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

“Intervention,” he added, quoting Brown, “may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the “development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum.”

Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.

In 2011, he noted, HHS said $224 million would be allocated to support these home visiting programs.

http://www.examiner.com

 

Ever heard of this? The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke


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.civilrightstaskforce.info

 

Posted by:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and will lose both.

Ben Franklin

The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

Truth or Fiction and Fact Check are silent on this as of 2:27 PM CST Feb. 23, 2013 

Snopes, of course, tries to weasel out of the truth.  Go here to find the truth as it is written in law:

https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854

Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN!

Are you aware of this law?

DICK ACT of 1902 – CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don’t know this, their rights and the constitution. Don’t prove them right.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

 

Source: http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/gun_control_forbidden.htm

 

Senator Coburn’s ‘Wastebook’ highlights frivolous spending


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:Rick Moran

Senator Tom Coburn has come out with his annual Wastebook of government boondoggles, and as usual, he’s got some eye-popping examples of massive waste.

Washington Examiner:

The federal government this year made significant cuts to important services and programs while at the same time wasting $30 billion on frivolous expenditures like the “pillownauts” study NASA conducted to learn the effects of lying in bed all day, a new watchdog report shows.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on Tuesday released his fourth annual “Wastebook,” a catalog of questionable government spending that is, at best, pretty wacky (funding for “Popular Romance Project” — $1 million) and, at its worst, infuriating (continuing pay for Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter — $52,000).

Coburn noted in his latest report that the questionable spending continued even while the government was slashing other programs and services to meet the spending mandates of the 2010 Budget Control Act.

The 2013 Wastebook includes 100 examples of what Coburn called fiscal mismanagement that apparently escaped the axe of those sequestration cuts.

“Washington would have you believe everything that could be done has been done to control unnecessary spending,” Coburn said in the report. “Had just these 100 been eliminated, the sequester amount would have been reduced by nearly a third without any noticeable disruption.

The next time Nancy Pelosi says “the cupboard is bare” and there’s no more to cut from the budget, throw a few these into her face:

— $325,525 for National Institutes for Health to study 82 couples and conclude marriages are happier when wives calm down quickly during arguments.

— $1.9 million for “lifestyle” coaching for the Senate staff, including the “benefits of a good night’s sleep.”

— $10,000 for the National Endowment for the Arts to support PowerUp, which features more than 50 linemen, electrical technicians and Austin energy employees “in a choreographed 90-minute dance with bucket trucks, cranes and field trucks and a set of 20 utility polls, all set before a live audience.”

You can see all 100 examples of government profligacy here.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/senator_coburns_wastebook_highlights_frivolous_spending.html#ixzz2noHsgf4Q
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Obama Breaks Promise to Veterans to Support Ryan-Murray Budget Deal


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.breitbart.com

 

Posted by:Mike Flynn


Mike Flynn

President Obama gave almost immediate approval to the budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), even as top Democrats expressed skepticism. In doing so, Obama breaks a promise he made to veterans and military personnel just a few months ago.

In September, Obama released his “key principles” for reforming the military’s compensation and retirement systems. As the Army Times reported:

President Obama wants to consider sweeping changes to the military’s retirement and compensation system, but he also said that all current troops should be grandfathered under the current retirement plan if they choose.

From Obama’s “principles”:

The Commission’s recommendations for change must grandfather any currently serving members and current retirees in the current military retirement systems, but may allow current service members and current retirees the choice to change to your proposed retirement system (emphasis added)

The “Commission” is the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission, created by Congress to make recommendations on overhauling the military’s compensation and benefit systems. The Army Times noted that Obama’s requirement that any change would grandfather current personnel and retirees reassured troops who worried that the system would change before they reached retirement age.

It was a promise Obama made to members of the military anxious about the future. It is also a promise he broke when he endorsed the Ryan-Murray budget deal. As is often the case with Obama, “principles” are just temporary suggestions for how to proceed.

One of the spending cuts in the budget deal lowers the pension benefits of future and current veterans. The deal lowers the cost-of-living adjustments that are part of the military’s current pension system. Under the deal, future COLA adjustments would equal inflation minus 1%. The deal, and pension cuts, don’t grandfather current active-duty service members or veterans.

The $7 billion saved over the next decade would cover a portion of the increased federal spending in the deal.

The Ryan-Murray deal also made some changes to the pension system for federal employees. Future federal employees will be required to contribute a higher portion of their pay to their pension. Of course, this only applies to new employees. Existing federal employees are grandfathered and face no changes. 

Only the military pension changes would apply to existing personnel.

The federal employees have a union to protect their interests. Member of the military, however, have only their faith in the government to keep its word protecting them.

Liberal Democrats Introduce Bill To End Death Penalty For Treason…


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://weaselzippers.us

 

Posted by:

Obama off the hook?

 

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and seven other Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the possibility of imposing the death penalty for a range of federal offenses, including several categories of murder and crimes against the government like treason and espionage.

The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, H.R. 3741, would end the death penalty for assassination or kidnapping that results in the death of the president or vice president, and also ends it for the murder of a member of Congress.Under the bill, the death penalty could no longer be used to punish people for using a weapon of mass destruction, or murder done via torture, child abuse, war crimes, aircraft hijackings, sexual abuse, bank robberies or the willful wrecking of a train.

Using chemical or biological materials to kill could also no longer result in the death penalty, nor could deaths related to treason or espionage. The death or injury of an unborn child could not result in the death penalty either.

Death of state or local law enforcement officials, using the mail to kill, kidnapping and killing people to stop them from testifying could no longer lead to the death penalty, nor could the use of firearms or armor piercing ammunition during any crime of violence.

Schumer: Veterans Should Take a Pay Cut But Congress Should Not


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://joeforamerica.com

 

Posted by:The Daily Sheeple

Chuck_Schumer

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) believes that it’s time that US military veterans do their part for America by taking a cut to their retirement benefits.

Because, of course, veterans haven’t done enough for the country.

Members of Congress, however, should take no such cuts. According to the rather despicable gun-control advocating Senator Schumer, the government officials have sacrificed enough.

Civilian federal employees have been cut, cut, cut. I think there was a feeling, if you’re going to cut them further, which was done, that the military retirees should have about an equal amount. It’s small,” the New York Democrat told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.

“I think (Rep.) Paul Ryan and (Sen.) Patty Murray looked everywhere they could to try and find compromise. Everybody had to take a little,” Schumer said.

“They’re going to have to pay a tiny, little bit into it, which they never have,” he added.
But Schumer maintained members of Congress should not be forced to take a pay cut. He said they have already sacrificed, since they have not seen a pay raise “in a long time,” and explained most of them are paying more for healthcare insurance.

“We have taken pretty big cuts,” he said. (source)

Let’s tally up the numbers to put things in perspective:

  • The average pension for a retired veteran was $9,669 in 2011. (source)
  • The salary for a US Senator is $174,000. (source)

Just so this statistic is perfectly clear, the members of Congress bring in over 17 times the amount that retired vets do.

Despite this, veterans under the age of 62 will be looking at a 1% per year cut in their benefits. Members of Congress will not be looking at any reduction.

More BS from Dems

Kimberly Paxton, a staff writer for the Daily Sheeple, is based out of upstate New York.

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/12/schumer-veterans-take-pay-cut-congress/#Ox1I0DF6Er6wGSwb.99

 

If You Use Facebook You Need to Read & Share This! They Are Killing Free Information


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.theminorityreportblog.com

 

Posted by:Steve Foley

FB-300x300

Recent changes made to Facebook’s algorithm now limits the amount of reach a single page has to 1%, if you are really lucky, 2%. What this means is, the freedom to share quality information is being limited to those who have money to pay Facebook to share their content. This is bad news for people who want to have an influential voice in the world.

The need for people to band together and work together is becoming greater with changes like this.

According to Facebook themselves:

“Your brand can fully benefit from having fans when most of your ads show social context, which increases advertising effectiveness and efficiency.”

“We expect organic distribution of an individual page’s posts to gradually decline over time as we continually work to make sure people have a meaningful experience on the site.”

“We’re getting to a place where because more people are sharing more things, the best way to get your stuff seen if you’re a business is to pay for it.”

What this means is if you have a meaningful message and you want to freely and organically share it across Facebook, you can’t anymore unless you want to pay for it. Perhaps it was FB realizing that anyone could reach a lot of people easily that made them see the potential for profit should those people still want to reach people, or maybe this is their way of trying to clean up Facebook. Either way, this is going to do nothing but cripple pages ability to reach their audience who they worked a long time to build.

What Does This Mean For Meaningful Content?

It means the days of using Facebook to create larger movements against corporations like Monsanto are going to be greatly limited. Protests, marches, awareness campaigns and the spread of life changing and meaningful content across Facebook is now going to be limited to a tiny portion of networks unless they are willing to pay a pretty coin to have it seen. It is likely now that businesses with big bucks are going to be appearing in news feeds more as they are going to be the few with enough advertising capital to handle Facebook’s new methods.

The Need For Backlash

Since this happened, bloggers and page admins all over the world have been creating a backlash about it and this needs to continue. Facebook needs its users to participate with the platform for FB to have any value, if they keep doing things like this it is going to force people to other social platforms, so if backlash is created, Facebook will have no choice but to adjust their numbers back to what they were.

Here’s what you can do:

1. When you find good content you want to see shared, ‘Like’ it, comment on it and share it. This helps get it out there and push it the extra mile.

2. Share this meme which speaks out about this problem. This way, we can all have a voice about the issue and work towards getting it changed.

If we want to continue to make an impact and join together easily as people in sharing a message to the world, we have to work together. Whether this means working around these adjustments or creating a new social media platform that a large part of the world uses, something needs to be done.

AUTHOR

Steve Foley

A former U.S.Marine, he is the Creator of The Minority Report Network. He is also the Founder and Managing Editor of the Network’s flagship site,http://www.theminorityreportblog.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty.com, Former Director of New Media for Liberty First PAC, and the Former Chief Managing Editor of 73Wire.com. Steve is a well respected national conservative blogger who’s dedicated the past several years of his life advancing conservatism online. Recently Steve was instrumental in the development of Liberty.com, Liberty First PAC, The Patriot Caucus, the national campaign trail and grassroots news site73wire.com.

 

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

 

JUDGE: GUN WAITING PERIOD ‘BURDENS’ 2ND AMENDMENT


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

‘Possession of firearm necessary prerequisite to exercisingright to bear arms

author-image BOB UNRUH

handguns_on_wall

A federal judge in California has ruled in a Second Amendment case that a state-imposed waiting period to take possession of a firearm is a burden on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The ruling came in a challenge brought by the Second Amendment Foundation to the state’s mandatory 10-day waiting period to obtain firearms. The case, Silvester v. Harris, continues.

It was Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California who said in an 11-page decision that California Attorney General Kamala Harris “argues that the WPL (Waiting Period Law) is a minor burden on the Second Amendment, [but] plaintiffs are correct that this is a tacit acknowledgement that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened.”

He wrote: “The court concludes that the WPL burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

Alan Gottlieb, SAF executive vice president, said the statement is important.

“Judge Ishii’s comparison of the waiting period to a prior restraint is significant,” Gottlieb said. “He further stated that Harris, in her motion to dismiss the case, had not shown that the waiting period law is effective in reducing gun-related violent crime, or in keeping guns out of the wrong hands where the government has already issued that purchaser a License To Carry or a Certificate Of Eligibility.”

Also in the argument was Calguns, the state firearms advocacy organization. Chairman Gene Hoffman said it is “refreshing to see lower federal courts taking the burden of intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny seriously.”

“California has such a byzantine scheme of gun control that it can’t justify making people who already own firearms registered with the state of California wait 10 days to buy a new gun after they complete a background check,” Hoffman said. “We look forward to bringing some common sense back to how the law-abiding buy and sell registered guns in California.”

The judge also noted that there “has been no showing that the Second Amendment, as historically understood, did not apply for a period of time between the purchase/attempted purchase of a firearm and possession of the firearm.”

Gottlieb said the judge wisely concluded, as did Martin Luther King Jr., “that a right delayed is a right denied.”

The organization has taken on numerous gun-rights cases since the U.S. Supreme Court in two decisions, the Heller and McDonald cases, ruled that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not just “militias” such as a national guard, and also is extended to states.

For example, the organization recently wrote to a judge in Washington, D.C., challenging him to decide a case that has been pending since 2009. That case, before the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is over the right to carry a handgun for protection.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

SAF also has worked to publicize the details behind former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” organization, which was revealed to include a long list of mayors who, because of their convictions, were no longer eligible to own weapons themselves.

Another embarrassment surfaced for the organization.

According to a report from the Second Amendment Foundation, Mayor James Schiliro of Marcus Hook, Pa., faced a long list of charges for allegedly trying to force an underage boy to perform sex acts and then firing a handgun at a wall when the boy refused.

Mayor Schiliro is one more example of why we started the ‘Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors’ campaign,” said Gottlieb. “He joins recently convicted former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, and recently indicted former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, both of whom were MAIG members.”

SAF launched its campaign last fall, and “the list keeps growing,” Gottlieb said.

The mayors’ group boasts that it has grown to more than 725 mayors in 40 states. But SAF is publicizing mayors who have run into their own troubles.

It launched its campaign in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, revealing the criminal and ethical wrongdoings of many of the mayors themselves.

The organization also has been acting largely under the radar to fight unconstitutional firearms restrictions across the nation. Recently, it won its request for preliminary injunction from District Judge M. Christina Armijo in New Mexico, who took action in the case of John Jackson, a permanent legal resident alien who could not obtain a concealed carry permit in the state.

The organization also announced it has filed a motion for injunctive relief in a related case in Nebraska. There, non-citizens legally living in the state are prohibited from obtaining a concealed-carry permit.

It also has found gun rights battles in Alameda County, Calif.; New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Maryland and jurisdictions.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/judge-says-waiting-period-burdens-2nd-amendment/#2MMCiXa2QYILQpSo.99

 

MYSTERY GROWS: JOURNALIST DIED PREPPING OBAMA EXPOSÉ


English: November 2008 U.S. Presidential Elect...

English: November 2008 U.S. Presidential Election map, winner county by county Red = McCain, Blue = Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:JEROME R. CORSI

Major probe tied to agent suspected of sanitizing president’s passport records

author-imageJEROME R. CORSI

hastings-crash

NEW YORK – Before his death in a fiery car crash, Michael Hastings was preparing to publish a major investigative piece tied to the undercover agent who is suspected of sanitizing President Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.

The mystery has only deepened since the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office ruled that drugs in his system at the time of the June 18 crash, including amphetamines and marijuana, likely did not contribute to the crash.

Hastings, 33 years old at the time of his death, wrote for Gentleman’s Quarterly, Rolling Stone and Buzzfeed, reporting on national security issues.

His June 2010 article in Rolling Stone featuring remarks highly critical of the Obama administration made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal — then the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan — led to President Obama relieving McChrystal of command.

Reported drug use

The autopsy two months after Hastings’ death found small amounts of amphetamine in his blood, suggesting he may have taken methamphetamine several hours before his death. Traces of marijuana also suggested Hastings had smoked the drug hours before he had taken the methamphetamine.

Hastings died when his Mercedes, traveling at a high rate of speed, crossed into the median on a deserted Highland Avenue at 4:20 a.m. and struck a tree. The automobile burst into flames, charring Hastings’ body so badly that it took several days to make a positive identification.

Los Angeles newspapers have suggested Hastings had become obsessed with Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive domestic surveillance capabilities and with disclosures the Department of Justice had obtained of the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

His neighbor and close friend, Jordanna Thigpen, told the LA Weekly that just before his death, Hastings’ behavior had become erratic because of his increasing concerned that helicopters commonly seen in the Hollywood Hills were spying on him and that his Mercedes had been tampered with.

“He was scared, and he wanted to leave town,”          Thigpen told the newspaper.

She recalled that the night before his death, Hastings asked Thigpen if he could borrow her Volvo because he was afraid to drive his own car.

Fox News reported family members told investigators that Hastings, who supposedly had been “sober” for 14 years, had begun using drugs the month before his death. The drugs included the hallucinogenic DMT, although it was not detected in a blood report conducted after the crash.

Fox News further reported a family member told investigators Hastings was seen passed out at home about three hours before the crash and that he had been smoking marijuana the night of the crash.

Investigators told Fox News that Hastings was found after the crash with a medicinal marijuana identity card in his wallet and that he apparently was using the drug to ease post-traumatic stress disorder experienced after his assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A security video that captured Hastings’ car crash showed a flash of light before the car hit the tree, raising suspicions Hastings’ death may have been caused by an explosion.

San Diego 6 News has reported that a witness in a nearby business is claiming the explosion occurred before Hastings’ car hit the tree. An explosion before impact, which would slow down the vehicle, would explain the minimal damage observed on the palm tree. Other physical evidence at the crash site also is not consistent with a high-speed, out-of-control impact.

Security Video of crash

 

Brennan and the CIA

On Aug. 12, Kimberly Dvorak reported for San Diego 6 News that Hastings at the time of his death was working on an exposé on CIA director John Brennan.

In July, a source provided the station with an email hacked from “super secret CIA contractor” Stratfor’s President Fred Burton and subsequently posted on WikiLeaks that suggested Brennan was in charge of the Obama administration’s surveillance of investigative journalists.

Michael Hastings and Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett at President Obama’s election-night victory party in 2012 (Photo: John V. Santore)

Though rumors persist that Hastings was near completion of a new exposè on Brennan to be published shortly in Rolling Stone, the magazine so far has not published any such piece.

Obama’s passport records sanitized

WND has previously reported that Brennan played a controversial role in what many suspect was an effort to sanitize Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.

On March 21, 2008, during the 2008 presidential campaign, two unnamed contract employees for the State Department were fired and a third unnamed State Department contract employee was disciplined for breaching the passport file of Democratic presidential candidate and then-senator Barack Obama.

The Washington Times on March 20, 2008, noted that all three had used their authorized computer network access to look up and read Obama’s records within the State Department’s consular affairs section that “possesses and stores passport information.”

Contacted by the newspaper, State Department spokesman Sean McCormick attributed the violations to non-political motivations, stressing that the three individuals involved “did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party.”

“As far as we can tell, in each of the three cases, it was imprudent curiosity,” McCormick told the Washington Times.

Exactly how the State Department came to that conclusion, McCormick did not disclose.

By the next day, the story had changed.

The New York Times reported March 21, 2008, that the security breach had involved unauthorized searches of the passport records not just of Obama, but also of then-presidential contenders Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Again, the New York Times attributed the breaches to “garden-variety snooping by idle employees” that was “not politically motivated.”

Like the Washington Times, the New York Times gave no explanation to back up its assertion that the breaches were attributable to non-political malfeasance.

Still, the New York Times report said then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spent Friday morning calling all three presidential candidates. Rice had told Obama that she was sorry for the violation. She said she “told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file.”

The newspaper quoted Obama saying he appreciated the apology but that he expected the passport situation “to be investigated diligently and openly.”

According to the New York Times report, Obama’s tone of concern was obvious.

“One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that is going to stay personal and stay private,” Obama told reporters. “And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people’s personal records, that’s a problem, not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.”

The New York Times noted that the files examined were likely to contain sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, addresses and dates of birth as well as passport applications and other biographical information that would pertain to U.S. citizenship. Only at the end of the article did the paper note that State Department spokesman McCormick had emphasized the most egregious violation appeared to have been made against Obama.

Obama was the only one of the three presidential candidates involved who had his passport file breached on three separate occasions. The first occurred Jan. 9, 2008, followed by separate violations Feb. 21 and March 14. Moreover, all three of the offending employees had breached Obama’s files, while the passport files of McCain and Clinton had been breached each only once.

The Brennan connection

The New York Times noted the two offending State Department contract employees who were fired had worked for Stanley Inc., a company based in Arlington, Va., while the reprimanded worker continued to be employed by the Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va.

The newspaper gave no background on either corporation other than to note that Stanley Inc. did “computer work for the government.”

John Brennan was sworn in as CIA director in March

At that time, Stanley Inc. was a 3,500-person technology firm that had just won a $570 million contract to provide computer-related passport services to the State Department, while Brennan, who then headed Analysis Corp., was serving as an adviser on intelligence and foreign policy to Obama’s presidential campaign.

By Saturday, March 22, 2008, the Washington Times reported that the State Department investigation had focused on the contract worker for the Analysis Corporation, because he was the only one of the three involved in breaching the passport records of both Sens. Obama and McCain, the two presidential candidates whose eligibility as “natural born” citizens under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution were in question.

Consistent with the claim that the motive for the passport breach merely was mischief, the three State Department contract employees received relatively light penalties. Two were fired and one was reprimanded.

Although at the time the State Department promised a full-scale investigation, the public was kept in the dark.

In July 2008, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a 104-page investigative report on the passport breach incidents, stamped “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The document was so heavily redacted, it was nearly worthless to the public. Scores of passages were blacked out entirely, including one sequence of 29 consecutive pages that were each obliterated by a solid black box that made impossible the determination even of paragraph structures.

One investigative reporter, Kenneth Timmerman, said a well-placed but unnamed source told him that the real point of the passport breaches was to cauterize the Obama file, removing from it any information that could prove damaging to his presidential eligibility.

According to this theory, the breaches of McCain’s and Clinton’s files were done for misdirection purposes, to create confusion and to suggest the motives of the perpetrators were attributable entirely to innocent curiosity.

Brennan tilts toward Islam

WND has reported that in a speech delivered Aug. 9, 2009, to the Center for Strategic and International Studies that is archived on the White House website, Brennan commented that using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” to describe terrorists “risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”

Brennan advised that U.S. foreign policy should encourage greater assimilation of the Hezbollah terrorist organization into the Lebanese government.

WND further reported that in a July 2008 article in The Annals, a publication of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Brennan argued it “would not be foolhardy, however, for the United States to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.”

Continued Brennan: “Hezbollah is already represented in the Lebanese parliament and its members have previously served in the Lebanese cabinet, reflections of Hezbollah’s interest in shaping Lebanon’s political future from within government institutions. This involvement is a far cry from Hezbollah’s genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping and violence.”

At the August 2009 press conference for the CSIS, Brennan declared: “Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ‘80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.”

Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah frequently maintain civilian units of doctors and lawyers to emphasize their outreach with local politicians and to increase their political acceptance in the international arena.

Conceivably, the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, better known by the Turkish acronym IHH, would fit into Brennan’s definition of the charitable side of organizations such as Hezbollah, despite IHH’s ties to al-Qaida. The links to the terror organization have been amply documented by experts such as former investigating judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who led the French judiciary’s counter-terrorism unit for nearly two decades before retiring in 1977.

Despite this history, IHH is not included on the State Department’s current list of 45 groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, which names both Hezbollah and Hamas.

In his speech to the New York University law school students posted on YouTube by the White House, Brennan included a lengthy statement in Arabic that he did not translate for his English-speaking audience.

Noting that he was as an undergraduate with the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, Brennan proceeded to use only the Arabic name, “Al Quds,” when referring to Jerusalem. He said that during his 25 years in government, he spent considerable time in the Middle East, as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

“In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina,” he said. “I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims of making that pilgrimage.”

WND previously reported Brennan participated in a meeting with Muslim law students facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America, a group that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the founders of the Holy Land Foundation of Texas. The founders were given life sentences “for funneling $12 million” to Hamas, the group currently in political control of the Gaza.

WND further reported that at the meeting with Muslim law students, Brennan declared himself a “citizen of the world” who believed the U.S. government should never engage in “profiling” in pursuit of national security.

    Read more at

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/mystery-grows-in-journalists-death-prepping-obama-expose/#fczrUjvR8tf8cOTI.99

Chinese Naval Vessel Tries to Force U.S. Warship to Stop in International Waters


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://freebeacon.com

 

Posted by:Bill Gertz

 

 

 

Landing ship sailed dangerously close to U.S. guided missile cruiser

USS Cowpens

The USS Cowpens / AP

A Chinese naval vessel tried to force a U.S. guided missile warship to stop in international waters recently, causing a tense military standoff in the latest case of Chinese maritime harassment, according to defense officials.

The guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens, which recently took part in disaster relief operations in the Philippines, was confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning, according to officials familiar with the incident.

“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.

“This incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap.”

A State Department official said the U.S. government issued protests to China in both Washington and Beijing in both diplomatic and military channels.

The Cowpens was conducting surveillance of the Liaoning at the time. The carrier had recently sailed from the port of Qingdao on the northern Chinese coast into the South China Sea.

According to the officials, the run-in began after a Chinese navy vessel sent a hailing warning and ordered the Cowpens to stop. The cruiser continued on its course and refused the order because it was operating in international waters.

Then a Chinese tank landing ship sailed in front of the Cowpens and stopped, forcing the Cowpens to abruptly change course in what the officials said was a dangerous maneuver.

According to the officials, the Cowpens was conducting a routine operation done to exercise its freedom of navigation near the Chinese carrier when the incident occurred about a week ago.

The encounter was the type of incident that senior Pentagon officials recently warned could take place as a result of heightened tensions in the region over China’s declaration of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently called China’s new air defense zone destabilizing and said it increased the risk of a military “miscalculation.”

China’s military forces in recent days have dispatched Su-30 and J-11 fighter jets, as well as KJ-2000 airborne warning and control aircraft, to the zone to monitor the airspace that is used frequently by U.S. and Japanese military surveillance aircraft.

The United States has said it does not recognize China’s ADIZ, as has Japan’s government.

Two U.S. B-52 bombers flew through the air zone last month but were not shadowed by Chinese interceptor jets.

Chinese naval and air forces also have been pressing Japan in the East China Sea over Tokyo’s purchase a year ago of several uninhabited Senkaku Islands located north of Taiwan and south of Okinawa.

China is claiming the islands, which it calls the Diaoyu. They are believed to contain large undersea reserves of natural gas and oil.

The Liaoning, China’s first carrier that was refitted from an old Soviet carrier, and four warships recently conducted their first training maneuvers in the South China Sea. The carrier recently docked at the Chinese naval port of Hainan on the South China Sea.

Defense officials have said China’s imposition of the ADIZ is aimed primarily at curbing surveillance flights in the zone, which China’s military regards as a threat to its military secrets.

The U.S. military conducts surveillance flights with EP-3 aircraft and long-range RQ-4 Global Hawk drones.

In addition to the Liaoning, Chinese warships in the flotilla include two missile destroyers, the Shenyang and the Shijiazhuang, and two missile frigates, the Yantai and the Weifang.

Rick Fisher, a China military affairs expert, said it is likely that the Chinese deliberately staged the incident as part of a strategy of pressuring the United States.

“They can afford to lose an LST [landing ship] as they have about 27 of them, but they are also usually armed with one or more twin 37 millimeter cannons, which at close range could heavily damage a lightly armored U.S. Navy destroyer,” said Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

Most Chinese Navy large combat ships would be out-ranged by the 127-millimeter guns deployed on U.S. cruisers, except China’s Russian-made Sovremenny-class ships and Beijing’s new Type 052D destroyers that are armed with 130-millimeter guns.

The encounter appears to be part of a pattern of Chinese political signaling that it will not accept the presence of American military power in its East Asian theater of influence, Fisher said.

“China has spent the last 20 years building up its Navy and now feels that it can use it to obtain its political objectives,” he said.

Fisher said that since early 2012 China has gone on the offensive in both the South China and East China Seas.

“In this early stage of using its newly acquired naval power, China is posturing and bullying, but China is also looking for a fight, a battle that will cow the Americans, the Japanese, and the Filipinos,” he said.

To maintain stability in the face of Chinese military assertiveness, Fisher said the United States and Japan should seek an armed peace in the region by heavily fortifying the Senkaku Islands and the rest of the island chain they are part of.

“The U.S. and Japan should also step up their rearmament of the Philippines,” Fisher said.

The Cowpens incident is the most recent example of Chinese naval aggressiveness toward U.S. ships.

The U.S. intelligence-gathering ship, USNS Impeccable, came under Chinese naval harassment from a China Maritime Surveillance ship, part of Beijing’s quasi-military maritime patrol craft, in June.

During that incident, the Chinese ship warned the Navy ship it was operating illegally despite sailing in international waters. The Chinese demanded that the ship first obtain permission before sailing in the area that was more than 100 miles from China’s coast.

The U.S. military has been stepping up surveillance of China’s naval forces, including the growing submarine fleet, as part of the U.S. policy of rebalancing forces to the Pacific.

The Impeccable was harassed in March 2009 by five Chinese ships that followed it and sprayed it with water hoses in an effort to thwart its operations.

A second spy ship, the USNS Victorious, also came under Chinese maritime harassment several years ago.

Adm. Samuel Locklear, when asked last summer about increased Chinese naval activities near Guam and Hawaii in retaliation for U.S. ship-based spying on China, said the dispute involves different interpretations of controlled waters.

Locklear said in a meeting with reporters in July, “We believe the U.S. position is that those activities are less constrained than what the Chinese believe.”

China is seeking to control large areas of international waters—claiming they are part of its United Nations-defined economic exclusion zone—that Locklear said cover “most of the major sea lines of communication” near China and are needed to remain free for trade and shipping.

Locklear, who is known for his conciliatory views toward the Chinese military, sought to play down recent disputes. When asked if the Chinese activities were troubling, he said: “I would say it’s not provocative certainly. I’d say that in the Asia-Pacific, in the areas that are closer to the Chinese homeland, that we have been able to conduct operations around each other in a very professional and increasingly professional manner.”

The Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command have sought to develop closer ties to the Chinese military as part of the Obama administration’s Asia pivot policies.

However, China’s military has shown limited interest in closer ties.

China’s state-controlled news media regularly report that the United States is seeking to defeat China by encircling the country with enemies while promoting dissidents within who seek the ouster of the communist regime.

The Obama administration has denied it is seeking to “contain” China and has insisted it wants continued close economic and diplomatic relations.

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to seek a new type of major power relationship during a summit in California earlier this year. However, the exact nature of the new relationship remains unclear.

School Bans Christmas, Trees, Even Red and Green


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://godfatherpolitics.com

 

Posted by:Tad Cronn

Progress report from the front lines of the war on Christmas — you know, the war that according to atheists, leftists and the lamestream media doesn’t exist?

An elementary school in Frisco, Texas, under the pretense of not offending anyone, has banned talk of Christmas or the wearing of red and green from its annual “Winter Party.”

Not only is the school being politically hyper-correct, it’s also breaking Texas’ “Merry Christmas Law,” which was passed to prevent just this sort of liberal nonsense.

In an email, Nichols Elementary School’s PTA told parents that children attending the Winter Party would be forbidden from mentioning Christmas or any other religious holiday, wearing red or green, or displaying Christmas trees.

The issue has drawn the ire of state Rep. Pat Fallon, whose district includes the school.

Fallon said he has received numerous emails and phone calls from parents as well as from teachers asking about their rights.

Fallon responded to the issue in an email sent to every teacher and official in the school district. “Texas law clearly permits Christmas-themed celebrations, events and displays,” he wrote. “The district may also display scenes or symbols with traditional winter holidays (e.g. nativity scenes, Christmas trees, menorahs, etc.)”

When challenged on the Scroogesque anti-Christmas rules, the school district at first disavowed any knowledge, then said it was the PTA. It turns out the superintendent had allowed school principals to make their own decisions on the subject, and it seems to be the Nichols principal who is behind this.

After meeting with parents over the issue, the principal decided to stand by her Draconian rules, claiming she doesn’t want anyone to be offended by a stray bit of Christmas. Presumably by “anyone,”  she means anyone other than the hundreds of families who no doubt celebrate Christmas, because she’s definitely offended those folks already.

Fallon told FoxNews, “When Gov. Perry signed ‘The Merry Christmas Bill,’ clearly that didn’t solve the issue. The battle rages on. It’s distressing.”

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13525/beginning-look-lot-like-christmas-wars/#V9xFl8izCqiJl1wz.99

BOHICA ! ! Report: Budget Plan Could Cost Service Members $124,000 in Retirement Pay


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://freebeacon.com

 

Posted by:Elizabeth Harrington

Sens. Wicker, Graham, and Ayotte oppose cuts to military personnel

Military retirees face loses in budget deal

Military retirees could face as much as $124,000 in lost retirement income if the bipartisan budget agreement is enacted, according to the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA).

The Washington Free Beacon reported that under the budget agreement crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.), military retirees younger than 62 will receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).

While new federal employees who are hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will be required to pay 1.3 percent more of their pay into their pension plans, federal retirees will continue to receive their generous pension benefits and current employees will not be required to pay more.

Current civilian government workers will be grandfathered in at their current contribution rate of 0.8 percent.

According to the MOAA, the nation’s largest association of military officers, the proposal would have a significant impact on military retirees, including many who retire in their 40s after two decades of service.

A loss of one percentage point in their COLA translates into thousands of dollars in lost retirement income.

For instance, a 42-year-old who retires as an enlisted E-7 could lose a minimum of $72,000. E-7 refers to the ranks of Sergeant First Class, Chief Petty Officer (CPO), Master Sergeant, and Gunnery Sergeant.

A 42-year old Lieutenant Colonel could lose a minimum of $109,000 over a 20-year period.

If an E-7 retires at 40, they would lose $83,000. Commissioned officers could lose much more. Lieutenant colonels and commanders (an O-5 rank) who retire at 40 would lose $124,000.

Opposition to the deal grew when it became apparent military retirees would see their retirement pay take a hit.

“I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) said in a statementThursday. “Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military.”

“We can and should do a deal without cutting the benefits of our men and women who have volunteered for a military career,” he said. “The plan should be rejected.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the deal “unacceptable.”

“After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,” Graham said in a statement. “Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.”

On the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, spoke out against the changes to military retirement pay.

“This penalizes current and future military members who have served our nation for over 20 years,” Inhofe said.

“Keep in mind, people go into the military quite young sometimes knowing that the time they would serve would be for 20 years, many of them longer,” he said. “That’s kind of a given. And they do this predicated on the assumption that retirement benefits and all these things are going to be there.”

Though he is still undecided on whether to vote for the budget plan, Inhofe said the military retiree provision would have to be removed before he could vote for it.

“I know it’s not an easy job,” he said, of crafting a budget proposal. “I know that we had a Democrat and Republican working very hard on it, but that’s one thing […] I believe that can be changed.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) has also come out against the deal late Thursday.

“I cannot support a budget agreement that fails to deal with the biggest drivers of our debt, but instead pays for more federal spending on the backs of our active duty and military retirees – those who have put their lives on the line to defend us,” Ayotte said in a statement.

“My hope is that both parties can work together to replace these unfair cuts that impact our men and women in uniform with more responsible savings, such as the billions that the Government Accountability Office has identified in waste, duplication and fraud across the federal government.”

 

OBAMA BIRTH-CERTIFICATE DOUBTS HEAD TO CAPITOL


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:

 

 

 

‘Sheriff Arpaio wants this in Congress. That’s where we intend to take it’

Mike Zullo on birth certificate

Audible gasps, shock, outrage and support for a congressional investigation were the responses by law-enforcement officers, elected officials and attorneys to a presentation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse of evidence that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.

Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, made a public presentation Saturday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in St. Charles, Mo., then held a closed-door session for police officers, elected officials and others.

“Sheriff Arpaio wants this in Congress. That’s where we intend to take it,” Zullo said in an interview with Carl Gallups of PPSimmons Radio.

Zullo said he was amazed by the number of law-enforcement personnel and others at the conference who were not aware of the evidence that Obama’s birth documentation is fake.

He told Gallups the overwhelming response was “absolute shock,” noting “audible gasps” could often be heard during his presentation.

Zullo said one official came up to him afterwards and said: “I have been purposely ignoring this matter – until now. I will ignore it no longer.”

Several constitutional officers, public officials, attorneys, elected officials and others are now pledging full and personal support for moving the issue to a congressional investigation, Zullo said.

He said the virtual media blackout had kept many of the officials in in attendance uninformed and they are now outraged that they have seen the evidence that they should have seen from the beginning.”

Zullo said the media is being “side-stepped.”

“We are making inroads and contacts that we have never made before,” he said. “This conference is really going to pay off in moving things forward. Very important people are now beginning to see the amassed criminal evidence of perhaps the biggest fraud in American history. They are moved – they are shocked – and they are ready for action. Plans of action are now being laid at this very conference. This meeting could prove to be monumental.”

Obama’s birth certificate became an issue before the 2008 campaign — raised first by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — because of allegations he might not qualify for the presidency as a “natural born citizen.”

Though the Constitution provides no definition, many scholars believe the drafters of the Constitution understood it to mean someone who was born of citizen parents. Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, and some critics suspect Obama was not born in the U.S.

Arpaio launched his Cold Case Posse investigation after Maricopa County constituents expressed concern about placing an ineligible candidate on the 2012 presidential ballot.

Zullo recently met with members of Congress concerning the evidence his team has gathered.

After examining the evidence, he said, “They’re looking … and saying, ‘My God, a fifth-grader can see through this.’”

Evidence from Arpaio’s investigation was entered in a legal case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. It was brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice in November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

The affidavit in the Alabama case, written by Zullo,says his team “concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp.”

“This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine,” Zullo wrote.

The evidence, he said, should be put before Congress.

Zullo said Arpaio “continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of president of the United States.”

The Obama administration has dismissed questions about Obama’s eligibility with mockery and ridicule.

Arpaio on the birth certificate

In a brief asking that the Alabama case be dismissed,Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.

The party insisted: “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”

The brief scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes Kimmel saying: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”

But Arpaio is one of few law enforcement authorities to look into the issue, and although his work largely has been under the radar in recent months, it is continuing, Zullo’s affidavit confirmed.

In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”

More recently, when a majority of the state’s high court denied a 2012 petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

Parker wrote: “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

In his concurrence, Parker described McInnish’s petition: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.’”

Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”

Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court, suggesting the Supreme Court may have some opportunity for action.

Some of Zullo’s evidence:

Zullo talks about certificate to Congress

Zullo testifies that the White House computer image file of Obama’s birth certificate contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

“As of the date of this report, this investigation remains open and ongoing and additional forensic evidence continues to be uncovered, further validating the original investigational findings.”

His testimony continued, “Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event.

“One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources,” Zullo wrote.

Zullo also noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

He said raising further questions is the fact Obama has refused to release: Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate, marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama), Obama’s adoption records, records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from return from Indonesia, Obama’s baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii), Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association, Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State senator, Obama’s law client list, Obama’s medical records and Obama’s passport records.

In action related to the same case, Klayman asked the court to strike the brief from the Alabama Democratic Party. He called in “frivolous and arrogant” and said “in addition to mocking in disrespectful fashion the seriousness of this case and the integrity of our judicial system, [Democrats] seek to improperly present new evidence not on the record for appeal.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/obama-birth-certificate-doubts-head-to-capitol/#Vw6eisehU1TFfsjA.99

 

HENRY WAXMAN LEADS NEWEST ATTACK ON GUNS


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

 

Plan would ban ‘virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon

A few months back, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama had Democrats bring into Congress a long list of new gun laws, restrictions and regulations, only to see them slapped down.

You didn’t think they were done with their gun-control plan, did you?

The newest move comes from Rep. Henry Waxman and several others who have introduced H.R. 2910, the “Gun Violence Prevention and Reduction Act of 2013.”

It is getting attention among bloggers who monitor gun rules already, because of what they fear is going to be happening with it.

At Freedom Outpost,Tim Brown writes that the plan “would ban the sale and possession of 80 percent AR-15 receivers.”

“However, the way the legislation reads, it actually bans much more than receivers. It appears to include virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon.”

He wrote that the ban is a little deceptive, because the part that is referenced “is one that is not considered a firearm because it still requires some basic machine work before it is ready to be used in building a firearm.”

He said the possibility with an 80 percent completed lower version, versus a finished product, is that the finished product is required to have a serial number.

“There is no need for the gun to have a serial number or be registered as long as it remains in your possession for personal use,” he notes.

But he notes instead of plugging a “hole in the law,” Waxman aims for much more.

Specifically, the proposal makes it “unlawful” for any person “to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, or import into the United for sale, to a consumer – an assault weapon parts kit.”

That includes “any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement but designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

“Basically, this ends up targeting any rifle part that can be used to build a firearm,” he noted. “In theory, any parts on a firearm are essentially covered with this legislation.”

He noted it’s now in committee, with only Democrat sponsors.

The bill itself proposes that it is “to protect American children and their families from the epidemic of gun violence by banning access to certain weapons…”

In a recent commentary from WND CEO Joseph Farah, he cited a video that reveals Holder’s own plans for weapons in America:

And it recently was discovered that Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates to use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”

The manual offers a step-by-step guide on how to stir up sympathy for victims, arrest the “moral authority” from opposing groups like the National Rifle Association and keep the debate emotional instead of allowing facts to interfere.

“Essentially it’s a how-to book on inciting a moral panic,” comments James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

The guidebook, discovered by the Second Amendment Foundation and reported by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner, was prepared by four strategists including Al Quinlan of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which touts it is “committed to progressive goals,” and includes among its clients the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among dozens of other left-leaning organizations.

Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, warns gun-control campaigns like this specifically direct advocates to shy away from facts because they’re based on trying to fool the public.

“That gun-control playbook is full of lies,” Knox told WND, “with the biggest one being in the opening statement that they have the facts and logic on their side, but that we use emotion and money to advance our cause.

“The opposite is true and demonstrated by the suggestions in the book,” he continued. “They depend on emotion and fear, because reality does not support their position. Gun control doesn’t work. It never has. If it did, there would be ample evidence, but the only evidence they have is so weak and suspect, even anti-gun panels for the Centers for Disease Control and the Science Foundation couldn’t find any strong evidence of gun-control efficacy.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/henry-waxman-leads-newest-attack-on-guns/#B84mahBZ9RBZETI5.99

 

‘UNIVERSE-SHATTERING’ TWIST IN OBAMA BIRTH PROBE


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:BOB UNRUH

Arpaio investigator: ‘This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine’


author-image

The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate says the case has taken a startling turn, and sheriff’s investigators now are assisting the Cold Case volunteers.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”

Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.

But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March.

The issue arose once again because of the death Wednesday in Hawaii of state Health Department chief Loretta Fuddy in a plane crash. She was the official who waived state prohibitions and provided to the White House a copy of a document that Obama presented to the public as his birth certificate.

It’s the document that Arpaio’s investigators have concluded is fraudulent.

Amid conspiracy theories circulating the Internet, Zullo told WND today that Fuddy’s death – she was the only fatality among nine people aboard a small airplane that crashed off the coast of Molokai – appears to be a tragic accident, not foul play.

He said his investigation does not depend on any information from Fuddy.

In an interview today with author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of PPSimmons News and Ministry Network and the author of “The Magic Man in the Sky,” and
the new
“The Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy.”

“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter,” he said.  “If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.

“Again, I want to emphasize,” Zullo said, ‘Sheriff Arpaio and I do not, at this time, believe her death was connected to any nefarious circumstances.”

The birth certificate dispute dates back to before the 2008 election. Critics, including Hillary Clinton, raised the issue about Obama’s status as a “natural-born citizen.” Not defined in the Constitution, it probably was thought at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be someone born of two citizen parents.

Obama fails that test because his father was a Kenyan student visiting the U.S.

Arpaio assigned his Cold Case Posse to look into the issue before the 2012 election, when constituents approached him and asked him to check whether Obama would be an ineligible candidate on the presidential election ballot.

In a recent radio interview with Gallups, Zullo affirmed the investigation had been expanded to the county sheriff’s office and was “moving in a direction that was not anticipated by us.”

“The whole [issue] is more nefarious than you can imagine,” Zullo said, crediting Arpaio for ordering the investigation and sticking with it.

“He knows in his gut that something is wrong,” Zullo said.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed without success. One case is pending before the Alabama Supreme Court for which Zullo provided evidence.

Still a live issue

Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

“Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”

Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

See some of Zullo’s evidence:

More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.

“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.

“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.

Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.

Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported this monththat in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.

He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.

Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.

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

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

Grounds for impeachment

Last month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrotethat the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”

“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.

“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.

He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”

“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.

“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”

‘You tell me about eligibility’

One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t either.

Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.

Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.”

Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.

“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”

Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was born in the United States, do you?”

“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”

When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.

“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”

Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Monckton, citing Zullo’s sworn affidavit in a court case, published a sworn mathematical analysis demonstrating the near-zero probability that the White House “birth certificate” is genuine.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/universe-shattering-twist-in-obama-birth-probe/#PTbxD5m8MosGThBl.99

Republicans and Tea Party Activists in ‘Full Scale Civil War’


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://abcnews.go.com

 

Posted by:ABBY D. PHILLIP

Abby D. Phillip

Bipartisan Budget Deal Creates Rift in GOP


PHOTO: Speaker of the House John Boehner answers questions during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol November 21, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Boehner and company

Years of growing friction between the Republican Party leaders and its Tea Party faction has erupted into what one conservative said today was “full-scale civil war.”

House Speaker John Boehner, whose strategies have been repeatedly thwarted by Tea Party revolts in recent years, was blunt today when asked whether he thought the ultra-conservatives should get in line.

“I don’t care what they do,” Boehner replied.

and this is the reason folks want you out of the leadership

The speaker lashed out at Tea Party activists.

“Well, frankly, I think they’re misleading their followers,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters today. “I think they’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be.”

“And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility,” Boehner said.

Boehner’s frustration is perhaps matched by the fury among tea party conservatives who believe they have been betrayed by conservative leaders in Washington.

“It’s just another example of D.C. elitism. They think they know what’s best for the rest of the country and they want us to just sit down and shut up,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, told ABC News today.

Wednesday brought a double dose of betrayal from Republican leadership, in the tea party’s view.

The budget proposal crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-W.I., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was warmly embraced by Republican leadership.

The tea party followers believe the deal was inadequate, but they were also angered when Boehner slammed outside groups for their ” ridiculous” criticism of the deal.

Boehner said today he has decided to take his conference in a different direction after conservatives in his party pushed a showdown to defund Obamacare that led to a government shutdown — and some of the Republican Party’s worst approval ratings in public polling.

“You know, they pushed into this fight to defund ‘Obamacare’ and to shut down the government,” Boehner said. “Most of you know, my members know, that wasn’t exactly the strategy that I had in mind.”

“But if you recall, the day before the government reopened… one of these groups stood up and said, well, we never really thought it would work,” he added. “Are you kidding me?”

Relations were further strained when Republican leaders on Wednesday fired high level staffer Paul Teller, who often served as the liaison between members of Congress and outside activists.

“It’s sad that this conflict has broken out into full-scale civil war, but this moment has been festering for years,” wrote Daniel Horowitz, the policy director of the Madison Project, a conservative group that has sought candidates to challenge Republican incumbents in primaries, in a statement. “There can be no reconciliation between those who seek power for power’s sake and those who seek to serve in order to restore our Republic.”

Teller, the executive director of the Republican Study Committee, an independent research arm for House Republicans, was reportedly accused of leaking private lawmaker-only information to these outside groups.

Brent Bozell, chairman of For America, a Tea Party group that undersigned a letter to Republican leadership Wednesday night from more than 30 Tea Party groups angry over Teller’s dismissal, said that his removal was an act of war.

“They were just out to get rid of him in a declaration of war on conservatives which is really, really stupid,” Bozell said. “They’re trying to intimidate conservatives and this one is going to backfire on them.”

“They’ve now made it personal,” he added. “It is now a personal attack on conservatives.”

Issa to Sebelius on Healthcare.gov Probe: Failing to Turn Over Info is Criminal Obstruction of Justice


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://townhall.com

 

Posted by:Katie Pavlich

Katie Pavlich


In a letter sent late Wednesday, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa reminded Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime.

Issa’s Committee has been looking into the details of how Obamacare was implemented, along with the major problems with Healthcare.gov and has requested a number of documents from HHS, none of which he’s received. The documents requested pertain to companies hired by HHS to build and operate Healthcare.gov.

“The Department [HHS] subsequently instructed those companies not to comply with the Committee’s request. The Department’s hostility toward questions from Congress and the media about the implementation of Obamcare is well known. The Department’s most recent effort to stonewall, however, has morphed from mere obstinacy into criminal obstruction of a congressional investigation,” Issa wrote.

The letter details a contract between HHS and Creative Computing Solutions, Inc. (CCSI) forcing the company to get approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before cooperating with Congress, making it nearly impossible for lawmakers to get documents from the company directly. CCSI has been citing the contract as the reason why they cannot turn over requested documents to Congress. In the letter, Issa indicated this refusal by CCSI under the thumb of HHS could be criminal obstruction of a congressional investigation.

“The Departmen’t instruction not to cooperate with congressional investigations relies on language in the contract with CCSI which precludes contractors from sharing certain data with third parties. Moreover, the Department explicitly forbids the release of documents without authorization from CMS. That argument — that the language in the contract between the Department and a private company supersedes Congress’ constitutional prerogative to conduct oversight — is without merit,” Issa wrote. “In fact, it strains credulity to such an extent that it creates the appearance that the Department is using the threat of litigation to deter private companies from cooperating with Congress. The Department’s attempt to threaten CCSI for the purpose of deterring the company from providing documents to Congress places the officials responsible for drafting and sending the letter on the wrong side of federal statues that prohibit obstruction of a congressional investigation. Obstructing a Congressional investigation is a crime.”

Issa instructed Sebelius to inform HHS officials to immediately stop directing employees and contractors not to turn over Healthcare.gov documents to Congress. He also reminded Sebelius that a subpoena was issued to her on October 30, 2013 and requires a response.

“Private citizens and companies cannot contract away their duty to comply with a congressional request for documents,” Issa said. “Furthermore, the Department’s instruction to CCSI and other contractors not to respond to congressional document requests runs afoul of a federal statute that prohibits interfering with an employees’ right to furnish information to Congress. Under that statute, any effort to enforce a contract that prevents a federal employee — or in this case, a contractor — from communicating with Congress is unlawful.”

Thursday, the Oversight Committee will hold a hearing about Obamacare’s impact on premiums and provider networks as millions continue to see skyrocketing insurance rates, loss of health insurance and a loss of preferred doctors.

 

Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws


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.weeklystandard.com

 

Posted by:DANIEL HALPER

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body “to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.” In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.

“President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents,” Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.

“This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies.”

The “legal action against the President” would be, according to an aide for Rep. Rice, “for ignoring Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.” Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states,

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers;he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

The resolution alleges that President Obama and his administration have abused executive power and failed to execute the laws of the United States faithfully.

Thus, the resolution calls for “CIVIL ACTION.—The House of Representatives shall bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge any of the following policies or actions:

(1) The policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that, with respect to health insurance coverage that is renewed for a policy year during the period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending October 1, 2014, health insurance issuers may continue to offer coverage that would otherwise be terminated or cancelled for being out of compliance with various requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and corresponding portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as announced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on November 14, 2013.

(2) The 1-year delay in the application of the reporting requirements of sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and related requirements of section 4980H of such Code), as provided under Department of the Treasury Notice 2013–45, as announced by the Department of the Treasury on July 2, 2013.

(3) The policy of the Department of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children, as announced by the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.

(4) The authorization, approval, renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602).

In plain English, and in the words Rice used to ask fellow members to sign onto the resolution, the complaints are:

1.       President Obama recently announced an “administrative fix” in regard to cancelled healthcare plans due to Obamacare.  Of course he plans to provide a “fix” which will substantially alter his signature legislation without involving Congress.

2.       Over the summer, President Obama’s Administration announced a one-year delay in Obamacare’s employer mandate without involving Congress.

3.       Last year, President Obama’s Administration granted temporary status to illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children without involving Congress.

4.       In June 2012, President Obama’s Administrative provided a waiver initiative for the welfare work requirement under TANF without involving Congress.

So far, 29 members of Congress are co-sponsoring Rice’s Resolution: Bachmann (MN-06), Bridenstine (OK-01), Chaffetz (UT-03), J. Duncan (SC-03), DeSantis (FL-06), Franks (AZ-08), Gowdy (SC-04), Harris (MD-01), Lamborn (CO-05), LaMalfa (CA-01), Marino (PA-10), McClintock (CA-04), Meadows (NC-11), Nunnelee (MS-01), Pittenger (NC-09), Posey (FL-08), Tom Price (GA-06), Ribble (WI-08), Salmon (AZ-05), Sanford (SC-01), Schweikert (AZ-06), Stewart (UT-02), Stockman (TX-36), Walberg (MI-07), Weber (TX-14), Wenstrup (OH-02), Williams (TX-25), Joe Wilson (SC-02), and Yoho FL-03.

Here’s full resolution, which is expected to be filed with the House clerk’s office very soon:

RESOLUTION

Directing the House of Representatives to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.

Whereas President Obama and officials in his administration have frequently overstepped the limits placed on executive branch power by the Constitution;

Whereas because of President Obama’s continuing failure to faithfully execute the laws, his administration’s actions cannot be addressed by the enactment of new laws, be- cause Congress cannot assume that the President will execute the new laws any more faithfully than the laws he has already ignored, leaving Congress with no legislative remedy to prevent the establishment of what is in effect an imperial presidency; and

Whereas it is therefore necessary and appropriate for Congress to turn to the courts to ensure the faithful execution of the laws as required by the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

SECTION 1. DIRECTING CIVIL ACTION BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTIONS.

(a) CIVIL ACTION.—The House of Representatives shall bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge any of the following policies or actions:

(1) The policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that, with respect to health insurance coverage that is renewed for a policy year during the period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending October 1, 2014, health insurance issuers may continue to offer coverage that would otherwise be terminated or cancelled for being out of compliance with various requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and corresponding portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as announced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on November 14, 2013.

(2) The 1-year delay in the application of the reporting requirements of sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and related requirements of section 4980H of such Code), as provided under Department of the Treasury Notice 2013–45, as announced by the Department of the Treasury on July 2, 2013.

(3) The policy of the Department of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children, as announced by the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.

(4) The authorization, approval, renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602).

(b) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS PROVIDED TO BRING ACTIONS.—Any amounts obligated or expended by the House of Representatives to carry out this resolution during a fiscal year shall be derived from existing appropriations for salaries and expenses of the House for that fiscal year, and nothing in this resolution may be construed as authorizing an increase in the amount of budget authority available to the House for that fiscal year.

 

Russian Military to Recruit 500,000 Professional Soldiers by 2022


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://en.ria.ru

 

Posted by:Andrei Alexandrov

Russia prioritizes full manning of airborne, special forces, naval infantry and peacekeeping units

Russia prioritizes full manning of airborne, special forces, naval infantry and peacekeeping units

MOSCOW, December 10 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s military will have 500,000 soldiers serving on professional contracts within a decade, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.

Half of the armed forces will be made up of professional service personnel by 2022 under plans to shift away from conscripts and more than double the number of contract soldiers from the present 220,000.

But Shoigu also acknowledged at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board that Russia’s armed forces are currently short of nearly one in five troops.

“At present, the Russian military has 82 percent of the required manpower,” Shoigu said.

“We have prioritized full manning of airborne, special forces, naval infantry and peacekeeping units, including those involved in ensuring security during the Winter Olympics in Sochi.”

Russia is undertaking major reform of the military that includes plans to spend $650 billion by 2020 on new equipment and a transition from a conscript army to a largely professional force.

Mercenaries

But it has struggled with a shortage of recruits as a result of draft dodging and a shrinking pool of eligible conscripts. Draft evasion and demographic decline have forced the Defense Ministry to halve the number of conscripts in five consecutive recruitment periods since autumn 2011.

The military needs to enrol about 300,000 men during each draft to keep the number of personnel at the required level of 1 million. All Russian men between the ages of 18 and 27 are obliged by law to perform one year of military service.

Shoigu said the Defense Ministry would continue the practice of large-scale snap-alert drills in 2014 to check the combat readiness of the armed forces.

The Russian military has held six surprise inspections of combat readiness and most of the 750 planned army-level exercises since the beginning of this year.

Shoigu said the exercises helped create a realistic picture of the current state of the Russian armed forces and adjust arms procurement plans for various branches of the military.

 

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: