What Did You Say?

  • Home
  • Gallery of Political Quotes, Politically INCORRECT Cartoons, and WhatDidYouSay Drawings
  • About “Mr B”
  • Political
  • Society
  • Spiritual
  • Family
  • Islamic News
  • General
  • International Politics
  • Opinion
  • Health
  • Islamic Alert
  • Law
  • Military
  • Patriotic

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Tyranny’

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Rare Sightings

Posted on April 1, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/rare-sightings/

Rare sighting 600 LA

Islam is NOT culture of deceit and lies Wake up America Picture6

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Islamic Alert

Tagged with:

  • moderate Islam
  • Rare Sittings
  • Terrorism
  • Terrorist
  • Tyranny

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


USA In Decline

Posted on March 30, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/03/usa-in-decline/

Knocking-600-LI

muslim-obama Obama Muslim collection Dupe and Chains cropped-freedom-is-not-dictator-friendly.png obama- Marxist tyrant Picture6

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • German Wing
  • Leftist
  • Marxism
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny
  • Tyrant
  • We The People
Image

Which One Do We Have Today?


'"Share" if you agree!'

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Written

on March 21, 2015

Al Gore: We Need to “Punish Climate Change Deniers”


Posted on March 17, 2015 by Philip Hodges

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://lastresistance.com/10618/al-gore-we-need-to-punish-climate-change-deniers/#qgJot8xMlC1ykc1V.99

Temple with high priest

Al Gore’s not the only global warmist calling for “deniers” to be punished in some way.

There is this professor at the University of Graz in Austria who believes global warming deniers should be executed. And he doesn’t even support the death penalty for mass murderers. But he makes an exception for deniers, because they’re causing “the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people.” He said that more than likely, there would be billions of people’s lives at stake, but that hundreds of millions is a “conservative estimate.”more evidence

So, Al Gore’s not that fanatic, but he’s getting there. He wants to “punish” those who would dare question the theory of manmade global warming. So tolerant these people are of other viewpoints. Of course, he doesn’t really care about people or their opinions. He’s trying to get everyone to invest in the green industry and divest from the fossil fuel industry. EcoWatch reported:

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the [South by Southwest] festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,’” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

“Forward-thinking investors,” huh? So this is what this whole global warming thing is about. Everyone knows it’s not science. It’s about money and “market trends.”

Gore

Of course, it’s always nice to have the “science” on your side, so in order to do that, they hire scientists to “adjust” the temperature data so that it makes the conclusion what these “forward-thinking investors” want. And these forward-thinking investors will only benefit the most if everyone’s doing what they’re doing. So, they can call for anyone who’s not on their side to be “punished” for “causing the future deaths of hundreds of millions of people.” And for being “anti-science.” Scare them into becoming global warming evangelists. “Convert or die.” Sound familiar?more evidence

EcoWatch continued:

 

He called on the tech-minded SXSW [South by Southwest] crowd, which is dominated by Millenials, to harness technology to launch a grassroots movement to tackle climate change and call out climate deniers. “We have this denial industry cranked up constantly,” Gore said. “In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo

[…]

Gore wanted these young, tech-savvy attendees to start a grassroots movement using social media like they did when “net neutrality was threatened or when the Stop Online Piracy Act threatened to blacklist websites that offered so-called illegal content,” said Macworld. That means signing petitions to fight climate change, utilizing social media to call out climate deniers in Congress and streaming the Live Earth Road to Paris concert on June 18, an event designed to draw attention to the climate talks in Paris this December.

Al Gore’s marketing strategy seems to mirror a political campaign. That’s because it is a political campaign.

John Kerry said manmade global warming is an elementary fact like gravity. You don’t see scientists and their political financiers trying to drum up support for the theory of gravity by getting all the young techies out there to spread the word on social media about gravity, and live-stream some concert that all the kids love going to that raises awareness of gravity.

Global warming isn’t science. At its heart is the love of money.

burke

 Picture6

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • punish deniers
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny

More From the, “YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP” File


Lawmaker calls for a rebellion against EPA pollution emissions for backyard barbecues

Published March 17, 2015, FoxNews.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/03/17/lawmaker-calls-for-rebellion-against-epa-pollution-emissions-for-backyard/

Tyranney Alert

A Missouri state legislator wants the Environmental Protection Agency to back off of people’s backyard barbecues. On Monday, State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) from St. Louis kicked off a #porksteakrebellion after he discovered the EPA is funding a study on propane grill emissions that suggest pit masters use a special tray to catch grease drippings and a “catalytic” filtration system to reduce air pollution, reports Fox News KTVI. “The idea that the EPA wants to find their way into our back yards, where we’re congregating with our neighbors, having a good time, on the 4th of July, barbecuing pork steak or hamburgers, is ridiculous and it’s emblematic of agency that’s sort of out of control,” Schmitt said.

The EPA is funding a $15,000 University of California-Riverside study to look at the particulate emissions you breathe when grilling over an open flame.  Along with the drip tray, the emission removal system includes the use of a “secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method,” according to study. 

Those opposed to the study met Monday night at St. Louis’ LeGrand’s Market & Catering sandwiches shop after Schmitt launched the rebellion via Twitter.  “Personally, I think being able to barbecue in your back yard extends your life,” customer Pat Schommer told Fox. “It’s part of pleasure – backyard barbecuing and I love it.”

The EPA said that it doesn’t regulate people’s backyard barbecues and that the grant is part of the EPA’s “National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2014)”, which is a student-designed competition for sustainability.

Schmitt called on people to grill in their backyards this week as a sort of “peaceful protest”.

SEE THE FOX NEWS CHANNEL REPORT BELOW:

EPA

Welcome to the Obama Tyrant Obama Picture6

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • epa
  • Leftiost
  • Marxist
  • Obama's Administration
  • regulate barbeque cooking
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny
  • Tyrant

Hilarious Video: Anti-Gun Group Epically Fails At Mocking Second Amendment


Posted By Kit Daniels | Infowars.com On March 13, 2015

Article reblogged from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/hilarious-video-anti-gun-group-epically-fails-at-mocking-second-amendment/

An anti-gun group released a video yesterday mocking the Second Amendment, but the video is so bad, it’s hilarious to watch.

fail

The video, produced by the Brady Campaign, features two “criminals” who promote “crimadvisor.com,” a web site that tells them “which states have loose gun laws.”

“I have some violent friends; we all wear leather jackets and scream at women, and we want to find out which states we can buy and sell guns easy,” one of the “criminals” says, to which the other responds with “Crimadvisor.com, that’s the site to find out where it’s easiest for felons and fugitives to buy, carry and even traffic guns.”more evidence

Of course, in real life violent criminals couldn’t care less about laws; otherwise they wouldn’t be robbing and killing.cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

Seriously, do you think the drug cartels that overran Mexico and left it a failed state gave a crap that the country has some of the strongest gun control laws in the western hemisphere? No, because they were too busy gunning down tourists in Cancún who were left defenseless by gun control. “More than 70,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2007,” Reuters reported back in 2013, and the number has only skyrocketed since then. Mexico’s only hope is from the armed militias who have defied the country’s gun laws to defend their communities from the cartels.Gun Control Supporters cropped

And what about the Chicago gangs who control the city’s drug trade, do you actually think they ever said to themselves, “Geez, maybe we shouldn’t have murdered 73 people in one weekend because we broke a bunch of gun control laws in the process?” Of course not. The murders in Chicago only slowed down after Illinois enacted a concealed carry law.

“The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said just months before Illinois passed its concealed carry bill in 2013.Are You Considered a terrorist

Just like the drug laws that have granted cartels control over the narcotics trade, gun laws have granted criminals control over the population by neutering the right to self-defense. Picture2

And the Brady Campaign video is a microcosm of the gun control movement: false logic presented as fact that’s ripe for ridicule. But while the video is funny to laugh at, gun control is not funny at all; it has contributed to the most disgusting wave of violence the world has ever seen.

Picture6

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • crimadvisor.com
  • gun control controversy
  • Leftist
  • Liberals
  • Marxist
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny

The Article Five solution – demystifying a dusty tool


Posted by Rita Dunaway on March 09, 2015

This is part one of a five-part series by Rita Dunaway. Click here to read the original article on TheBlaze.com.

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.conventionofstates.com/article_five_demystifying_a_dusty_tool/?recruiter_id=11724

Perhaps the most unifying conservative trait is the conviction that our Founding Fathers designed an ingenious federal system that we ought to conserve. But as federalism lies dying and our society spirals toward socialism, there is dissension among conservatives about using the procedure the Founders left to the states to conserve it.

Because Article Five’s amendment-proposing convention process has never been used, some have branded it a mystical and dangerous power—a thing shrouded in mystery, riddled with unanswerable questions, and therefore best left alone. Some have literally labeled it a “Pandora’s Box,” the opening of which would unleash all manner of evil upon our beleaguered nation.

Article Five opponents accuse proponents of being reckless with the Constitution. They say we have no idea how a convention would work, who would choose the delegates, how votes would be apportioned, or whether the topic of amendments could be limited.

My task today is to remove the shroud of mysticism by revealing what we do know about an Article Five convention from its text, context, historical precedent, and simple logic.

For starters, we know that the Founders’ whole purpose for including the convention mechanism was to provide a way for the states to bypass Congress in achieving needed constitutional amendments.

An early draft of Article Five vested Congress with the sole power to propose constitutional amendments. Under that version, two-thirds of the states could petition Congress to propose amendments, but it was still Congress that did the proposing. On Sept. 15, 1787, George Mason strenuously objected to this, pointing out that such a system provided no recourse for the states if the national government should become tyrannical, as he predicted it would do.

The result was the unanimous adoption of Article Five in its current form, providing two ways for constitutional amendments to be proposed: Congress can propose them, or the states can propose amendments at a convention called by Congress upon application from two-thirds, or 34, of the states. Regardless of which body proposes the amendments, proposals must be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the states in order to become effective.

We also know from history that voting at an Article Five convention would be done on a one-state, one-vote basis. This is the universal precedent set by the 32 interstate conventions that occurred prior to the Constitution’s drafting. It explains why it was unnecessary for Article Five to specify the number of delegates to be sent by each state; the states can send as many delegates as they like, but each state only gets one vote.

We know that state legislatures choose and instruct their delegates to the convention, who act as agents of the state legislatures. Again, this is a matter of universal historical precedent for interstate conventions.

On Nov. 14, 1788, the Virginia General Assembly filed the very first application for an Article Five Convention to propose a bill of rights, aptly branding the convention “a convention of the States” to be composed of “deputies from the several States.”

Because Congress ultimately used its own Article Five power to propose a Bill of Rights, that meeting was rendered unnecessary. But the application demonstrates the contemporaneous understanding that the convention process was state-led. The Supreme Court has likewise referred to the process as a “convention of states.”

Finally, we know that the topic specified in the convention applications does matter. Over 400 applications for an Article Five convention have been filed since the drafting of the Constitution. The reason we have never had one is because there have never been 34 applications seeking a convention for the same purpose. The state applications contain the agenda for an Article Five convention, and until 34 states agree upon a convention agenda, there will be no convention.

Because the authority for an Article Five convention is derived from the 34 state applications that trigger it, the topic for amendments specified in those applications is a binding limitation on the scope of the convention.

The “unanswerable” questions about Article Five do have answers. The unshrouded Article Five convention isn’t a Pandora’s Box at all, because there is no such thing as magic in a box for us to fear—there is only history, law, and reason to guide faithful Americans in tending their government. And precisely because there is no such thing as magic, we’re going to need an effective tool to do the hard work of restoring our Republic.

It’s time to dust off the tool the Founders gave us in Article Five and get started. Click here to learn more about the Convention of States Project.

Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) and e-mail her at rita.dunaway@gmail.com.Picture6

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

General, Political

Tagged with:

  • Rita Dunaway
  • Tyranny

Internet Police: Move Over FCC, FTC To Regulate Web Ads; Advertising giants collude with FTC to take down “confusing” ads


 

by Anthony Gucciardi | Infowars.com | March 9, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/internet-police-move-over-fcc-ftc-to-regulate-web-ads/

Internet Police: Move Over FCC, FTC To Regulate Web Ads. Image Credits: John Taylor / Flickr

Tyranney Alert

The FCC may now have control over the foundation of the net thanks to their legislative takeover under the flag of ‘Net Neutrality’, but the FTC may soon be swooping in for the final kill — regulating the entire world of internet web ads by which the entire online commerce system heavily relies on. And, better yet, these regulations are being written up by the largest advertising corporations in the industry. In the event that these regulations are passed, we will be seeing the ‘Obamacare’ of the net. Regulations written to ‘protect you’ by none other than the corporations that will benefit the most. All with the help of the FTC bureaucrats.

In a move that has been expected for quite some time, the FCC is already working with ‘major advertising reps’ and other industry heads in order to create new ‘consumer protection’ laws aimed at punishing websites and ad agencies for running ads that could be ‘confusing’ to customers. Sounds pretty fair, huh? Government colluding with the largest corporations in advertising to punish all other advertisers for their potentially ‘confusing’ ad banners.

But what does ‘confusing’ really mean? To boil it down, the ads under fire are called ‘native ads’ by the industry. These are ads that could be mixed with news (such as sponsored content, which sites often rely heavily on to keep running), or ads that ‘could be confused with content’. Basically, it could apply to any ad that is well developed and uses even the most basic marketing standards. Unless you’re the advertising agency writing the rules, of course. And as we read from the FTC website, these leaders are already coming together to determine what ‘advertising’ means in the eyes of the government: Tyranney Alert

“The Federal Trade Commission hosted a one-day workshop to examine the blending of advertisements with news, entertainment, and other editorial content in digital media, referred to as “native advertising” or “sponsored content.” The workshop brought together publishing and advertising industry representatives, consumer advocates, academics, and self-regulatory groups to explore the ways in which sponsored content is presented to consumers online and in mobile apps; consumers’ recognition and understanding of it; the contexts in which it should be identifiable as advertising; and effective ways of differentiating it from editorial content.”

Once again, you simply cannot be trusted to make your own decisions. The web could be ‘confusing’ to you. That’s why the FTC is stepping in to help you. “It used to be pretty clear,” said Lesley Fair, a senior attorney with the agency’s bureau of consumer protection. “The entertainment portion of a show ended and the commercials began. The two column article ran on one side of the newspaper and the ad on the other. Or the Web page had the content in the middle with a banner ad running across the top. Things are more complicated now.”

Websites have been transitioning away from the ‘single web banner somewhere on the page’ advertising model for years. Quite frankly, most consumers will never click web ads that are ‘cut and dry’ these days — a reality that most websites have accepted. From alternative news to the amazing apps and entertainment websites you enjoy, all of these websites run on creative ad space. But let’s be clear. If the FTC swoops in on regulating web ads across the web, the casualties will be much greater than the collapse of your favorite time killing website. Commerce at its most basic level online relies on marketing and advertising that could be thrown under the label of ‘confusing’ as long as the overpaid FTC ‘agent’ determines it to be. What this ‘Obamacare of the net’ will truly amount to is a selective weapon of the establishment’s FTC. more evidence

Yet another control over our once-free internet.

 Picture6

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
  • internet take over
  • Marxism
  • Socialism
  • Tyranny

Obama: ‘Important’ Second Amendment Responsible for High Homicide Rates


by AWR Hawkins, 9 Mar 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/09/obama-important-second-amendment-responsible-for-high-homicide-rates/

 AP Photo/Mike Groll

Speaking at Benedict College in South Carolina on March 6, President Obama said the “Second Amendment … is important,” that it is “part of our culture” and “part of who were are.” Then he quickly added, “But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries–by like a mile.”Gun Control Supporters cropped

So, the Second Amendment is important but…

Moreover, Obama hinted that the individual right to bear arms–the very right protected by the Second Amendment–is the result of a Supreme Court interpretation. On June 22, Breitbart News reported that The Washington Post espoused this same liberal talking point, claiming that the Supreme Court created an individual right to keep and bear arms via the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision.who want unarmed citizens

In other words, prior to 2008, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. It wasn’t what our Founding Fathers intended and it wasn’t what generation upon generation of Americans from 1791 to 2008 believed and lived by. It’s all based on a decision by a group of justices.

In his speech, aired on C-SPAN, Obama said:

We have a long tradition of gun rights and gun ownership in this country. The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean the people have the right to bear arms. There are a lot of law-abiding, responsible gun owners who use it for protection or sport. They handle their weapons properly. There are traditions of families passing down [hunting] from father to son, or daughter … and that is important; that’s part of who we are. But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized nations–by like a mile.

And most of that is attributable to the easy, ready, availability of firearms, particularly handguns.cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

However, the gun control lobby’s relentless claim that America’s homicide rate is so much higher than other industrialized countries breaks down under scrutiny.

For example, in August 2013, Breitbart News reported on a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which showed that the murder rate in heavily gun-controlled Russia was approximately 20.52 per 100,000 people in 2002. A high point for America was 6.6 per 100,000 people in 1993, and that rate fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011, after the number of privately owned guns in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009.murderrate

So, 20.52 per 100,000 people are murdered in Russia versus America’s 6.6 per 100,000–later to be 3.2 per 100,000–yet, according to President Obama, America’s murder rate is, “like a mile” higher than that of other industrialized countries.

Picture6

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • gun control
  • lying
  • murder rate
  • Tyranny

2014 Political Cartoons, Drawings and Presentations You Might Have Missed


Master MArtinLuther King Jr. oct172014 02 Teaching children to follow Jesus greatest fraud Cold watching gun-control-cartoon-club-knife Let me be clear mission accomplished WMD-in-Iraq gay-marriage-debate-continues Differences Human bomb Islamofascism-300x199 Winston Churchill We Pledge Allegience to Obama Walking Eagle ObamaDictator-300x204 PS_0807W_RECESSION_t ObamaWreckingBall2 strategy Terrorist lives matter The Great Divider yes-we-cannibus Obamacare 02 Obamacare Suppositories Signed Up wheels coming off Dangers I have a steady Job I Never Met Sharpton Jackson 02 The Personal Wealth of Al Sharpton the-only-people-keeping-racism-alive-vik-battaile-politics-1354496075 8 abortion hilary-rosen-vs-ann-romney I sell Women obama isis pays less 2nd term kill isis money worth spending the education of children

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Democrats
  • Dictator
  • economy
  • GOP
  • government
  • gun control
  • Hitler
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • ISIS
  • Islam
  • Jackson
  • Leftist
  • Liberals
  • ObamaCare
  • race-baiting
  • Racism
  • same sex marriage
  • Sharpton
  • Socialism
  • Stalin
  • strife
  • Syria
  • teaching children
  • Tyranny
  • voters
  • War
  • War on Women
  • Weapons of Mass Destruction

WND – http://www.wnd.com – Obama ‘using federal law to target Christians’


MId Term drawing

Posted By author-imageBob Unruh On 11/03/2014

Article reprinted from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obama-using-federal-law-to-target-christians/Tyranney Alert

obama_angry
Imperial President Obama; “Tyrant-in-Chief”

Obamacare has been challenged in court since it was launched, with charges that it is unconstitutional, violates religious rights, invades privacy and unlawfully orders consumers to purchase a product.

Now, a new lawsuit by four Christian institutions argues the Obama administration is using the law to attack religious groups that oppose the White House’s promotion of abortion.

The plaintiffs allege “the purpose” of Obamacare’s mandate that employers pay for abortion-causing contraception and abortion “is to discriminate against religious organizations.”

The complaint cites then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius comparing Obamacare opponents to “people who opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s” and asserting that upholding the law requires the same action as was shown ‘in the fight against lynching and the fight for desegregation.’”

Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom are representing the Association of Christian Schools International, Samaritan Ministries International, Taylor University and Indiana Wesleyan University in the case against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez and others.

The Supreme Court already has ruled the abortion mandate cannot force business owners to violate their faith.Eagle Eggs

So the White House has offered an “accommodation” in which the abortion-causing drugs and abortion services can be provided to the employees without any paperwork that connects the transactions to the employer.

The Christian organizations contend, however, the Obama rules still impose a burden, or duty, on them.

“They believe that God has condemned the intentional destruction of innocent human life. They hold, as a matter of religious conviction, that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to participate in, pay for, facilitate, enable, or otherwise support access to abortion, which destroys human life,” the complaint explains.

“They hold that one of the prohibitions of the Ten Commandments (‘thou shalt not murder’) precludes them from facilitating, assisting in, serving as the conduct for, or enabling the use of drugs and devices that can and do destroy very young human beings in the womb. The health benefits they provide to their employees reflect these convictions.”

The case alleges the Obama administration is violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Free Speech Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Further, evidence suggests religious believers who object to abortion-causing drugs are deliberately being targeted, the case claims.

“The Final Mandate forces the plaintiffs to facilitate government-dictated education and counseling concerning abortion that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs and teaching,” the lawsuit states. “Facilitating this government-dictated speech directly undermines the express speech and messages concerning the sanctity of life that the plaintiffs seek to convey.”comment 01

Further, the government’s demand “advances no compelling governmental interest” and such drugs already are commonly available through “numerous alternative mechanisms.”

The government easily could provide the “benefits,” the lawsuit said, or “the government could simply exempt all conscientiously objecting organizations, Third of our generationjust as it has already exempted the small subset of nonprofit religious employers that are referred to in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code.”

After all, the government already provides a multitude of other “exemptions,” it said.

The government, through its actions, already admits that the mandate is not part of any “compelling interest.”

So why is the demand being pursued?

“The Final Mandate was promulgated by government officials, and supported by non-governmental organizations, who strongly National death rate percentagesoppose religious teachings and beliefs regarding marriage, family, and life,” the case states.

“Defendant [former HHS Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius, for example, has long been a staunch support of abortion rights and a vocal critic of religious teachings and beliefs regarding abortion and contraception,” the complaint continues. “On Oct. 4, 2011, six days after the comment period for the original Interim Final Rule ended, Defendant Sebelius gave a speech at a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America. She told the assembled crowd that ‘we are in a war.’

“She further criticized individuals and entities whose beliefs differed from those held by her and the others at the fundraiser, stating: ‘Wouldn’t you think that people who want to reduce the number of abortions would champion the cause of widely available, widely affordable contraceptive services? Not so much,’” the complaint states.

“On July 16, 2013, Secretary Sebelius further compared opponents of the Affordable Care Act generally to ‘people who opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s,’ stating that upholding the Act requires the same action as was shown ‘in the fight against lynching and the fight for desegregation.’”Really with logo

That attitude leads to the conclusion that the administration is intending to discriminate against religious organizations, the complaint says.

“It cannot be plausibly maintained that the fate of the entire enterprise rests in any measurable way on forcing these four plaintiffs to facilitate access to four drugs and devices – which represent one-fifth of the one of the 143 required items,” the case says.

“In any event, the government has already conceded that it has no interest in imposing the mandate upon religious employers like the plaintiffs,” it says.Freedom is not dictator friendly

So Washington’s “accommodation,” which “does not sufficiently diminish their ethical objection to complicity with sin,” still “conscripts the plaintiffs into the government’s scheme, hijacking their health plans and using them as conduits for the delivery of life-destroying drugs and devices to members of their religious communities.”

The government still demands that the Christian groups identify to the government their insurance policy administrators, play a “central role in facilitating free access to abortifacient services” and make them victim to “a shell game that attempts to disguise the religious organization’s role as the central cog in the government’s scheme for expanding access to contraceptive and abortifacient services.”

The case was filed in federal court in Colorado.prolifewomen20

“The government should not force religious organizations to be involved in providing abortion pills to their employees,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “The best way to respect everyone’s freedom would have been to extend the existing religious exemption to religious non-profits in addition to churches. The administration has failed in its duty to uphold the freedoms guaranteed to every American under the Constitution and federal law. These religious organizations had hoped to avoid this action, but the cause of religious conscience and liberty compelled them to take this step.”

Added ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot: “All Americans should oppose unjust laws that force people – under threat of punishment – to give up their fundamental freedoms in order to provide insurance. That’s no different for these Christian organizations, which simply want to abide by the very faith they espouse. The government is forbidden from punishing people of faith for making decisions consistent with that faith.”

There have been multitudes of lawsuits filed over Obamacare, and WND reported only a few days ago that another case over the same contraception mandate issue resulted in a loss for Obama.

It was a federal judge in Florida who ruled that the government’s latest revisions to the mandate still “don’t do enough to protect people of faith.”comment 02

The ruling came from Judge James Moody Jr. in a suit by Ave Maria University, which charged the Obamacare requirement violates the faith on which it operates.

The judge said: “Defendants do not dispute that Ave Maria is a nonprofit Catholic university purposed with ‘educat[ing] students in the principles and truths of the Catholic faith.’ … One such element of the Catholic faith that Ave Maria holds and professes concerns the sanctity of life. Ave Maria ‘believes that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and therefore any abortion – including through post-conception contraception – ends a human life and is a grave sin. Ave Maria also believes that sterilization and the use of contraception are morally wrong.’”

He said the “rule” that was intended to provide an “accommodation” to faith members was not a satisfactory solution.

“After dozens of court rulings, the government still doesn’t seem to get that it can’t force faith institutions to violate their beliefs,” said a spokesman for that legal team, assembled by the Becket Fund. “Fortunately, the courts continue to see through the government’s attempts to disguise the mandate’s religious coercion.”

Article collective closing

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • lawsuit
  • stop obamacare abortion mandates
  • Tyranny

More evidence of The Imperial President Obama’s Socialist Network


MId Term drawing

Democrats: Vote or we’ll kick your ass

By Carl Campanile and Natalie O’Neill

URL of Original Posting Site: http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/democrats-threaten-voters-to-get-to-the-polls/

Democrats: Vote or we’ll kick your ass

Photo: Getty Images

Tyranney Alert

 

Obamas Police State
Democrats are telling voters that they had better head to the polls — or else.

The New York State Democratic Committee is bullying people into voting next week with intimidating letters warning that it can easily find out which slackers fail to cast a ballot next Tuesday.

“Who you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is public record,” the letter says.

“We will be reviewing voting records . . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014.”

It ends with a line better suited to a mob movie than a major political party: “If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.”

The letter and accompanying post card was criticized even by party members, with one Democratic consultant saying it was the wrong way to inspire votes.

“It’s a threatening letter. It’s a scare piece that is unnecessary and inappropriate,” the insider said.

Brooklyn and Manhattan residents who received the note Wednesday were furious, calling it an attempt to browbeat them into showing up at the polls.

“I’m outraged. Whether I vote or not is none of your business!” said a Manhattan voter, who was so incensed that she complained to a local Democratic leader.

“The letter is ludicrous and menacing,” said the voter, who requested anonymity.Pointing finger

The woman also received a report card of her voting record, pointing out that she had failed to vote in two of the last four elections.

Overall, the notices were sent out to 1 million registered Democrats who had failed to vote in previous midterm elections, according to the group.

The committee — chaired by former Gov. David Paterson — defended the scare tactic, calling it standard practice throughout the country.

“This flier is part of the nationwide Democratic response to traditional Republican voter-suppression efforts, because Democrats believe our democracy works better when more people vote, not  less,” said Peter Kauffmann, a committee spokesman.

“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is they don’t want people to vote and we want everyone to vote.”Obama Big Brother 02

Paterson declined to comment.

The mailer has a phone number on it that goes to Election Protection, a nonpartisan voting organization.

The organization said it had received a “significant” number of calls about the letter.

Such attempts to shame people to vote — what politicos call “social pressure” or peer pressure — has become more common place and was used by the Obama campaign in 2012, sources said.

A Yale University study in 2008 found that voter participation increased substantially after lazy voters received letters telling them their spotty voting history was a public record that would be scrutinized.

The notice includes a “vote report card” rating New Yorkers’ voting records as “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “incomplete.”

“Many organizations monitor turnout in your neighborhood and are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors,” it says.Freedom is not dictator friendly

The letter came a week before heavily favored Democratic Gov. Cuomo faces off against Republican Rob Astorino.

Cuomo was not behind the shame letters, party sources insisted.

But Astorino scoffed, “Andrew Cuomo’s thuggish tactics just crossed the line into creepy territory . . . Threatening and intimidating people is not how honorable elected leaders operate.”

Article collective closing

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Democrats
  • New York
  • threatening letter
  • Tyranny
  • vote or else
  • voter intimidation

Opposition to renewable energy brews in Imperial Valley


MId Term drawing

 Posted by Sammy Roth,

The Desert Sun

October 21, 2014

URL of Original Posting at:

http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2014/10/21/desert-renewable-energy-conservation-plan/17687721/

Tyranney Alert

Geothermal

A well head is seen in the foreground with Unit 5’s clarifiers in the background at CalEnergy Operating Corporation’s Salton Sea geothermal field on Sept. 10, 2014, in the Calipatria area. (Photo: Crystal Chatham/The Desert Sun )

Renewable energy development could disrupt productive farmland and kill agriculture jobs in the Imperial Valley, farmers and conservationists argued at a public meeting on the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

Unprecedented in scope and scale, the plan lays the ground rules for the next quarter-century of solar, wind and geothermal development across 22.5 million acres of California desert. In Imperial County, it could open more than 700,000 acres to solar and geothermal development — largely on disturbed private land — while designating nearly 900,000 new acres for conservation.

Policymakers and some renewable energy advocates have hailed the plan, which was released last month, as a landmark in the fight against climate change. Others, though, say the desert is being asked to carry too heavy a burden, arguing that regulators should prioritize rooftop solar and other small-scale renewables.

Among the plan’s critics are some Imperial Valley residents who packed Monday night’s public meeting at the Imperial Irrigation District office in El Centro. Carolyn Allen, whose family farms staple crops in the northern end of the valley, said the renewable energy plan would be “devastating to our local economy.”

“The precious farmland that we have down here should not be industrialized for so-called green energy projects,” Allen said.

Donna Tisdale — president of the grassroots group Backcountry Against Dumps, of which Allen is a member — struck a similar note. Tisdale argued the plan would turn Imperial County into a “renewable energy sacrifice zone.”comment 03

“Designating most if not all of Imperial County’s irrigated farmland as a development focus area is, in my opinion, inappropriate, unconscionable, disproportionate, and outright exploitation of one of the nation’s most productive breadbaskets — and also one of the most socioeconomically vulnerable areas,” she said.comment 04

The plan’s proponents have painted renewable energy as an economic lifeline for Imperial County, where the unemployment rate hovers around 25 percent. But commenters Monday night said the plan would eliminate stable, long-term agriculture jobs, replacing them mostly with short-term construction jobs — many of which could be filled by workers from outside the area.

David Smith, technical services manager at Spreckels Sugar Company in Brawley, said his company opposes converting farmland to renewable energy zones. Even removing a few acres, Smith said, “can create the economic tipping point that forces competitive, efficient enterprises such as ours out of business.”comment 05

“While we all support renewable energy, the future of agricultural in the Imperial Valley is at stake, as are the economic futures of Imperial Valley workers and businesses,” he said.

For years, environmental groups have urged regulators to promote development on previously disturbed lands, rather than on untouched landscapes and ecosystems. The agencies that crafted the renewable energy plan largely heeded those calls, proposing many renewable energy zones on private lands that have already been disturbed by agriculture or industrial activity.

On Monday, conservationists criticized the idea of fast-tracking development on Imperial Valley farmlands. Local agricultural fields, they said, provide critical foraging grounds for birds — not to mention produce crops that are shipped around the state and the world.

The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan does not actually approve any projects. Rather, it establishes guidelines for the regulatory agencies that review proposals, creating so-called “development focus areas” where renewable energy projects would be fast-tracked.

In the Imperial Valley, the Imperial County government would be responsible for approving or denying most projects proposed for private land. Andy Horne — who works in the county’s natural resources development office — said county officials are concerned about developing agricultural land, and that those concerns will be reflected in an upcoming update to the county’s land-use plan.

“We’re looking very hard at the opportunities that might exist at the Salton Sea — not only for energy development but for conservation,” Horne said.

Under the plan’s “preferred alternative,” which has served as the starting point for public debate, a wide swath of land across central Imperial County is designated for development. To the east and west are proposed conservation lands, designed to protect fringe-toed lizards, shorebirds, burrowing owls and Swainson’s hawk — among other species.

The preferred alternative leaves the Imperial Sand Dunes, which are already designated for recreation, mostly untouched. It also proposes designating the Ocotillo Wells off-highway vehicle zone as a dedicated recreation area, which would be protected from renewable energy development.

The plan doesn’t include the southern edge of the Salton Sea in a development focus area, even though new geothermal hotspots could emerge as the sea recedes. Unless something changes before the plan is finalized, geothermal projects proposed for those areas would not be fast-tracked — a potential obstacle for Salton Sea advocates, who see new geothermal development as key to funding the sea’s restoration.

Imperial Irrigation District employee Shayne Ferber said the district, which has supported efforts to boost geothermal development, is “generally supportive” of the renewable energy plan. Like most commenters, though, he requested that the 90-day public comment period be expanded — a request that regulators seem likely to grant, since most stakeholders are still wading through the 8,000-page document.

Commenters also criticized the four agencies that crafted the renewable energy plan — the federal Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Energy Commission — for not getting more input from local residents.

“If you took the time to talk to some of the people that have either lived in the area or had to move away from the areas around the solar panels because they were just not livable anymore — or the farmers that have been affected by having their fields adjacent to huge solar projects — you would see that it is just very, very destructive,” Allen said.comment 06

Regulators will hold nine more public meetings on the renewable energy plan over the next month, including one at UC Riverside’s Palm Desert campus at 4 p.m. Friday, Nov. 7.

Energy Reporter Sammy Roth can be reached at Sammy.Roth@desertsun.com, (760) 778-4622 and @Sammy_Roth.

Article collective closing

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • desert
  • Imperial Valley Farmland
  • renweable energy
  • taking farmland
  • Tyranny

Four words that should ensure GOP victory in November


Obamacare

Written by Allen West on October 13, 2014

 http://allenbwest.com/2014/10/four-words-ensure-gop-victory-november/

We’re in the full throes of campaign season and all the political ads running for various levels of government. I am perplexed that there’s no clear philosophical delineation presented. If you are at all aware of what’s happening in America, this election should be a hands down victory for the GOP. After all, the progressive socialist-dominated Democrat party has severely failed our Republic.

The ideas of “hope and change” and “forward” have taken us completely backwards with no real hope in sight. When we have people in charge who term the beheading at work of a 54-year-old American woman by a savage with clear intent and definition as “workplace violence” – these “leaders” are clearly incapable of their most basic responsibility: protecting American citizens.

But it is in the philosophy of governance where Americans should be able to make a clear choice in these midterm elections. Forget the ads for the moment. I’d like to share a very prescient quote from an astute, impeccable American president from Illinois in 1864:

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.”

Of course the president was Abraham Lincoln. Liberty is equated with the pursuit of happiness and a governing philosophy — and policies — that promote an individuals’ attainment by advancing their growth and opportunity. Tyranny on the other hand strives for a guarantee of happiness by driving the collective towards egalitarianism and predestined outcomes. It truly is the defining separation between constitutional conservatives and progressive socialists. I know, I can hear the detractors already typing away.

Imperial President ObamaWhile Lincoln stated that true liberty is the ability of one man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor, Obama of course has a completely different idea. During a speech in Roanoke, Virginia in 2012, demonstrated his perception of the rights of the individual and the indomitable entrepreneurial spirit with “you didn’t build that.” If there were ever any clearer indication of whom Barack Hussein Obama is and what he believes, it was in those four words (except for the Muslim call to prayer “is one of the prettiest sounds on Earth“). “You didn’t build that” defines Obama and his policies — which according to him are on the ballot this midterm election.

The problem with the GOP is that the party seems incapable of presenting a defined national message and drawing a philosophical difference between itself and the Democrats. The last U.S. president who did that was Ronald Reagan who stood upon the principle of advancing the growth, opportunity, and promise – in other words, liberty. Reagan won 44 of 50 states against Jimmy Carter and then 49 of 50 states against Walter Mondale — both of whom represented a far left progressive socialist agenda. Just like those two who lost to Reagan, Obama doesn’t believe in what individuals can do with the product of their labor, but believes in what others can do with the product of their labor, in other words, tyranny.

Tyrant ObamaObama’s four words are the essence of the progressive socialist psyche and its disdain for the individual and the elevation of collectivism — the guarantee of happiness – or more realistically, equal misery. Obama’s four words are a disrespectful slap in the face of hard working Americans who seek to provide for and build a better future for themselves and future generations. It’s reflective of a man and an ideology which is the antithesis of who we are in America and our Declaration of Independence.

Government doesn’t build anything. As a matter of fact, it apportions the fruits of our labor — taxes — in order to fund itself and wastefully spend. It is the individual American warrior who fights, not the government, and can we see right now how government can dork up a combat operation.

It was the intent of the Constitution to limit government’s intrusive and invasive nature and make the rights, freedoms and liberties of the individual preeminent. Sadly, progressive socialists lump everything collectively as a right simply to advance their belief that it is THEIR duty to grant — and indeed take away — those freedoms and liberties.Freedom is not dictator friendly

The simple litmus test in this midterm election cycle should be the philosophy of “You didn’t build that” — and the resulting policies. Any incumbent, regardless of party, should be asked the question, “Do you believe Americans didn’t build that?” It’s a yes or no answer — so don’t ask Kentucky Senatorial candidate Allison Lundergan Grimes — and after the politician bumbles around trying to answer, just examine the voting record.

If incumbents have voted with the policies of President Barack Hussein Obama 75 percent of the time or higher, it’s clear indicator that they don’t believe in the entrepreneurial ability of the individual. It shows they don’t really believe in your “pursuit of happiness” but rather their guarantee of happiness – dictated by them.

If you ask that question of a candidate for office make him or her declare Obama was wrong on the record in his assertion that “You didn’t build that.” When I see all the closed storefronts, it’s a direct result of what Obama believes — is that what the candidate accepts? The GOP and Mitt Romney failed to articulate the danger of Obama’s four words — and of course the leftist progressive media just did everything it could to cover, explain and even say Obama misspoke — he does that quite often, apparently.obama- Marxist tyrant

Yes America, you did build that, and that’s why we live in the greatest nation the world has ever known. We are exceptional because of what we’ve been able to produce in 238 short years. However, we have come to a point where loud voices decry that we’re no greater than any other country. These loud voices are in the minority but are elevated by a complicit media propaganda machine, which condemns our Republic while lacking any commitment or conviction to uphold our fundamental principles and values. As a matter of fact, they are working to fundamentally transform our America.Control

Two years ago, Obama insulted this great nation with the statement, “You didn’t build that.” Now, two years later, we can begin correcting the mistake of believing what he said.Dupe and Chains

 Article collective closing
Tags:

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • GOP
  • Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Extreme-Liberal/Democrat ideologies and deceit
  • Socialism
  • Tyranny

Feds Ignore ISIS Border Terror Threat


Obamacare

http://www.infowars.com/feds-ignore-isis-border-terror-threat/

Focus instead on political groups in America

Feds Ignore ISIS Border Terror Threat
Imagine a scene like this in any major city in America. How would you responds? How would most of America respond? Imagine the Leftist screaming that they are just exercising their First Amendment freedoms of Free Speech expression. The Leftist Media supporting them. Now image blood running in the streets like water. What will the Leftist say then? Bush’s fault?
Image Credits: IS social media

by Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com | September 2, 2014

On Sunday, Judicial Watch tweeted that it was good to see Tom Fitton and the El Paso Times taking the ISIS terror threat seriously:

judical watch tweet

Lib-mask-590-LAHowever, when it comes to the rest of the media, there is nothing but silence.

Beyond Fox News and a handful of alternative news websites, few are mentioning the Judicial Watch report. The organization cited sources within the government that said an ISIS attack on the United States emanating from Ciudad Juarez is “coming soon.”

Government Focuses On Domestic Political Enemies, Not Islamic Terror

The FBI, in addition to tracking down who posted nude photos of celebrities on the internet, is concentrating on non-Muslim would-be terrorists. Its National Threat Assessment for Domestic Extremism doesn’t mention Muslim terrorists or the possibility of an attack launched from the southern border.

“The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting– both carried out by radical Muslim Americans,” writes Bill Gertz for the Washington Free Beacon.

Imperial President ObamaThe most prominent threat to America, according to the FBI and the government, comes from “eight types of domestic extremist movements – none motivated by radical Islam.”

“They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with ‘sovereign citizen’ nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.”

According to the report, “lone actors” and “small cells” inspired by “anarchist, anti-government militias, white supremacy, and sovereign citizen extremists… will engage in lethal violence, although it is most likely the majority of violent criminal acts will continue to be characterized as serious crimes, such as arson and assault, but which are not, ultimately lethal.”

racist-redneck-politics-congress-obama-president-hateful-vic-demotivational-poster-1241152075DHS, FBI, DOJ, State Police: Political Opposition in America Are the Real Terrorists

The absence of Islamic terror in the FBI assessment is hardly surprising given previous reports produced by the agency and the Department of Homeland Security.

In June Infowars.com reported on Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee,” a revamped version of Janet Reno’s post Oklahoma City bombing task force. It will include members from the FBI and Justice Department’s National Security Division.

“We face an escalating danger from self-radicalized individuals within our own borders,” Holder said in a video posted on the Department of Justice website. “As the nature of the threat we face evolves to include the possibility of individual radicalization via the Internet, it is critical that we return our focus to potential extremists here at home.”

“Holder pointed to a 2013 Congressional Research Service report that claims domestic terrorism has produced more than two dozen incidents since 9/11 as justification for the task force, specifically noting the Boston Marathon bombing and Fort Hood shooting,” writes Mikael Thalen.

The Department of Homeland Security has produced a number of reports warning patriot groups and others pose a threat to national security.

In 2012, the agency produced Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 (PDF), a document characterizing Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

“While largely omitting Islamic terrorism – the report fails completely to mention the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – the study focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.study

2In 2011, the DHS produced several PSAs, or Public Service Announcements, depicting non-Muslim Americans as terrorists. “Far from representing some superficial nod to political correctness, this is in fact a deliberate effort by the feds to characterize predominantly white, middle class, politically engaged Americans as domestic extremists. It’s all part of the agenda to frame dissent against big government as dangerous radicalism,” Watson wrote in August, 2011.

In 2009, Infowars.com reported on “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” a DHS produced document that characterized patriot groups as potential terrorists.

Prior to the release of the DHS report, Alex Jones and Infowars.com reported on a Missouri Truth The New Hate SpeechInformation Analysis Center (MIAC) document on the “Modern Militia Movement” dated February 20, 2009, that “describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties,” we reported on March 11, 2009.

The documents produced by the government demonstrate the establishment is more concerned about political opposition at home than Islamic terrorism abroad that has the potential of crossing over an unprotected border.

The Judicial Watch report reveals the possibility of a terror attack by a group that has repeatedly demonstrated its desire to attack civilians and military forces alike. The establishment media is now ignoring this threat.

border Article collective closing

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • focus on Conservatitives and Libertarians
  • Leftist Media
  • no focus on radical Islamist
  • Saul Alinsky strategies
  • Tyranny

More from Paul Harvey, 1965. Amazing Prophetic Broadcast


Complete MessagefreedomArticle collective closing

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • economy
  • Freedom
  • Paul Harvey
  • society
  • Tyranny

Congressman on mission to disarm federal agencies


Complete Message

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/congressman-on-mission-to-disarm-federal-agencies/#CtlXSt18he1p6mW4.99

Militarized IRS, FDA, SSA, DOE erodes trust, he says

Researched And Reported by Leo Hohmann

author-imageLeo Hohmann is a news editor for WND. He has been a reporter and editor at several suburban newspapers in the Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina, areas and also served as managing editor of Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina.

 

Bureau of Land Management officers are among the many federal bureaucracies that have armed themselves with military-grade weaponry in recent years.
Bureau of Land Management officers are among the many federal bureaucracies that have armed themselves with military-grade weaponry in recent years.

police_stateA Utah congressman wants to strip federal agencies of their paramilitary power, which is increasingly being used to intimidate American citizens, he says, destroying whatever small level of trust the people still have in their government.

Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, introduced HR 4934, also called the Regulatory Agency De-militarization Act or RAD, in late June, and it has since gained more than 30 co-sponsors in the House.

“When we get back to Washington (from August break) we’ll get right back to working on this RAD bill, because people know it’s just so unnecessary for the federal government to have this kind of power,” Stewart told WND. “You’ve really got to twist yourself into a pretzel to defend this type of power.”

Government is now out of control and is routinely ignores the Constitution. Get your autopgraphed copy of “Police State USA.”

Police State 02In recent years, nearly every federal regulatory agency – from the U.S. Department of Education, to the Food and Drug Administration and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – has deployed some kind of SWAT-type unit with high-powered assault rifles, helmets, menacing black uniforms with faces covered, body armor and militarized armored vehicles.

Stewart said it’s disturbing for Americans to read stories of federal regulators armed to the teeth and breaking into homes and businesses with no reason to think there would be resistance.

Stewart said the root of the problem goes back to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In a state of panic, Congress reacted by passing legislation creating the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Buried in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was language that granted arrest and firearms authority to the criminal investigative wings of federal agencies operating under the U.S. Office of the Inspector General.

“Like a lot of times, we write bad legislation in the heat of a crisis,” Stewart said. “We did it with Dodd-Frank in reaction to the banking crisis. So that’s exactly what happened here; they gave this authority to federal agencies that never had it before. We have to pull it back now, because it creates so much distrust with the America people.

“Survey after survey shows the American people just don’t trust big government anymore and they shouldn’t because this is nothing but an intimidating show of force.”

Americans have seen what the escalation of an event can look like when federal regulators call out tactical paramilitary units. It happened in Freedom is not dictator friendlyNevada earlier this year at the ranch of Cliven Bundy, when the Bureau of Land Management brought a sniper team to the ranch, killed some of Bundy’s cattle and threatened him with guns over a legal dispute about unpaid grazing fees. The tense standoff finally ended as the BLM backed down in the face of increasing numbers of ranchers and militia groups converging on the scene, many with their own weapons.

But it’s not just the BLM that’s armed like a National Guard infantry unit. The DOE, the FDA, the IRS, the EPA, the Agriculture Department, the Commerce Department, the Social Security Administration and dozens of other agencies have all been arming themselves. And when they have guns, they buy ammunition – lots of ammunition. Even the Postal Service has joined the ranks of federal agencies that have sent out requests to purchase large amounts of ammunition in recent years, prompting people to ask the obvious question: Why?

Why, for instance, would the Social Security Administration need to put in a request for 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point” bullets as it did last year?

Hollow-point bullets are meant to have maximum kill power and would not be needed for target practice.

Gun owners groups support billGeorge Washington regarding 2nd Amandment with border and logo

Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said his organization is giving its full support to Stewart’s bill, which he believes is long overdue. The reason, he said, is because many times the federal agencies will call out their SWAT units simply because their target holds a gun permit.

“The overwhelming number of gun permit holders are law-abiding, peaceful people. It’s been a long-time concern of our organization, because all this militarization of police is really not good for anyone in the country, from gun owners to anyone else, and it seems like every government organization now has its own SWAT team,” Van Cleave told WND. “But the big question is why do they need that? We have the Posse Comitatus Act that tried to keep the military and police separate, and this seems to be an end-run around that.”

Van Cleave said the military’s mission is very different from the police or regulatory mission.

“Police mission is to come in and resolve a situation as peaceably as possible whereas the military you come in and you kill them, and that’s why we don’t want that in this country,” he said. “Police are to bring peace to a situation, not kill as many people as necessary to get from point A to point B. Police are to try to avoid using deadly force at all cost, not so for the military.”

The other problem Van Cleave sees with the federal SWAT teams is they could easily touch off a violent confrontation, such as almost happened at the Bundy ranch.

“They often dress in all black, they have no name or number on their badge, their faces are often covered, and you really don’t know what is going on as they’re breaking in on you,” he said. “It’s easy to mistake them for a bunch of gang bangers breaking into your house. These no-knock warrants combined with these tactical teams are dangerous to normal citizens. The excuse they give is it’s to stop evidence from being flushed down the toilet. Our civil liberties are far more important than trying to get every little drug dealer in the drug war, which is a failure anyway, and coming in with machine guns.”

SWATT or SETT?Truman

Stewart said his bill will be an easy sell in the House. Even some Democrats will support it, he predicts.

“When you ask them what is it you don’t like about this bill it’s almost fun to watch them squirm? Who in the world thinks these agencies need SWAT teams?” he said. “The agencies themselves, they say, ‘Oh, it’s not a SWAT team it’s a Special Event Tactical Team or SETT.’ There is no difference. The American people are smart enough to know that.”

The agencies also have not been very forthcoming with information about their SWAT teams, Stewart said.

“We would ask these agencies, well, what are the rules of engagement for using these tactical units and they would say ‘oh we can’t tell you that,’” he said. “So we would ask how often are they used and under what circumstances and it’s, ‘Oh, we can’t tell you that either.’ They can’t say how many times or where they’re deployed.”

DHSStewart said the House leaders will likely wait until after the November election to send their bill to the Senate.

“We’re going to get a number of Democrat co-sponsors on this,” he said. “That is very important to us, because we can’t send what appears to be an overly partisan bill to the Senate on this. But the House has sent hundreds of pieces of legislation to the Senate, and they die sitting on Harry Reid’s desk. We’re going to keep working on it, keep building co-sponsors, particularly Democratic co-sponsors, so it will take that amount of time (until after the November elections) anyway. We could send it right now, but I want it to pass.

“Sometimes you do things for the sake of messaging, but this is something I hope actually becomes law. I think we’ve got something here we can actually get through the Senate and put on president’s desk.”

Stewart said that while the problem began under President George W. Bush, the rate of militarization has increased under President Obama.

What the bill would do?Comming Soon 02

The RAD Act has three pieces:

1. It repeals the arrest and firearm authority granted to Offices of Inspectors General in the 2002 Homeland Security Act.

2. It prohibits federal agencies, other than those traditionally tasked with enforcing federal law – such as the FBI and U.S. Marshals – from purchasing machine guns, grenades and other weaponry regulated under the National Firearms Act.

3. It directs the Government Accountability Office to write a complete report detailing all federal agencies, including Offices of Inspectors General, with specialized units that receive special tactical or military-style training and that respond to high-risk situations that fall outside the capabilities of regular law enforcement officers.

“The militarization of agencies is only a symptom of a much deeper and more troubling problem within Washington – that the federal government no longer trusts the American people,” Stewart said. “When all of us feel that we are no longer seen as citizens but as potential dangerous suspects – a relationship of trust is impossible. I’m working to restore and rebuild trust – beginning with this effort to defund paramilitary capabilities within federal regulatory agencies.”

Specific examples of the militarization of federal regulatory agencies include:Tree of Liberty 03

  • In July 2010, a multi-agency task force, including armed officers from the Food and Drug Agency, raided a Venice, California, organic grocery store suspected of using raw milk, the Los Angeles Times reported.

  • In June 2011, armed federal agents with the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General broke down the door of a Stockton, California, home at 6 a.m. and handcuffed a man suspected of student aid fraud, the Washington Post reported.

  • In July 2013, an armed multi-agency task force, including officers from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, raided a small Alaska mining operation suspected of violating the Clean Water Act, the Washington Times reported.

  • On May 7, 2014, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General released a solicitation for submachine guns.

Stewart said the average Americans is not even aware of the militarization problem.

“Not so much, but I’ll tell you this, it only takes 30 seconds for them to become a fan of this legislation, because all you have to do is get a list of the agencies that have these SWAT teams and show how they can be abused and they say, absolutely, something has to be done to stop this,” Stewart said. “I think we live in a time where most people are highly attuned to that and highly sensitive to the abuses of government power; and we should be, and let’s diffuse some of that power instead of sitting by and letting it increase.”

He said he understand that federal agents must be capable of protecting themselves.security_freedom_tn

“But what we have observed goes far beyond providing necessary protection. When there are genuinely dangerous situations involving federal law, that’s the job of the Department of Justice, not regulatory agencies like the FDA or the Department of Education. Not only is it overkill, but having these highly-armed units within dozens of agencies is duplicative, costly, heavy handed, dangerous and destroys any sense of trust between citizens and the federal government.”

WND’s extensive reporting on such developments in police actions range from plans to put iris scanners on school buses to an elderly vet being arrested for asking public officials to speak louder at a meeting.

There also was a cop going ballistic on a wheelchair-bound man, the feds’ biosurveillance efforts to grab Americans’ medical records and a decision by the Supreme Court that greenlighted the detention of Americans.

Imperial President Obamakingobamafingerconstitution-300x204

Article collective closing

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  • paramilitary
  • SWAT Teams
  • Tyranny

Democrats to Hold Hearing on Bill to Wipe Out Almost Every Single Pro-Life Law on Abortion


National Day of Protest with dateAmerica the movie with hyperlink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/14/senate-democrats-to-hold-hearing-on-bill-to-wipe-out-every-single-pro-life-law-on-abortion/

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com

senateSenate Democrats will hold a hearing on a bill tomorrow that would wipe out

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

almost every single pro-life law on abortion.

S.1696 is deceptively titled the “Women’s Health Protection Act” even though it revokes protections for women and their unborn children. Instead, the bill would be far reaching in how it would topple pro-life laws passed in virtually every state in the country.

Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, is one of the only pro-life speakers testifying against the legislation. She tells LifeNews that four months before the mid-term congressional election, Senate Democrats are pushing into the national spotlight “the most National death rate percentagesradical pro-abortion bill ever considered by Congress.”

Tobias commented, “We believe that many voters will be appalled to learn that nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats have already cosponsored a bill to impose nationwide the extreme ideological doctrine that elective abortion must not be limited in any meaningful way, at any stage of pregnancy.”

Tobias is one of only two non-congressional witnesses who will testify against the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” (S. 1696), at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

“The bill has been heavily promoted by pro-abortion activist groups since its introduction last November, although it has been largely ignored by the mainstream news media. The measure has 35 Senate cosponsors, all Democrats, including nine of the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. The chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.), has been designated to chair the hearing,” NRLC tells LifeNews.

NRLC adds:

The bill is an updated and expanded version of the old “Freedom of Choice Act” that was championed by Eagle EggsBarack Obama when he was a senator. The new bill would invalidate nearly all existing state limitations on abortion, and prohibit states from adopting new limitations in the future, including various types of laws specifically upheld as constitutionally permissible by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Among the laws that the bill would nullify are requirements to provide women seeking abortion with specific information on their unborn child and on alternatives to abortion, laws providing reflection periods (waiting periods), laws allowing medical professionals to opt out of providing abortions, laws limiting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians, bans on elective abortion after 20 weeks, meaningful limits on abortion after viability, and bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection. These laws generally have broad public support in the states in which they are enacted, including support from substantial majorities of women.

Ki;lling a baby with poisonThe bill would also invalidate most previously enacted federal limits on abortion, including federal conscience protection laws and most, if not all, limits on government funding of abortion.

In her testimony, Tobias will call on Senate Democrats to also allow consideration of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670), sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which has an even greater number of Senate cosponsors (41), and which duplicates legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives (H.R. 1797). The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would generally protect unborn children in the sixth month and later, by which point they are capable of experiencing great pain during abortions.

Other leading pro-life groups are also strenuously opposed to the legislation.

“Now, imagine the laws in 32 states requiring varying degrees of informed consent prior to A Third of our generationan abortion invalidated overnight.  Twenty laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion – gone,” says Bill Saunders of Americans United for Life. “Twenty-nine state laws requiring abortion clinics to meet some degree of safety standards—gone.  Other abortion bans, admitting privileges requirements, regulations on abortion-inducing drugs, ultrasound requirements, and limitations on the use of public funds and facilities for abortions and abortion training–all gone.”

“Imagine the vast majority of pro-life laws wiped out with the enactment of a single piece of federal legislation.  That is the purpose behind S. 1696,” Saunders adds.

ACTION: Contact your senators and urge STRONG opposition to the bill.

Article collective closing

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Democrats to wipe out Pro-Life Laws
  • Tyranny

Democrats File Bill to “Overturn” Supreme Court Decision Protecting Hobby Lobby


National Day of Protest with datehttp://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/09/democrats-file-bill-to-overturn-supreme-court-decision-protecting-hobby-lobby/

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/9/14America the movie with hyperlink

As promised, Senate Democrats filed legislation today to “overturn” the Supreme Court’s decision protecting Hobby Lobby and other companies from being forced to comply with the HHS mandate that compels them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare. The high court issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate “substantially burdens the exercise of religion” and that HHS didn’t use the “least restrictive means” to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.hobbylobby6

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

Now, Senate Democrats want to change the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a way that would force companies to pay for birth control, contraception and those abortion-causing drugs.scotus decision

Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), both abortion advocates, are behind the new legislation and Truth The New Hate Speechthey said, “The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act would ban employers from refusing to provide health coverage — including contraceptive coverage — guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.”

“After five justices decided last week that an employer’s personal views can interfere with women’s access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,” Murray said. “This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decisions, about their own health care and their own bodies.”

life

Not one Senate Republican has signed on to the legislation, which pro-life groups will undoubtedly strenuously oppose. House Republicans will not take up the bill, making it so the legislation will not reach President Barack Obama, an abortion advocate who would sign it into law.

In their ruling, the Supreme Court indicated Congress could change the law to require businesses t pay for the birth control and abortion drugs.

“There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives,” the opinion concluded.

“The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs,” read the opinion.

muslim

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

But, Americans oppose the HHS mandate and its pro-abortion requirements.

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s decision this week that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.

“Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs,” the poling firm reports about its new national survey.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free National death rate percentagescontraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate

 

 

Article collective closing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Democrats
  • HHS Mandate
  • Leftist/Marxist/Socialist ideologies
  • ObamaCare
  • SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision
  • Tyranny

Power Wedgie for All Who Call U.S. a Democracy!


Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/07/power-wedgie-call-u-s-democracy/#zEGsfLKdi9wlXMEk.99

Posted by Christy “Rants” on Jul 7, 2014

Democracy_Republic_Branco

I’m a huge fan of retired radio talk show host, Neal Boortz. I always loved how he fearlessly defended the Constitution and the principles of America the movie with hyperlinkliberty while unapologetically expressing exactly what was on his mind at any given moment. The “talkmaster”, as he referred to himself, seemed to be an equal opportunity offender and that made his show more edgy and entertaining. I loved it…even on the rare occasions that I was the one he was offending. Boortz still broadcasts a daily rant on his former flagship station, Atlanta’s WSB. So, when his July 3rd rant dealt with the subject of democracy, I thought it was particularly timely considering that it is a term that is constantly thrown around by politicians, pundits and members of the media when referring to the US system of government.

In his rant, Neal Boortz reminds us that “Democracy means majority rule — what the majority wants the majority gets. A constitutional republic operates on the rule of law, not the demands of the mob”. Many would no doubt wonder what is so wrong with a government by majority rule? On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” We have a population that is so braindead, (thanks, in part, to the government education system), that many of the average idiots on the street do not even know that Joe Biden is the Vice President. Frankly, that is a fact that I wish I could forget as well, but I digress.

When people are so woefully ignorant, do we really want them in charge of creating policy that affects all of us? Although many consider democracy to be an American ideal, the founding fathers were very clear in their opposition to it, which is why they constructed a system that

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

would protect us from ourselves.

John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

Boortz also poses a hypothetical scenario in which the government seizes all bank accounts over $50,000, and how easy it would be to gain public support for such an act, despite the illegality of it. We have already seen a degree of this example play out. I think we all know this guy:

joe

Tyrant ObamaImmediately after this exchange, Barack Obama’s sycophants sicced all kinds of scrutiny upon this average American Joe who dared to question the anointed one. Not only do we have a right to practice dissent, we have an obligation. Even Hillary Clinton in all of her shrillness, said “We are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” That is probably the only thing that she and I agree upon. The problem is, we have a population that is too lazy and stupid to hold the our leaders accountable for their lawlessness, and the ruling class knows it. We had better start exercising dissent or that is going to be the end of the ballgame.

The difference between a democracy and a republic is not just a matter of semantics. This constitutional republic gives us the right to engage in speech that allows us to offend and to be offended, as speech that is innocuous needs no protection. Although, in this current thinskinned, chip-on-shoulder society, it would seem that even the most benign speech is now considered offensive. Imagine what would have happened to Neal Boortz’s career if the majority had the ability to silence speech that they found outrageous. This constitutional republic gives us the right to assemble in places like Murrieta, California, (where the tyranny of this government is currently on full display), to the point that federal riot police may be released on American citizens in the illegal immigration showdown. Imagine what our country would look like as a democracy with millions of illegals allowed to tip the scales. This constitutional republic gives us the right to bear arms, to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic…including our own government. I hope it does not come to that. These are only a few of the rights that we are guaranteed. Rights are like muscle…use them or lose them. To retain them is going to require much vigilance, but most things that are worth having require effort.

The rule of law is the framework that keeps our freedoms in place. If we start allowing that framework to be torn down beam by beam, even those who have not been paying attention will some day wonder how they ended up buried under the rubble of tyranny. If we allow this great American experiment in liberty to set into the horizon like the sun, the night that follows may be very long and very dark. Are you really prepared for that?

republic

Follow Neal Boortz on Twitter @Talkmaster.

Follow me on Twitter @ThatChristyChic.

kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204Obama tearing up the constitution

 

 

 

 

Cloward Pevin with explanation
Article collective closing

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Deception
  • Neal Boortz
  • Republic verses Democracy
  • Tyranny

Does UN Arms Trade Treaty Threaten the Second Amendment?


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.  

Does UN Arms Trade Treaty Threaten the Second Amendment? 

At a meeting to discuss gun control held at the United Nations on June 25, representatives of the global anti-gun lobby were discouraged by the U.S. Senate’s failure to ratify the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

“Unfortunately, the United States, the world’s largest arms exporter, has signed but not ratified the treaty,” said Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Security Studies Programme in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Goldring went on to lament that the U.S. Senate doesn’t seem disposed to act on approving the treaty and likely won’t “for many years.”

“You’re correct Ms. Goldring. Keep your commie hands off our guns, and your nose out of our business. GET OUT!” JB

For now, it seems Goldring’s gauge of the political climate in the Senate is accurate. In a letter sent to President Barack Obama last October, 50America the movie with hyperlink senators laid out six reasons the president should refuse to present the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to the Senate for ratification. Among the objections is the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.”

“You read that correctly. This treaty relinquishes our sovereignty to a panel of “who-knows-who”, made up of people who hate, or are jealous of America. They get to pass judgment and impose punishment on “offending” Americans. THAT’S NUTS!” JB

At the conference, held to discuss the Programme of Action (PoA) to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Goldring told lobbyists representing both sides of the issue that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations in the United States have spread lies regarding the potential effect of the Arms Trade Treaty on the right to keep and bear arms.

“The simple truth is the ATT does not affect the domestic trade in weapons in the United States. It’s a treaty about international arms transfers, not sales within the United States,” she added.

In case a reader would rather read the text of the treaty than to take the word of a UN representative, the English-language version of the Arms

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Trade Treaty can be found here. Beyond that, here are a few provisions of the treaty that would, despite Goldring’s assurances, directly and immediately impact the full expression of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.

• Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

• Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.

• Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

Goldring thinks such steps are but the first in a path that leads to “better control” of the trade of weapons. There is little doubt who would be left in control of firearms if Goldring gets her way. The United Nations, acting through domestic enforcers, would require registration of weapons, which Americans recognize as the first step toward their control and outright confiscation.

“Disarm America and invasion is easier. History is full of statements of tyrants saying the number one reason for not considering invading America is that so many of our citizens own guns and know how to use them.’

“Just in case you need another reminder; According to Jefferson himself, the number one reason for the Second Amendment is to deter “would be tyrants.” That is THE reason the Leftist/Marxist/Socialist Democrats want to disarm America. A citizenry that can’t fight back is easy to control and conquer. History is loaded with such examples. Tyranny is stopped, or slowed down when patriotic citizens are ready to lay down their lives for freedom. That requires an armed citizenry.” JB

Comming Soon 02

The right to keep and bear arms was known to our Founders as he ultimate check on the rise of tyrants. Americans jealous of this God-given right know that now is the time to reject the UN’s attempts to repeal the Second Amendment and that organization is the key to safeguarding their gun rights.

For more than half a century, The John Birch Society has offered patriots an opportunity to unite in the cause of preserving the Constitution and enforcing its principles of limited government. Not long after its founding, the JBS launched its project to get the United States out of the United Nations — and this project remains one of the most  timely and critical aspects of the JBS agenda.

“I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of the John Birch Society. That is the opinion of Joe A Wolverton, II J.D..” JB 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at  jwolverton@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Get UD out of the UN

 

Obama tearing up the constitution

Article collective closing

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Second Amendment
  • Tyranny
  • United Nations Gun Treaty

Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


4th Of July Past Blast

Posted on July 5, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/4th-july-past-blast/#8oIk220J4ddyaXZW.99

Once-Free-590

America the movie with hyperlink

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imperial President Obama

Article collective closing

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Freedom
  • Independence Day
  • July 4th 1776
  • July 4th 2014
  • Tyranny

Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company, Says English-Language Requirement is ‘Discrimination’


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/federal-gov-t-sues-wisconsin-company-says-english-language

July 2, 2014 – 3:05 PM

By Brittany M. Hughes

Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company Over ‘Discriminating’ English-Language Requirement

Tyrant Obama(CNSNews.com) — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes  “discrimination.”

Judicial Watch reported Tuesday that the government is accusing Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “national origin.” The government argues this includes the “linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.”

Irene Garcia, the blog editor and Spanish media liaison for Judicial Watch, called the EEOC’s accusation “ludicrous.”

“That’s ludicrous and an overreaching of government,” Garcia told CNSNews.com. “If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”

According to a news release from the EEOC, Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said the Green Bay-based company’s English requirement is based on “superficial” reasoning.

plastic

(AP Photo)

“Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called ‘English only’ rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable. But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone,” Hendrickson said in the release. “When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer’s business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin — and thus violates federal law.”

But Garcia said the ability to speak English is necessary for employees of Wisconsin Plastics, Inc., but that the employees in question “were not able to speak English at any kind of level that would be considered proficient.”

“In this case some English is necessary to communicate with supervisors and stuff like that, and the EEOC just went after this private company because some employees were being marked down for not having English skills. So that doesn’t really make sense,” she said.

Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company Over ‘Discriminating’ English-Language Requirement

(AP Photo)

Garcia added that the lawsuit, filed on June 9, is just the latest in a slew of attempts by the EEOC and the Obama administration to go after American businesses for so-called “discrimination.” She cited numerous cases in which the EEOC has accused businesses of discriminating by requiring workers to speak English, running background and criminal checks, and enforcing company-wide restrictions on head coverings, including those worn by some Muslim women.

“We’ve seen some decisions that are kind of radical that we haven’t seen in the past, under Republican or Democrat administrations,” she said, claiming the EEOC under the Obama administration is “on a roll.”

Obama tearing up the constitutionMany lawsuits brought by the EEOC subjectively twist the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include things it was never meant to cover, Garcia added.

“We’re seeing a lot of these kinds of law suits using his civil rights law to sue on behalf of all these different causes that I believe violate the spirit of the law,” Garcia explained.

“In terms of religious and language rights under the Civil Rights Act, that’s what the administration is using to offer and extend protects when really and truly there’s no place for them [in the law],” she said.

America the movie with hyperlink

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cloward Pevin with explanation

Article collective closing

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • English requirement
  • Obama Administration suing American company
  • Saul Alinsky tactics
  • Tyranny

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Royal Slap Down

Posted on July 3, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/royal-slap/#mZvmViey1rdA5ZdB.99

Decrowned-NRD-600-w-logo

America the movie with hyperlink

Trigger the Vote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Complete Message

Article collective closing

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • lawless executive orders
  • Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
  • Tyranny

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


Obama’s Freedom

Posted on July 2, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/07/obamas-freedom/#z2eSEt0UI0BSyvIg.99

Sue-590-LA

Trigger the VoteAmerica the movie with hyperlink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Article collective closing

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Executive Orders
  • Lawlessness
  • Speaker of the House John Boehner
  • Tyranny

Celebrate Independence Day By Opposing Government Tyranny


http://www.infowars.com/celebrate-independence-day-by-opposing-government-tyranny/

The mainstream media and opportunistic politicians have turned Independence Day into the opposite of what was intended

 by Ron Paul | Infowars | June 30, 2014

ron

This week Americans will enjoy Independence Day with family cookouts and fireworks. Flags will be displayed in abundance. Sadly, Trigger the Votehowever, what should be a celebration of the courage of those who risked so much to oppose tyranny will instead be turned into a celebration of government, not liberty. The mainstream media and opportunistic politicians have turned Independence Day into the opposite of what was intended.

The idea of opposing — by force if necessary — a tyrannical government has been turned into a celebration of tyrannical government itself!

The evidence is all around us.

How would the signers of the Declaration of Independence have viewed, for example, the Obama Administration’s “drone memo,” finally released last week, which claims to justify the president’s killing American citizens without charge, judge, jury, or oversight? Is this not a tyranny similar to that which our Founders opposed? And was such power concentrated in one branch of government not what inspired the rebellion against the English king in the first place?

“In care you haven’t read the Declaration of Independence recently, I’ve provided a copy for you below.” Jerry Broussard

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

The “drone memo,” released after an ACLU freedom of information request, purports to establish the president alone as the arbiter of who is or is not a terrorist subject to execution by the US government. There is no due process involved, just the determination of the president. Thus far the only American citizens killed by the president are Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenaged son, but the precedent has been established, according to the memo, that the president has the authority to kill Americans he believes are terrorists.

Even the New York Times, which generally backs whatever US administration is in power, is troubled by the White House’s legal justification to claim the authority to kill Americans. A Times editorial last week concluded that:

…the memo turns out to be a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result.

I agree with the New York Times’ conclusion that, “[t]his memo should never have taken so long to be released, and more documents must be made public. The public is still in the dark on too many vital questions.”

Coincidentally, in addition to the “drone memo” released last week, a broader study of the US use of drones was also released by the Stimson Center. The study, co-chaired by Gen. John Abizaid, former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, concluded that contrary to claims that drones help prevent wider conflicts by targeting specific individuals, the use of drones “may create a slippery slope leading to continual or wider wars.”

In fact, the study concluded, the use of drones overseas is likely counterproductive. “Civilian casualties, even if relatively few, can anger whole communities, increase anti-US sentiment and become a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations,” the study found.

Seven years ago I wrote in an Independence Day column:

Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire…I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.

On Independence Day we should remember the spirit of rebellion against tyranny that inspired our Founding Fathers to set out our experiment in liberty. We should ourselves celebrate and continue that struggle if we are to keep our republic. 

Tree of Liberty 03

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1 Georgia:    Button Gwinnett    Lyman Hall    George Walton

Column 2 North Carolina:    William Hooper    Joseph Hewes    John Penn South Carolina:    Edward Rutledge    Thomas Heyward, Jr.    Thomas Lynch, Jr.    Arthur Middleton

Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4 Pennsylvania:    Robert Morris    Benjamin Rush    Benjamin Franklin    John Morton    George Clymer    James Smith    George Taylor    James Wilson    George Ross Delaware:    Caesar Rodney    George Read    Thomas McKean

Column 5 New York:    William Floyd    Philip Livingston    Francis Lewis    Lewis Morris New Jersey:    Richard Stockton    John Witherspoon    Francis Hopkinson    John Hart    Abraham Clark

Column 6 New Hampshire:    Josiah Bartlett    William Whipple Massachusetts:    Samuel Adams    John Adams    Robert Treat Paine    Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:    Stephen Hopkins    William Ellery Connecticut:    Roger Sherman    Samuel Huntington    William Williams    Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:    Matthew Thornton

Reprinted from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Article collective closing

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Declaration of Independence
  • Freedom
  • Ron Paul
  • Tyranny

White House Press Secretary: ‘We’re Not Just Going to Sit Around and Wait’ for Congress to Write Laws


Trigger the Vote

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/26/Obama-Working-With-DHS-For-Executive-Action-On-Illegal-Immigration

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress Tuesday he would consider “every conceivable, lawful option” to deal with a continuing flood of immigrants crossing the U.S. border illegally in southern…

by Charlie Spiering 26 Jun 2014

President Obama, tired of waiting for Congress to act on immigration reform, is currently exploring ways to address issues with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the Obama administration was getting impatient with Congress.Tyranney Alert

“[W]e’re not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress,” he explained. “We’ve been waiting a year already. The president has tasked his Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson with reviewing what options are available to the president, what is at his disposal using his executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have been created by our broken immigration system.”

“In other words, MORE TYRANNY. Now he isn’t hiding it. He is proud of the fact that he thinks himself King Obama, and doers not have to answer to the Constitution.” JB

Earnest added that, although Obama was exploring executive action, it was Eagle Really on immigration reform.

“That’s why we’re trying to focus on getting that done,” he concluded.

Obama has been heavily criticized after his 2012 executive decision to defer the deportations of some young illegal immigrants, which critics argue was a key incentive for more children to cross the border illegally.

executive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comming Soon 02

Cloward Pevin with explanation

Article collective closing

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Executive Orders
  • Homeland Security
  • illegal Immigration
  • Tyranny
  • Unconstitutional

Doubling Down On Operation Choke Point


Trigger the Vote

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/06/doubling-down-on-operation-choke-point/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+NewZeal+%28New+Zeal+Blog%29

Submitted by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on June 24, 2014 – 1:22 pm EST

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
NoisyRoom.net

The sheer evil brilliance of Obama’s minions never ceases to amaze me. They are tenacious in their efforts to find ways to circumvent the Constitution and our laws – they simply never give up. There is no better example of this currently than Operation Choke Point. They were caught in 2013 targeting legal industries they did not approve of by bullying banks and other financial institutions into cutting off funds to those whose activities were not ‘acceptable.’ Specifically, the gun industry:Tyranney Alert

Last year the Department of Justice partnered with the FDIC and the Federal Trade Commission to put a whole host of industries (and their customers) on a “high-risk” list and urged banks to pay close attention to those industries as part of Operation Choke Point.

…

Storefront gun dealers, online dealers and ammunition dealers are on the “high risk” list, along with porn and other salacious products (as if they’re even comparable, the Second Amendment is constitutional right, yet it’s on the DOJ hit list). DOJ argues the program is needed to stop fraud, but that’s a lie. The program is used to target politically inconvenient industries without the permission of Congress.

And from Examiner.com:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), at the behest of Barack Obama, has declared that gun stores are “high risk” businesses. “High risk” businesses have been, up until now, a small category of supposedly disreputable businesses, which have included pornographers, sellers of drug paraphernalia, and payday lenders.

The second step in the process is Eric Holder’s Justice Department’s “Operation Choke Point.” And its function is specifically to choke off any credit or credit card processing for businesses (now including gun owners) who fall in the “high risk” category.

Comming Soon 02There has been a great deal of push back on this targeting and persecution of legitimate businesses by the Obama Administration. Conservative financiers have stepped forward to fill the breach. Undaunted and undeterred, if Obama and Co. can’t get to Conservatives through the law or the Constitution, they then turn to cutting off funding. If that doesn’t work, they turn to government agencies and regulation. If that doesn’t work, there is always Obama’s pen and paper. And so it goes until they accomplish their destructive goals.

Rand Paul has filed Amendment 3292 to H.R. 4660, which would put a hold on Eric Holder’s “Operation Choke Point.” It was added to the Science Justice Commerce Appropriations bill. However, I would wager even if slows them down, it won’t stop the Progressive/Marxists who are determined to rewrite the Second Amendment and get the guns. They are like demonic ants who swarm and single-mindedly pursue their desired outcome for the collective.

Cloward Pevin with explanationRight on cue, instead of backing up on their fascist Operation Choke Point agenda, the Left is doubling down with help of the opaque Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Under the auspices of Dodd-Frank last week, the CFPB passed a rule that was not publicized and was noticed even less. But, boy… it’s a whopper.

The rule gives the agency unprecedented power to shut down any business, no matter what the reason, at any time it wishes, through a cease-and-desist order. That’s right… no due process, no notice, no recourse… This rule literally puts any business under the thumb and at the whim of the CFPB. Once shut down, the business can’t go back into operation until they get the blessing of the government or a court ruling in their favor. By the time that happens, they’ll go under – a business could and would spend years in the judicial system. Stall and delay until death do us part.

Take a gander:

In a notice published in today’s Federal Register, the CFPB has announced that it has adopted its interim final rule on temporary cease-and-desist orders (C&Ds) without change. The final rule takes effect on July 18, 2014.

The CFPB is authorized to issue temporary C&Ds under Section 1053(c) of Dodd-Frank. That provision authorizes a temporary C&D as an adjunct to a cease-and-desist proceeding brought under Section 1053 against a covered person or service provider. A temporary C&D is effective immediately upon service and remains in effect unless modified or terminated administratively by the CFPB or set aside on judicial review.

police_stateThis follows Operation Choke Point and is an addendum to those actions. From the United States Consumer Coalition comes a stark warning to businesses and what this could mean for them:

“This unprecedented rule created by the CFPB grants the agency unilateral authority to literally shut down any business overnight. It is a doubling down of Operation Choke Point (OCP), the Administration’s program to target lawful industries by intimidating banks from doing business with them. This rule allows the CFPB to immediately issue a cease-and-desist order, which terminates all business practices — and a hearing doesn’t have to be granted for 10 days, effectively shutting down businesses for at least 10 days. This is a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ tactic of the Administration that goes against every historical notion of justice under the law in America.”

“The Administration got caught with their illegal intimidation tactics in Operation Choke Point, and now they are taking radical steps to ensure the goals of shutting down these lawful businesses are met. This is just the next step in using unaccountable agencies, with their ever-expanding agency powers, to meet the political goals of the Administration. This is a much more efficient way of shutting down lawful industries than just relying on intimidation. It is also no coincidence that this rule was released the day that CFPB Director Richard Cordray finished testifying at oversight hearings on the Hill.”

“This is a direct attack on every free-market business in America, and every single business should be alarmed. No business should have to operate while questioning daily whether or not they will be the victim of a cease-and-desist order. This will cause uncertainty on Wall Street and uncertainty in the job market, leading to a loss of jobs and devastating the families that rely on them, while irreversibly damaging the economy and threatening consumer choice.”

This is the brazen use of political-style Chicago gangster tactics and a blatant violation of Constitutional rights. The rule can be Obamas IRS Gestapoopposed and overturned through legislation and oversight, but who really believes it will be any time soon?

The document explaining this new rule, can be found here…

This is another power grab using regulation. There is not a business out there that can afford to fight this for long and the government knows it. Get on Obama’s naughty list, get a cease-and-desist order, which is actually a business death certificate. It’s a death panel for small businesses and entrepreneurs if you are of the wrong political stripe. What do you want to bet that among the first casualties of this monstrosity will be gun organizations? Closely followed by Tea Party aligned businesses.

How much more will Americans take before saying enough? This has gone way beyond political differences and annoyance now. Hundreds of millions out there are now thoroughly pissed off – stopping them from feeding their families will make it explosive. Doubling down on Operation Choke Point may just strangle the Republic

Tree of Liberty 03

Article collective closing

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideologies
  • Obama Administration
  • Operation Choke Point
  • opression
  • Tyranny

Government Bans Creationism in Schools


http://lastresistance.com/6219/government-bans-creationism-schools/#pOZS2XT4pAXipbd4.99

Posted By Onan Coca on Jun 23, 2014

evolutionThe United Kingdom, our closest ally and oldest friend, is continuing to move towards Trigger the Votea godless, secular society. They are considering forcing churches to perform gay marriages, they are arresting Christians for speaking against sin, and now they have banned talk of intelligent design in their schools. Soon there will be nothing left to remind us that Britain was once leader of the Christian world. What has happened to the nation that once sent more Christian missionaries out to the world than any other? Can we really call a godless United Kingdom our friend?

————————————————————–

Schools in the United Kingdom are banned from teaching creationism following a clarification of regulations released by the UK government

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

last week.

The new documents make plain that any school receiving public funds, which includes many church-run schools, will violate the Funding Agreement with the government if it teaches creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to the theory of evolution. In addition, schools are required to teach evolution as the current scientific consensus regarding the origin of Earth’s many species.

Creationism Debate“The parties further recognize that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school,” the government’s new documents say.

Elsewhere, creationism is defined as “any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution.” Such theories, the agreements say, are roundly rejected by today’s scientists.

“It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor Good people who don't standdoes it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory,” the government declares.

Creationism may be brought up when studying religion, but instructors may never present it as a scientific alternative to evolution.

A 2012 poll by AngusReid found that only 17 percent of Britons believed humans were created by God in their original form within the last 10,000 years, while 69 percent believe humans arose through millions of years of evolution. The same poll found that only 30 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution while 51 percent believe humans were created in the last 10,000 years.

The announcement is a win for the British Humanist Association, which has been running a “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” campaign since 2011.

“We believe that this means that the objectives of the campaign are largely met. We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue,” the organization’s head of public affairs Pavan Dhaliwal said in a statement.

The UK’s decisive prohibition is in stark contrast to the United States. While the Supreme Court has abolished bans on teaching evolution as well as laws requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution, private schools have extensive leeway in teaching science and many state legislatures have battles over laws affording varying degrees of protection to public school teachers who wish to question evolution.

As recently as this March, Oklahoma’s House advanced a bill by a wide margin that if enacted would provide protections for science teachers to criticize Darwinian theory.

By Blake Neff from the Daily Caller News FoundationVOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • England
  • godless nation
  • government schools
  • Tyranny

The solution to everything: slavery to the State (A Sarcasm)


http://www.infowars.com/the-solution-to-everything-slavery-to-the-state/

Government and mega-corporations work hand in hand.

The solution to everything: slavery to the State

by Jon Rappoport | Infowars.com | June 17, 2014

Let me clarify that. Slavery to the corporate State. Government and mega-corporations work hand in hand.

The incurably naïve believe the State is beneficent. The government is kind. The government knows what to do. The government will solve

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

society’s ills if we let it.

Of course, the government, in the form of NSA, is spying on everybody all the time—but you see, that’s not really the government. It’s a rogue element.

Sure it is. And rainbows will appear at any moment and the people of Earth will experience a galactic frequency that eradicates all impulses toward conflict.

To put it another way, people see what they want to see.

“Ahem, when I say ‘government,’ I don’t mean the CIA or the Pentagon or the FDA or the President’s national security team, or fraudulent federal scientists, or the whole lot of venal people in Congress, or corrupt prosecutors and judges or invasive bureaucrats or paper-pushing money-sucking desk jockeys.”

Of course not. Government is an idea in the mind of God.

And when you think about it, the NSA watches over us to make sure we stay on the path of righteousness. It’s absurd to be suspicious of the State. The authors of the Constitution, who tried to limit central authority, were a bunch of paranoids.

We need more government, not less.

Here are quotes from George Orwell. In case there is any doubt, he is describing aspects of the State:

  • “As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are ‘only doing their duty’, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life.” (The Lion and the Unicorn, 1941)
  • “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.” (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
  • “A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then, again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revaluation of prominent historical figures.” (The Prevention of Literature, 1946)
  • “But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.” (1984, chapter 4)
  • “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” (1984, chapter 5)

ObamaFedoraBut you see, these are all old Orwell remarks. Now we have a different kind of State. It’s…government. Yes. The State isn’t government. Aha. The State exists in places other than America. In America, we have government. Yes, that’s right. Two different animals. One is repressive, and the other is earnest. (More rainbows for the sentimentalists.)

Here are quotes about the State from Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World:

  • “Till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too—all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides—made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!” (Chapter 2)
  • “Every one belongs to every one else.” (Chapter 3)
  • “Mother, monogamy, romance. High spurts the fountain; fierce and foamy the wild jet. The urge has but a single outlet. My love, my baby. No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable.” (Chapter 3)
  • “Everyone works for every one else.” (Chapter 5)
  • “Don’t you wish you were free, Lenina?”
    “I don’t know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody’s happy nowadays.”
    He laughed, “Yes, ‘Everybody’s happy nowadays.’ We begin giving the children that at five. But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else’s way.”
    “I don’t know what you mean,” she repeated. (Chapter 6)

But again, Huxley’s remarks are about the aspirations and victories of the State, which doesn’t exist in America. Never has.

In America, we have a fluid and flexible government, which tries to respond to the people’s needs. Of course. Just ask Elizabeth Warren or Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, or the ghost of Richard Nixon. Ask the heads of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont. Google, Facebook, Microsoft.

There are “repressive States” in Europe, Asia, and Africa, but that is a foreign phenomenon.

Rebelling against the State? Not here. Here we merge with the government and help it and encourage it. Besides, we’ve recently learned—and Truth The New Hate Speechthis is a revelation—that rebelling is very likely a terrorist act. Well, that settles that.

We’re all in this together. Even if the “we” and the “this” and the “together” seem to require some further clarification, rest assured it will be forthcoming. At the right time.

The government understands time (and also space). It arranges them. Someone has to.

The government is not the State, the government is not the State.

This post originally appeared at www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Article collective closing

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • governing
  • government
  • Leftist ideology
  • Marxism
  • repressive
  • Socialism
  • state
  • Tyranny

Marine watchdog: VA deaths actually ‘in thousands’


Marine watchdog: VA deaths actually ‘in thousands’

‘It was all deliberate, and it was all in the name of an almighty dollar’

Published: 20 hours ago

author-image
Greg Corombos
Greg Corombos is news director for Radio America.

Evidence of dozens of U.S. veterans dying as they waited months for appointments and treatment are just the tip of the iceberg – and the real number of deaths could be in the thousands – according to a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who closely follows the issue.

Jessie Jane Duff spent 20 years in the Marines, rising to the rank of gunnery sergeant. She is now on the organizing committee at Concerned Veterans for America. While the government is essentially admitting to about 40 deaths in Phoenix due to long waits and dozens more facilities are under investigation, Duff said the real number of veteran deaths due to the VA bureaucracy in recent years is exponentially higher.

“Yes, I do estimate it’s in the thousands,” she said. “Let’s go to the backlog that they had. Fifty-three veterans died a day just waiting on their benefits in 2011. The VA itself has those numbers. We’re talking about egregious mismanagement, a culture of corruption that was allowing all these executives to give the impression that they had 14 days of waiting time, not months and months of waiting time, so they could get bonuses. So I expect it will be several hundred, if not thousands.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Jessie Jane Duff:

 wnd

Duff said another reason the numbers are likely to soar is because of systemic bureaucracy that grinds the system to a crawl.

“In Albuquerque, New Mexico, veterans were waiting over four months with gangrene, heart disease, brain tumors. I didn’t even know you could wait that long with any of those predicaments. In Harlingen, Texas, in 2010, they decided that men had to come back with three screenings that came out positive before they could get in for a colonoscopy. By that time, it was a Stage Four cancer,” said Duff, who elaborated further on some of the red tape veterans are forced to navigate in Albuquerque.

“It came out that they had eight cardiologists on staff. But only three would work a day, and they would see only two patients per day. I’m not sure if that was two patients per cardiologist or two total. Regardless, the report I read determined that they were seeing in a week what most medical facilities could see in two days,” she said.

Duff said a final death count may prove difficult since many vets ultimately gave up on the VA system and sought care in the private sector. Duff said the most troubling aspect of this story is not just incompetent mismanagement but the blatant deceit perpetrated by VA officials around the nation.

“What disappoints me the most out of this is that it was deliberate. I used to think it was just mismanagement. I’ve been reporting on mismanagement for the past year. Now I realize it was all deliberate and it was all in the name of an almighty dollar,” she said. “I’m so shocked and saddened to know that executives at the highest level were training their employees to hide numbers, training their employees to make it look like veterans were only waiting 14 days.”

Duff added, “They were not realizing the reality nor did they care about the reality that this was going to result in many of these veterans’ deaths. And we’re talking often about our Vietnam era and older. Many of those men are not in a position where they can heal quickly and go without medical care for sustained periods of time.

“It’s tragic that these executives became so removed, so removed from the very veterans they were helping that they never looked in the eyes of these family members or went to one of the funerals or watched the pain and suffering that these men went through.”

Federal spending on veterans’ health care is up significantly in the Obama administration, and the president vowed last week to fight for as much additional money as needed to fix the system. That approach to the problem leaves Duff incensed.

“Oh please. I just want to scream when I hear somebody say, ‘Let’s slap more money onto it,’” Duff said. “They have a $150 billion budget. They requested $160 billion for the next fiscal year. They’ve never been denied anything from the Senate or the House, as far as their budget goes. Thirty-nine percent is going to medical costs. Thirty-nine (percent) of the $150 billion.”

Duff reports that 52 percent of taxpayers dollars spent at the Phoenix VA went to administrative costs, including the purchase of expensive office furniture. Another six million was spent on a sparsely attended national conference in Orlando, Florida.

“They’ve wasted thousands and thousands and millions of dollars,” she said. “The money is simply being mismanaged.”

She is also seething at Senate Democrats for blocking the VA Accountability Act, which easily passed the House and would give the secretary of Veterans’ Affairs. However, GOP attempts to approve the plan in the Senate were blocked by Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.

“Sanders has another bill of his own, another $20 billion in a pork-funded bill that he’s trying to get through the Senate. He used two false arguments. His first false argument is we need time to review the bill. It’s a three-page bill, 27 lines, Bernie. How slow do you need to read?”

Duff explained, “The second false argument is that he said this would give a greater opportunity when we change administrations for executives to be fired and that would be unfair. That’s another false argument. The Department of Defense has this authority to fire executives. This was in place in several previous administrations. Secretary (Robert) Gates used it during the Walter Reed scandal in 2007. We have heard of no executives being fired when the administrations changed so that is a false and ridiculous argument.”

She said executives would still have the right to appeal their termination, so punitive firings would be very difficult. Duff said the case of Sharon Helman is the perfect example of why reform is needed.

Helman deliberately submitted false information on the number of veteran suicides. Instead of being fired, she was promoted to director of the Phoenix VA, site of the initial reports of falsified wait lists for veterans.

With all of the promises of reform flowing out of Washington, when will America know if real progress is being made?

“We have over a quarter-million veterans who are appealing their claims. I want to see where they start getting a very solid ratio of when they grant a claim, it’s not being appealed,” Duff said. “That tells me you’re giving a quality assessment to the person who is making the claim. We’re going to see our veteran suicides drop. Right now, 22 vets a day are killing themselves due to mental health issues. Often there is a huge delay of up to three weeks getting in for a mental health exam within the VA. We’ll see that drop.”

“We will also see a greater quality in care. I expect that they’ll start serving these veterans and find out how long they’ve been getting care. And I expect the Senate and the House to be monitoring this a hell of a lot closer than they’ve been. Sadly, they’ve all gotten letters from veterans complaining about the VA, but it wasn’t until Phoenix that we heard them do anything about it.”

Complete MessageSorry YetVOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Deliberate
  • denied treatment
  • executive bonuses
  • Korean War Vets
  • thousands died
  • Tyranny
  • unaccountable
  • VA
  • Veteran's Affairs Controversy
  • Viet Nam Vets

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


The Cost

Posted on June 4, 2014

http://conservativebyte.com/2014/06/cost/#gUVKU0g77UBFwCrq.99

The-Cost-LA-590Remember

Community Organizer TwoSorry YetVOTE 02

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • deserter Bergdhal
  • failure
  • future deaths
  • lies
  • Marxist
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny
  • unlawful

Inside the Ring: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/#ixzz33Eu8Lufd

President Barack Obama salutes military service members while watching the inaugural parade from the reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama salutes military service members while watching the inaugural parade from the reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

 By Bill Gertz

The Washington Times

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.

The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

“Who owns the definitions of what “unexpected civil disturbances” are? How big is “large scale”, and who owns that definition?” JB

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

“Who owns the definition of “protect the federal property or functions”? What are those definitions?” JB

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.

The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf.

Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.

“….undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts…”

police_state

Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture (WHY?), the Railroad Retirement Board (WHY?),, the Tennessee Valley Authority (WHY?),, the Office of Personnel Management (WHY?),, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (WHY?),, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (WHY?), and the Education Department (WHY?),.

“What does any of the above organizations have to do with National Security or keeping the peace? Sound a little like Nazi Germany?” JB

Comming Soon 02

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment. (WHY?),

President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”

HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE

The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.

The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.

Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

“Is that because they then can be easily manipulated without notice of the media or government watchdog groups? Does this give President Obama more tyrannical, unconstitutional control?” JB

Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.

(WHY?),

The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.

“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.

“Or Americans that vehemently disagree with President Obama’s policies? Does this make all the definitions we’ve been asking for, about to be made up as we go along?” JB

In addition to adding funds, the bill language requires the ONA to study alternative U.S. defense and deterrence strategies related to the space warfare programs of both countries. (WHY?)

China is developing advanced missiles capable of shooting down satellites in low and high earth orbits. It also is building lasers and electronic jammers to disrupt satellites, a key U.S. strategic military advantage. Russia is said to be working on anti-satellite missiles and other space weapons.

“The committee believes the office must remain an independent organization within the department, reporting directly to the secretary,” the report said.

Mr. Marshall, sometimes referred to as the Pentagon’s “Yoda,” after the Star Wars character, has come under fire from opponents in the Really 01administration, who say he is too independent and not aligned with the administration’s soft-line defense policies.

The ONA is known for its extensive use of contractors and lack of producing specific overall net assessments of future warfare challenges, as required by the office’s charter.

One example of the ONA’s unconventional thinking was the recent contractor report “China: The Three Warfares,” which revealed Beijing’s extensive use of political warfare against the United States, including psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare.

“‘The Three Warfares’ is a dynamic, three-dimensional, war-fighting process that constitutes war by other means,” the report says.

A Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.

NO DENNIS RODMAN DEFENSE

Navy Adm. James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that the Pentagon is deploying more and higher-quality missile defenses to counter potential nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran.

“This is about ensuring we can deny the objectives of any insecure authoritarian state that believes acquisition of deliverable weapons of mass destruction is key to the preservation of its regime,” Adm. Winnefeld said in a speech to the Atlantic Council. “The number of states trying to achieve that capability is growing, not shrinking, with our principal current concern being North Korea, because they are closest in terms of capability, followed by Iran.”

He added that missile defenses are needed “because we’re not betting on Dennis Rodman as our deterrent against a future North Korean ICBM threat.”

He was referring to the heavily tattooed and pierced former NBA star, who has traveled to North Korea as a guest of leader Kim Jong-un. Mr. Rodman calls the dictator his “friend.”

“A robust and capable missile defense is our best bet to defend the United States from such an attack and is, in my view, our No. 1 missile defense priority,” Adm. Winnefeld said.

North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. It recently threatened to conduct a fourth nuclear test, and analysts say signs from the closed communist state suggest the North Koreans may test a missile warhead.

• Contact Bill Gertz at @BillGertz

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Dec. 29
  • Directive No. 3025.18
  • Office of Net Assessment (ONA)
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny

Report: Directive Details Obama’s Plan to Use Military Force Against Americans within the U.S.


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/29/report-directive-details-obamas-plan-to-use-military-force-against-americans-within-the-u-s/

May 29, 2014 By Jennifer Burke

Obama-Angry
On July 2, 2008, then candidate Barack Obama made a shocking statement that caused alarms of concern to go off for many Americans around the country.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Reports of government agencies, from the Postal Service to the EPA and BLM, buying large amounts of high-powered ammunition fed fuel to the fire of wondering how Obama would use such a force. The BLM invasion of the Cliven Bundy Ranch gave some insight into that question. Now, according to a report by the Washington Times, Obama not only has government agencies developing their own police forces, but he has a directive issued on December 29, 2010 that gives him the power to use military force against American civilians in the United States.

“One more time; “…..he has a directive issued on December 29, 2010 that gives him the power to use military force against American civilians in the United States.” JB

Comming Soon 02

This directive, No. 3025.18, is called the “Defense Support of Civil Authorities.” It not only gives Obama the power to use the force of Are You Considered a terroristthe military against Americans, but also says that federal military commanders have such authority if prior authorization by the president is not possible. Such action can be taken during times deemed to be ‘civil unrest.’

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

police_stateThis directive also gives the secretary of defense the authorization to use unarmed drones, but bans drones that can fire missiles.

The Washington Times continues their report by addressing the militarization of government agencies under the Obama regime and the impact of that on civil liberties. 

Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counter narcotics efforts. 

Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include;

  • the Department of Agriculture,
  • the Railroad Retirement Board,
  • the Tennessee Valley Authority,
  • the Office of Personnel Management,
  • the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
  • the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • and the Education Department.

The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

The detailing of this directive that was put into effect in 2010 will bring into question the validity of two claims that were made last year that were written off by many as ‘conspiracy theories.’ The first was the allegation, as reported by The Blaze;

  • that Obama was purging the military of commanders who didn’t agree with his ideology.
  • The second, which actually ties into the first, was the claim that the litmus test for which military leaders would be allowed to stay was whether or not they would fire on citizens.
  • According to Dr. Jim Garrow, an author and humanitarian, those who would not agree to fire on American citizens were let go.

Comming Soon 02

While those reports and allegations were written off as untrue, this directive giving Obama the power to use military force against Americans certainly gives them more credibility.

“Follow this link No. 3025.18, and you can read the directive for yourself.” JB

Do you believe that the current administration would use military force against American citizens? Take the Official Tea Party Poll. Click HERE!30 Witnesses disappearGathering Storm

2VOTE 02

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • firing on American Citizens
  • Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideologies
  • oppression
  • Tyranny

Memorial Day: Why We Must Study War


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/25/Memorial-Day-Why-We-Must-Study-War?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+May+26%2C+2014&utm_campaign=20140526_m120620410_Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+May+26%2C+2014&utm_term=More


by Jarrett Stepman 25 May 2014

As citizens of a free country it is necessary that we acknowledge the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform that died to defend it. Civil society only survives in a world of violence and tyranny if there are rough men ready to do violence on our behalf.

Andrew Jackson, after winning the Battle of New Orleans, reminded us of the necessity of the soldier when he said our sacred liberties would be in trouble indeed if we only employ “lawyers” to defend the Constitution.

Days of memorial for those that sacrificed and died in service to their country are common in American history, stemming back to the Revolution. But the modern practice of celebrating Memorial Day as a national holiday was established after the Civil War as a way for Americans to pay tribute to their Union and Confederate dead. Some of these earliest commemorations were held at Arlington National Cemetery, which this year turns 150 years old.

However, as we look back and remember those that have died defending us we must note the famous line by philosopher George Santayana: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Modern Americans are being failed by an education system that no longer teaches about war and neglects its study to a dangerous degree.

Instruction regarding war, especially those fought by the United States, is vital for every educated citizen and not just the tiny number who now serve in the armed forces. It is important to not just respectfully mourn those lost in battle on this Memorial Day, but to understand why they fought and sacrificed.

There was a time in American history when almost every student would learn about the intricacies of American wars from a young age. In famous historian George Bancroft’s History of the United States of America, the standard history textbook in the 19th century, the battles of the American Revolution played almost more of a role than the ideas.

Bancroft focused on the sacrifice, toil, and hardship that George Washington’s troops faced and highlighted the necessity for this service to the new republic. This encouraged young Americans to join the ranks when their country called in the Civil War; they were inculcated with a belief that they owed a great debt to the previous generation for the great Constitution that protected their liberties and a duty to defend it for those that would come after. Without their sacrifices, and the service of generations of Americans, our grand experiment in liberty and government of, for, and by the people would have faded long ago.

Unfortunately, for modern American students, the “mystic chords of memory” connecting them with past defenders of liberty and the Constitution are being lost. How many today are taught about the suffering at Valley Forge, the heroism at Gettysburg’s Little Round Top, or the world-changing Invasion of Normandy that set a continent free?

Worse, students are left with a serious lack of insight into human nature and will be unprepared when war finally comes.

Thomas K. Lindsey, director at the Center for Higher Education at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, recently wrote about the frightening lack of military history education at American universities. “If the seeds of war are planted in human nature, the study of human nature, the humanities, needs to take account of it. For this reason, American history courses had always — up until recently — offered military-history courses,” he continued. “No more: Observers have noted an alarming decline in military-history courses in university history departments nationally.”

Leftist Revisionist

by WhatDidYouSay.org

This lack of military history teaching is bad at the primary and secondary levels of education, but even worse at the university level where any focus on war itself is intentionally diminished. In an article by military historian Victor Davis Hanson he explains the results of a 2004 survey of the top 25 U.S. history departments:

When war does show up on university syllabi, it’s often about the race, class, and gender of combatants and wartime civilians. So a class on the Civil War will focus on the Underground Railroad and Reconstruction, not on Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. One on World War II might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter, and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadalcanal and Midway.

Great works on war like Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, Stephen Crane’s Red Badge of Courage, and Carl Von Clausewitz’s On War are now utterly neglected.

The burying of military history in modern academia may be a result of the generally anti-war views on college campuses, or a result of it not fitting in with the overall ideological agenda, but regardless of the specific excuse, it is a great disservice to those who want to be educated about the consequences of human nature. Citizens must have insight in how to avoid unnecessary wars and win necessary ones. Hanson had it right when he said: “A wartime public illiterate about the conflicts of the past can easily find itself paralyzed in the acrimony of the present. Without standards of historical comparison, it will prove ill equipped to make informed judgments.”

So, this Memorial Day it is important for Americans to re-learn the lessons of war, especially as the conflict in Ukraine continues to heat up and great powers like Russia and China become increasingly belligerent. We serve the honored dead by becoming informed about our nation’s great and small conflicts, and serve ourselves by cultivating a stronger understanding of human nature and the horrors of war, which will be priceless when, inevitably, the next battle comes.

HeartTree of Liberty 03Comming Soon 02

VOTE 02

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Learning war
  • Leftist history revisionist
  • Marxist
  • Saul Alinsky tactics
  • Tyranny

Democrats to GOP: You Have Until August to Pass Amnesty… or Else


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/23/democrats-to-gop-you-have-until-august-to-pass-amnesty-or-else/

May 23, 2014 By TPNN

Schumer

Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer. The face of Leftist arrogance.

 
Clearly violating the separation of powers between the governmental branches, Democrat lawmakers have instructed Speaker of the House John Boehner to pass immigration reform before August, but have also issued a looming ultimatum of dubious legality; Boehner is to pass the legislation or else President Obama will act unilaterally. Tyranney Alert

Furthermore, the Democrats have maintained that they will not accept incremental reforms, but are demanding a thorough immigration reform package by August… or else.

“Here is the bottom line,” Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer said. “They have about a six-week window, from June 10 after the last Republican primary till the August recess. If they don’t pass immigration reform then, the president will have no choice but to act on his own.” 

“I don’t know about you, but I do not respond well when being threatened. Why would Speaker of the House John Boehner accept it? The utter arrogance that the Left now have. They no longer are hiding their tyrannical foundations. Now it’s no longer any effort to find points of agreement. Now it is tyrannical threats and ultimatums.” JB

Resist AmnestyOf course, the assertion that the president would have “no choice but to act on his own” is a little misleading. For example, the president could accept that the sole purpose of the legislative body is not to advance his legislative agenda and could respect the boundaries of his office.
“We are not going to go along with minor fixes that fail to address the huge systematic problems of our immigration system today,” Schumer continued.
While Democrats point to Republicans as the cause of delay on immigration reform, Speaker Boehner has continually reiterated a point that appears obvious to conservatives: President Obama simply cannot be trusted to enforce our laws. Any legislation passed that includes an ounce of enforcement mandates would almost certainly be selectively enforced at a time when the Obama Administration has become increasingly selective with what laws they will, or will not, enforce.

In a Republic such as ours, it is wholly inappropriate to issue ultimatums that promise unilateral action on the part of the president when the legislative body does not act in accordance with his wishes.

It seems Democrats will have a tough time convincing Republicans that President Obama respects the rule of law when his alternative to GOP resistance is unilateral tyranny.
Community Organizer TwoVOTE 02

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Executive Orders
  • Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Communist ideology
  • looming ultimatum of dubious legality
  • Saul Alinsky
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer
  • Speaker of the House John Boehner
  • threat
  • Tyranny

TSA to Purchase 24 Million Rounds of “Duty” Ammunition


http://www.infowars.com/tsa-to-purchase-24-million-rounds-of-duty-ammunition/

Feds preparing to arm TSA workers?

TSA to Purchase 24 Million Rounds of "Duty" Ammunition

by Paul Joseph Watson | May 22, 2014

The TSA has issued a solicitation requesting 24 million rounds of .357 SIG “duty ammunition” over a five year period, prompting fresh questions as to whether the federal agency is planning to arm its workers.

“Estimated quantity is approximately 4,800,000 rounds of .357 Sig duty ammunition per year, totaling 24,000,000 over the life of the contract,” states the solicitation, posted on FedBizOpps, which adds that the ammo is for use at “DHS component locations nationwide.”

The ammo purchase is likely to spark new questions about whether the Department of Homeland Security is preparing to arm TSA agents, an idea that has been pushed by the TSA’s union, the American Federation of Government Employees, but has received scant support elsewhere.

Although Federal Air Marshals acting under the jurisdiction of the TSA are currently armed, other indications, such as the hiring of shooting ranges near airports, suggests the federal government could be preparing to arm some TSA workers. There are only 4,000 Federal Air Marshals currently operating in the United States, a figure that doesn’t appear to match with the 4.8 million rounds a year the TSA is set to purchase under this solicitation alone.

The solicitation is filed under the auspices of the TSA and not another DHS agency such as Customs and Border Patrol.

“Outside of certain governmental organizations like the Federal Air Marshals, and the Secret Service, .357 Sig ammo is not a vastly popular round. It is basically a .40 caliber case necked down to accept a 9mm bullet. Who knows what it means, other than that a relatively small number of federal agents are expecting to do a whole hell of a lot of shooting, or they are expecting the ammo market to dry up for an extend period time,” notes one blog.

police_stateAn even more disturbing scenario would see armed DHS agents patrolling the streets of major cities like Chicago, as Jesse Jackson called for last year.

Fears that large ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security may be linked to preparations for domestic unrest have raged over the past two years, although a recent Government Accountability Office investigation downplayed the issue as nothing out of the ordinary.

Another noteworthy aspect to the story is that the Department of Homeland Security has stopped referring to such ammunition as “hollow point,” and is now referring to it as “duty” ammunition.

“Only one reason for “HOLLOW POINT” ammo; You want the target to go down immediately with the highest amount of internal damage. This round is NEVER used for target practice. Only use is for killing. Have you forgotten about Candidate Obama expressing his desire to raise a “Domestic” Army? There could be no other explanation.” JB

One of the DHS’ explanations as to why it has been making ammo purchases in bulk quantities is in order to save money. However, previous solicitations for training ammunition requested “hollow point” rounds, which are not suitable for training and are more expensive than full metal jacket rounds.

More recently the DHS issued a solicitation for over 141,00 rounds of sniper ammunition, bullets known commercially as “Zombie Max,” a reference to their high power.

“HMMMMM. Why would Homeland Security need this type of SNIPPER round? Socialism anyone?” JB

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

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com

Tyranney Alert

Comming Soon 02

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Department of Homeland Security
  • hollow point round
  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • snipper ammunition
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny

Liberals are Not Pro-Choice- They are No Choice


http://patriotupdate.com/articles/liberals-pro-choice-choice/#HkQmVbwKvZv8c70j.99

Written on Monday, May 19, 2014 by David L. Goetsch

choic

Choice is a sacred word among liberals. They use it all the time, and when they say the word it is with practiced reverence. But there is a problem with the self-proclaimed hallowed ground on which liberals stand when it comes choice; that ground is contaminated by insincerity, distortion, and lies. The left’s belief in choice is a carefully manufactured myth. To put an appropriately fine point on it, when liberals pontificate about the importance of choice, they are lying. The only choice they truly want people to have is the choice to abort innocent unborn babies. Other than abortion, liberals are adamantly opposed to giving Americans freedom of choice in their daily lives. Let’s consider some examples of how liberals oppose choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not oppose giving parents the choice to place their children in charter schools; something they do vociferously. But self-protective teachers’ unions whose leaders know that under-performing public schools cannot stand up to the competition of charter schools use their political clout to eliminate them as an option. In other words, liberals use political power to ensure that parents have no choice when it comes to the education of their children. So much for choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not attack black Americans who choose independence over government assistance, nor would they attack black Americans who choose conservatism over liberalism. Let a black American choose to identify himself on the basis of something other than race and that individual becomes a pariah among liberals. Let a successful black American choose to publically state that government dependence is just another way to keep the minority races in chains and he will be labeled a traitor or an Uncle Tom. Let a black American choose to join the Republican Party and the attacks on him will be unmerciful and unrelenting. So much for choice.Tyranney Alert

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not put so much effort into taking away the choice Americans are given by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment allows Americans to decide for themselves whether they wish to be armed or not. Liberals have already been successful in making the choice to own guns more difficult than the Second Amendment suggests it should be. Apparently the only people liberals want to have freedom of choice when it comes to guns are the criminals who cause all of the gun-related problems liberals are always wringing their hands about. No law or regulation enacted or proposed by liberals has done anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The only people punished by gun laws are law-abiding citizens. So much for choice.

Complete MessageIf liberals believed in choice, they would not have passed and enacted healthcare legislation that gives Americans no choice concerning health insurance. The misnamed Affordable Care Act was passed out of Congress without even a hint of support from Republicans and over the objections of a few thinking Democrats. Prior to passage of the AFA, Americans could choose what type of health insurance to buy and what types of coverage the insurance would provide. In fact, they could even choose to do without health insurance, which many healthy younger people did. Not anymore. Obamacare took away an American’s choice when it comes to health insurance. So much for choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not have passed regulations that require gasoline to contain ethanol. In the old days Americans could pull into a gas station and choose between regular, mid-grade, and high-test gasoline. Now, no matter what grade of gasoline you choose it is likely to contain ethanol courtesy of the federal government. Despite the fact that scientists have known for some time that ethanol is not the environmentally safe alternative advocates claim it to be, liberals still oppose giving Americans freedom of choice when it comes to the gasoline they use in their cars, trucks, and gasoline powered equipment. So much for choice.

If liberals really believed in choice, they would not tell Americans what size soft drinks they are allowed to purchase, what type of toilet they have to buy, or what type of light bulbs they must use. This article has touched on only a few choices liberals have taken away from Americans; there are many, many more. Not only that, every day bureaucrats in the federal government are creating new and more burdensome regulations that will rob us of additional choices. Liberals make a lot of noise about being pro-choice but the facts belie their hypocritical claim. The truth is, liberals want you to be able to murder an innocent unborn baby and that is about it. As to other choices in your life, they will make them for you. So much for choice.

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Freedom
  • Liberals
  • Pro Choice
  • resrticted choice
  • Tyranny

The Tiny Three Percent that Remains Vigilant in the Face of Tyranny


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/tiny-three-percent-remains-vigilant-face-tyranny/#E77F8tXyFzKtkqKv.99

Written by David Risselada

During the Revolutionary War against the British, it is said that only three percent of the population were involved in trying to win the nation’s freedom.  That number reflects the percentage of patriots that actually volunteered to fight. There were many others, of course, that supported the cause, and contributed in other ways, but sadly, there was a huge percentage of Colonial Americans that sat on the sidelines with no opinion on the matter. There were even those who wished to remain loyal to the British Crown. While that may be difficult for some to fathom, it is true, and in some ways we find ourselves in an eerily similar situation today.

Tree of Liberty 03

by WhatDidYouSay.org

The vast majority of Americans have absolutely no idea what is going on in this country, nor do they even care. Among these people, are those who believe in centralized authority and support causes that undermine the very freedom our forefathers fought to secure for them; a system of government, I might add, that protects their rights to do so. These people are feverishly working to replace our constitutional republic with a so called “social democracy,” which, in all honesty, is just a nicer way to say “socialism.” 

Just as it was in the late 1700’s when a brave few had the courage to declare people should be free, only a few are aware of the perils we face today. As we attempt to bring attention to the massive usurpations of power committed by our government, they attempt to demonize and ridicule us by calling us terrorists and extremists in an effort to win a public relations war.

Unfortunately, the masses are so inundated with entertainment propaganda, and have been so conditioned to just go along instead of questioning authority, that they are falling for it. Their attitudes towards the nation and the freedom our troops have fought for is contemptible, and as we face the ever encroaching grip of authoritarianism, I can’t help but feel that’s what this nation deserves because it has forsaken all that our relatives have fought and died for. No American service member ever volunteered for war, believing they were fighting for socialism folks. There are some very disturbing events occurring in our nation and in this article I am going discuss the latest developments.

Those paying attention, the tiny three percent, realize that we are rapidly becoming a militarized police state. This is one promise that President Barack Hussein Obama (the name sends a chill down my spine) has kept. He has created a civilian security force that is just as well funded, and just as powerful as the United States military by arming every single government agency. The latest to join the ranks is The United States Department of Agriculture.  They recently request of “submachine guns” with 30 round magazines and ballistic body armor.  How the majority of Americans are not alarmed by this is disturbing in and of itself, but that’s beside the point. They did not request this armament for target practice folks. You would think that liberals, and their phony quest for human rights, equality and freedom would be up in arms over this. The silence, however, is deafening. While many people may scoff in disbelief by this alarming news, or ask why the USDA would need such weapons, the reason is obvious to those paying attention, the tiny three percent.

Comming Soon 02

In Morgan County Indiana, a Sheriff Deputy inadvertently let the cat out of the bag by describing the reasons the Sheriff’s Department needs to have militarized, mine resistant vehicles.  During an interview, Sgt. Dan Downing said the department needs these vehicles because of the combat vets returning home that could use IED’s to defeat police. (Uhh, he said what?) What does that mean? 

“Did you get that lunacy? “….combat vets returning home that could use IED’s to defeat police.” Where do this get this garbage? JB

Did Sgt. Dan Downing just admit that there will be a move made against war veterans? That would be consistent with the attitude the current administration has displayed towards the nation’s defenders. Since Barack Obama has been in office, veterans have been considered a potential threat to national security.  America, pull your head out of the sand a moment and realize that only a government that seeks to undermine the very system that sustains you would consider those that have defended it a “threat to national security.”

police_state

WHATDIDYOUSAY.ORG

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, a report released in 2009 by the Obama Department of Homeland Security, calls veterans potential terrorists for several reasons, one of which is returning home to little or no economic opportunity. Why is this not something America is concerned about? It’s probably because American Idol is on tonight. As is the case with everything else, only the tiny three percent seem to give a dam.

In Mexico, one of our Marines is being held prisoner because he got lost and accidentally crossed the border. He had legally owned firearms in the trunk of his car. Mexican authorities arrested him and threw him in a jail cell, and our state department has done nothing.

This is a government that bends over backwards to accommodate illegal immigrants, many of whom have committed horrific crimes in our country. They talk down to us and act as if we should be ashamed for suggesting they follow the rule of law and secure the border. Yet, one of our combat vets is being held in a Mexican prison and they do nothing. What makes it worse is the fact that I called Congressman Jim Bridenstein’s (R-OK) office and the girl who answered the phone was completely clueless that this was even happening. On top of that, she had the nerve to talk to me as if I was rude for suggesting that perhaps she should know. What are we paying these people for? Why would anyone care about one Marine vet being held prisoner in Mexico? After all, there are more important issues like amnesty to deal with, right America? Don’t worry, the tiny three percent will speak for him.

Finally, if this isn’t enough to get you to understand just what we face, then you deserve what you get. At the latest “White Privilege conference,” speaker Amer Ahmed says that resisting jihad is racist.  America, Muslims are murdering Christians overseas, (read another instance of this here,) demanding the implementation of Sharia Law in America, and demanding that we abandon our culture while they come here and attempt to make us seem racist for opposing their radicalism.

America, if you are so blind that you cannot see where this is going, then you deserve it, period. If you are so bogged down by political correctness that you believe the people concerned about this are “Islamophobic” of “racist” then you are a fool; you are the byproduct of a system that set out to numb your minds so you wouldn’t be paying attention. 

Many of you are probably not even aware of any of this. Others will call me a radical or an extremist for discussing it. Yet, the only people, at this point, whose opinion I even care about anymore are those that have been brave enough to take a stand; those who have stood to speak the truth about what is going on. We are not radicals or terrorists. In fact, we want what you want. We want our children to be able to grow up in a prosperous America without the burden of a $17 trillion debt on their shoulders. We want to live in a world where there is peace, and people respect the opinions and rights of others.

Sadly, the system, left to us by our founders, cannot exist if the masses are not paying attention to what is happening in the nation. Freedom requires vigilance and commitment to holding those we send to represent us accountable for what they do.  We have actually reached a point where the selfish desires of the population have caused them to forsake the freedoms we once enjoyed for false promises of security, and sadly, just as Benjamin Franklin said, we are now left with neither. Don’t worry, there are people who are committed to exposing fraud and corruption, and standing for liberty in the face of tyranny, the tiny three percent.

Source

Wake up America

WHATDIDYOUSAY.ORG

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • fight for freedom
  • Liberals
  • Patriots
  • The Three Percent
  • Tyranny
Gallery

More From The “Thousand Words” File


The Conservative sex_trafficking_child_victims Rejecting Socialism Registered Dead Voters Really police_state ObamaFedora obama-communist-sc Mar 3 10 Mar 3 09 Mar 3 05 Jefferson I am driving to work Hillary Clinton George Washington regarding 2nd Amandment Gas Prices the day Obama took office Confused christian-persecution11-300x229 1 The Truth Press Ham Further from the truth Coward Clinton Obama 30 Witnesses disappear 2 Coming Events

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Written

on May 16, 2014

Scheme to bypass Electoral College quietly advances


http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/scheme-to-bypass-electoral-college-quietly-advances/#eOGsszJY084VLfBJ.99

‘National Popular Vote’ 61% of way to skirting Constitution

Published: 2 days ago

author-image
Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on Salem Talk Radio.

With little fanfare and nearly no national media attention, the National Popular Vote effort is now 61 percent of the way toward its goal of legally bypassing the Electoral College established in the U.S. Constitution.

ANOTHERTyranney Alert

Last month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the National Popular Vote, or NPV, bill, making his state the 11th jurisdiction to enact the plan. With the passage of the bill, the interstate compact now has 61 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to put it into effect.

“If this goes through, we can say goodbye to our Representative Republic. You should already know what the Leftist/Marxist/Socialist want to replace it with. Do you still think we don’t need to fight for our freedoms?” JB

The NPV campaign seeks to obtain the consent of the majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College to award electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the popular vote in each state.

Aside from New York, other states that already signed up are the heavily blue states of Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont, California and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia also has joined the pact.

The states will not be required to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner until the NPV has signed up enough states to garner 270 electoral votes.

After Cuomo’s signing of the law, the New York Post warned in an editorial the NPV effort could “undermines small-d democracy.”

The Post quoted then Sen. John F. Kennedy stating, “Direct election would break down the federal system under which states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power.”

Others have warned a national popular vote could ultimately lead to more voter fraud, arguing the Electoral College isolates the impact of such fraud to each state.

The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect the president, because they wanted to balance the power of the larger and smaller states. The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.

Now the NPV effort could change the way Americans elect the president without amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough states join through votes in their legislatures along with gubernatorial approval.

It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.

To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states agree to allot its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.

Soros funding

“How many stories pointing out the deliberate manipulation by George Soros do we have to read before we say enough? JB

The NPV effort is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group, as WND was first to report.

The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a nonprofit that boasted President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.

“All those that are shocked at the connecting between George Soros and President Obama raise your hands.” JB

The NPV is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party, WND found.

It is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy that advocates for a national popular vote for president.

“That would make us a tyrannical Democracy and bye-bye freedoms.” JB

FairVote’s website says the organization “has nurtured and supported the National Popular Vote plan to ensure that every vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is cast.”Really 01

FairVote’s executive director, Rob Richie, co-authored “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote,” a book explaining how the National Popular Vote plan would work and why he thinks the U.S. “desperately needs it.”

FairVote regularly works with advocacy leaders at the National Popular Vote organization to assist in getting legislation passed.

Richie, executive director of FairVote since he co-founded it in 1992, is also a member of the civil society committee of the Soros-led Bretton Woods Committee, which openly seeks to remake the world economy.

Richie’s book was co-authored with NPV’s founder, John R. Koza.

In a Dec. 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros, wrote that it was time to junk the Electoral College.

Soros’ Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and Democracy, where FairVote is based.

The center’s website notes the group was kick-started in 1997 with two grants – one from the Open Society and another from the Joyce Foundation.

With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation also funded the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among numerous radical groups.

Meanwhile, the NPV leadership is comprised of Democratic Party supporters.Really 01

The organization’s chairman and major funder is Koza. He was the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Scientific Games Inc., where he co-invented the rub-off instant ticket used by state lotteries.

Koza, who has reportedly pledged $12 million to NPV, previously gave tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic Party committees and liberal candidates and was an Al Gore elector in 2000, the Weekly Standard reported.

Another pledged NPV leader is Tom Golisano, founder and chairman of Paychex, the nation’s second largest payroll and human resource company. He co-founded the Independence Party of New York in 1994 and ran as the party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Golisano is a registered Republican, even though he supported John Kerry for president and gave $1 million to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

NPV’s secretary, Chris Pearson, served in the Vermont House of Representatives in 2006. In 2005, he was director of the Presidential Election Reform program at the Soros-funded FairVote.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

2

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • George Soros
  • or NPV
  • Socialist Democracy
  • The National Popular Vote
  • Tyranny

This America-Hating Communist Revolutionary Speaks at Public University; But Condi Rice Gets Banned?


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/15/this-america-hating-communist-revolutionary-speaks-at-public-university-but-condi-rice-gets-banned/

May 15, 2014 By Matthew Burke

Nehanda Imara of the All-African People's Revolutionary Party

“Capitalism is a failed system. Would you agree?” Nehanda Imara, of the exclusionary All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, reads to students at Portland State University on May 10.

“Yes!” agreed the audience, obviously full of progressive useful idiots and dupes. “Alright, I’m in good company,” gleefully chuckled the anti-American communist Imara.

“Capitalism is an evil system,” Imara begins the meat of her anti-freedom rant. “Capitalism is the root of all  evils. It is built on unjust racist, classist, sexist system off of 400 years of illegal [ineligible] slavery of African people.”

“It is militaristic terrorism on steroids,” Imara, says about economic freedom. while referring to herself as not American, but as “African or Pan-African.”

Note to Ms. Imara: Slavery unfortunately existed for thousands of years before the United States even existed, even pre-existing the birth of Christ. The United States didn’t invent slavery. But we did end it in our country and lost approximately 500,000 lives or so doing it. Slavery hasn’t existed in the United States since 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States was passed, formally outlawing the evil practice, Ms. Imara.

Where slavery does exist today, Ms. Imara, are in the Marxist “Utopias” you wish to fundamentally transform the United States into, where citizens are subjects and legal slaves to an all-powerful, all-controlling tyrannical government.

Watch this America-hating, Marxist revolutionary below if you can stand to. Then ask yourself what is this country coming to, when an admitted enemy of the U.S. Constitution is invited to speak at a public university, Portland State, in order to poison the brains of America’s next generation, but yet Condoleezza Rice is banned from speaking at Rutgers?!

WATCH BELOW:

speech
VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • exclusionary All-African People’s Revolutionary Party
  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • Nehanda Imara
  • Portland State University
  • Socialism
  • Tyranny

Schumer Blames Rep. Steve King for Blocking Immigration Reform


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-blames-rep-steve-king-blocking-immigration-reform

May 14, 2014 – 11:42 AM


By Susan Jones

schumer

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) (AP File Photo)Obamabot

 

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday named Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as the main Republican impediment to “immigration reform” in the House of Representatives.

It’s the second time in two weeks that Schumer has demonized King for opposing amnesty for 11 million people who came to this country illegally.

“It is time for the House Republican leadership to decide whether they stand with the majority of the American people and the supposed majority of their conference, or if they’re really going to let Steve King continue to dictate the policy of the Republican Party on immigration. Just to be clear, right now Steve King is winning,” Schumer said.

schumer

Schumer also set an August deadline for House Republicans to pass an immigration bill; and he said if nothing is done by then, President Obama “would be more than justified” in making “whatever changes he feels necessary” to fix the system for people who are “unfairly burdened.”

“Allow me to interpret; If you Republicans don’t go along with what we want, how we want it, and when we want it, we’ll get Emperor Obama to just change the law Himself and force our Socialist approach down your throats.” Got it” JB

In a speech on the Senate floor, Schumer said it’s been 320 days since the Senate passed an immigration reform bill, but House Republicans have done nothing except hand the gavel to “far-right extremists like Steve King.”

Schumer said Republicans must act between early June and the August recess: “If immigration reform is not passed during this window, Republicans will have to admit that Steve King controls the Republican Party platform on immigration. If nothing happens during this window, it is clear that this has occurred because Steve King calls the shots and he has won the immigration debate among the House Republicans.”Tyranney Alert

And if Republicans don’t act before the midterm election, “the president would be more than justified in acting any time after recess begins to take whatever changes he feels necessary to make our immigration system work better for those unfairly burdened by our broken laws. If House Republicans refuse to act, it is incumbent on all of us to look at all the areas where we can act administratively….”

Rep. King says he is fighting to preserve the rule of law. “Why would we reward people for breaking our laws?” he asked in April. “Rewarding law breakers produces more law breakers.”

“Rewarding law breakers produces more law breakers.” Representative Peter King (R-NY)

Resist Amnesty

King said Schumer knows that passing an amnesty bill “would destroy Republican unity and our opportunity to gain the majority in the Senate this Fall.”

VOTE 02

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Executive Orders
  • Immigration Bill
  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
  • Rule of Law
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny

Manmade climate disruption – the hype and reality


http://joeforamerica.com/2014/05/manmade-climate-disruption-hype-reality/

Posted by Paul Driessen on May 11, 2014

national climate assessment

Distractions, agendas, false realities, and policies that bring much harm but few benefits

The White House has released its latest National Climate Assessment. An 829-page report and 127-page “summary” were quickly followed by press releases, television appearances, interviews and photo ops with tornado victims – all to underscore President Obama’s central claims:

BS WARNING BS ALERT

Human-induced climate change, “once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” It is “affecting Americans right now,” disrupting their lives. The effects of “are already being felt in every corner of the United States.” Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington, maple syrup producers in Vermont, crop-growth cycles in Great Plains states “are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience.” Extreme weather events “have become more frequent and/or intense.”

It’s pretty scary sounding. It has to be.

First, it is designed to distract us from topics that the President and Democrats do not want to talk about: ObamaCare, the IRS scandals, Benghazi, a host of foreign policy failures, still horrid jobless and workforce participation rates, and an abysmal 0.1% first quarter GDP growth rate that hearkens back to the Great Depression.

Second, fear-inducing “climate disruption” claims are needed to justify job-killing, economy-choking policies like the endless delays on the Keystone XL pipeline; still more wind, solar and ethanol mandates, tax breaks and subsidies; and regulatory compliance costs that have reached$1.9 trillion per year – nearly one-eighth of the entire US economy.

Third, scary hyperventilating serves to obscure important realities about Earth’s weather and climate, and even in the NCA report itself. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily for decades, contrary to White House claims average planetary temperatures have not budged for 17 years.

No Category 3-5 hurricane has made landfall in the United States since 2005, the longest such period since at least 1900. Even with the recent Midwestern twisters, US tornado frequency remains very low, and property damage and loss of life from tornadoes have decreased over the past six decades.

Sea levels are rising at a mere seven inches per century. Antarctic sea ice recently reached a new record high. A new report says natural forces could account for as much as half of Arctic warming, and warming and cooling periods have alternated for centuries in the Arctic. Even in early May this year, some 30% of Lake Superior was still ice-covered, which appears to be unprecedented in historical records. Topping it off, a warmer planet and rising CO2 levels improve forest, grassland and crop growth, greening the planet.

Solid-Foundation-600-wLogoPress releases on the NCA report say global temperatures, heat waves, sea levels, storms, droughts and other events are “forecast” or “projected” to increase dangerously over the next century. However, the palm reading was done by computer models – which are based on the false assumption that carbon dioxide now drives climate change, and that powerful natural forces no longer play a role. The models have never been able to predict global temperatures accurately, and the divergence between model predictions and actual measured temperatures gets worse with every passing year. The models cannot even “hindcast” temperatures over the past quarter century, without using fudge factors and other clever tricks.

Moreover, much of the White House and media spin contradicts what the NCA report actually says. For example, it concludes that “there has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900.” Other trends in severe storms, it states, “are uncertain.”

Climate change, Johnstown Floods, Dust Bowls, extreme weather events and forest fires have been part of Earth and human history forever – and no amount of White House spin can alter that fact. To suggest that any changes in weather or climate – or any temporary increases in extreme weather events – are due to humans is patently absurd. To ignore positive trends and the 17-year absence of warming is abominable.

Fourth, sticking to the “manmade climate disaster” script is essential to protect the turf, reputations, funding and power of climate alarmists and government bureaucrats. The federal government doles out some $2.6 billion annually in grants for climate research – but only for work that reflects White House perspectives. Billions more support subsidies and loans for renewable energy programs that represent major revenue streams for companies large and small, and part of that money ends up in campaign war chests for (mostly Democrat) legislators who support the climate regulatory-industrial complex.

nature is my religionNone of them is likely to admit any doubts, alter any claims or policies, or reduce their increasingly vitriolic attacks on skeptics of “dangerous manmade global warming.” They do not want to risk being exposed as false prophets and charlatans, or worse. Follow the money.

Last, and most important, climate disruption claims drive a regulatory agenda that few Americans support. Presidential candidate Obama said his goal was “fundamentally transforming” the United States and ensuring that electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket.” On climate change, President Obama has made it clear that he “can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.” His Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Department of Energy and other officials have steadfastly implemented his anti-hydrocarbon policies.

“SKYROCKET”

Chief Obama science advisor John Holdren famously said: “A massive campaign must be launched to … de-develop the United States … bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.… [Economists] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable [re]distribution of wealth.”

“Did you get that? Go back and read it again. They are talking about a deliberate set of actionjs to destroy our economy so they can build it back up with Socialism and tyranny. Are we going to stand for this?” JB

Tree of Liberty 03

(The President also wants to ensure that neither a Keystone pipeline approval nor a toned-down climate agenda scuttles billionaire Tom Steyer’s $100-million contribution to Democrat congressional candidates.)

whorshipping the US governmentThis agenda translates into greater government control over energy production and use, job creation and economic growth, and people’s lives, livelihoods, living standards, liberties, health and welfare. It means fewer opportunities and lower standards of living for poor and middle class working Americans. It means greater power and control for politicians, bureaucrats, activists and judges – but with little or no accountability for mistakes made, damage done or penalties deliberately exacted on innocent people.

A strong economy, modern technologies, and abundant, reliable, affordable energy are absolutely essential if we are to adapt to future climate changes, whatever their cause – and survive the heat waves, cold winters, floods, droughts and vicious weather events that will most certainly continue coming.

nature worship 03The Obama agenda will reduce our capacity to adapt, survive and thrive. It will leave more millions jobless, and reduce the ability of families to heat and cool their homes properly, assure nutritious meals, pay their rent or mortgage, and pursue their American dreams.

America’s minority and blue collar families will suffer – while Washington, DC power brokers and lobbyists will continue to enjoy standards of living, housing booms and luxury cars unknown in the nation’s heartland. Think Hunger Games or the Politburo and nomenklatura of Soviet Russia.

Worst, it will all be for nothing, even if carbon dioxide does exert a stronger influence on Earth’s climate than actual evidence suggests. While the United States slashes its hydrocarbon use, job creation, economic growth and international competitiveness, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia – and Spain, Germany, France and Great Britain – are all increasing their coal use … and CO2 emissions.

President Obama and White House advisor John Podesta are convinced that Congress and the American people have no power or ability to derail the Administration’s determination to unilaterally impose costly policies to combat “dangerous manmade climate disruption” – and that the courts will do nothing to curb their executive orders, regulatory fiats and economic disruption.

“Are they right America? Have we decided that getting our country back is too much work? Are we really going to lay back and let this happen?” JB

If they are right, we are in for some very rough times – and it becomes even more critical that voters learn the facts and eject Harry Reid and his Senate majority, to restore some semblance of checks and balances.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death

Leftist State ReligionVOTE 02

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • Obama Administration
  • offical State Religion
  • Socialist
  • Tyranny

Follow Up Regarding the Man that Was Arrested For Standing Up to the School Board


RIGHTEOUS & ROWDY: 14yr. Old Girl Confronts Evil School Board, ‘I Don’t Trust You’

http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/righteous-rowdy-14yr-old-girl-confronts-evil-school-board-dont-trust/#jHxAMlSEpJyy4y56.99

By Clash Daily / 10 May 2014

 14

Marina Baer responds to the Gilford School Board shortly after her father William Baer was arrested for violating the so-called “2-minute speaking rule.” Her dad had been arrested for speaking out for more than two minutes about the explicit reading content that was sent home to his daughter’s from school.

“Atta Girl.” JB

6a00d83451c49a69e20147e3a62bfa970b-320wi__68365.1302540145.1280.1280-201x300

Teach your daughter to have a BS Detector with Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls for only $14.95! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Society

Tagged with:

  • school board
  • speaks up for dad
  • Tyranny

Why Democrats Are So Scared of Benghazi


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/08/why-democrats-are-so-scared-of-benghazi.html

Ron Christie

Ron Christie

 

They insist we don’t need another committee to investigate the attack—but they’re really afraid of the incompetence the truth will reveal.
I read with interest my Daily Beast colleague Michael Tomasky’s column Wednesday, in which he asserted that the establishment of a Special Select Committee to investigate Benghazi is nothing more than bulls**t. Putting aside that disrespectful characterization of a search for truth and accountability for an attack in which four Americans lost their lives, I’m troubled by the motivation of many on the left, who have sought to demonize anyone who questions the narrative the Obama administration has spun for nearly two years.

I concur with our colleague Kirsten Powers, who writes that the glib, evasive, and arrogant posture of the White House and the president’s supporters has brought about the present Benghazi inquiry. The American people were told repeatedly in the days and weeks following the attack that it was the result of an offensive video‚ an assessment the president and secretary of state surely knew within hours was far from the truth.

Rather than level with the American people and admit what senior administration officials knew—as well as taking steps to protect our diplomatic assets abroad—the Obama administration stuck with the line that GM was alive, Osama bin Laden was dead, and al Qaeda was on the run. It was hard to square that circle when the Libyan prime minister and our deputy chief of mission in Libya immediately asserted that Benghazi was a preplanned terrorist attack.

Returning to Tomasky’s piece, I was incredulous at his view of the Benghazi attacks and the prism through which he sees the world. First he tells us:

“Benghazi is and has been for some time a witch hunt that perverts all notions of democratic accountability and that obviously carries one purpose and one purpose only—the humiliation or worse of as many Democrats as possible, preferably the big cheeses (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton).”

Let’s start with the notion that this is a witch hunt with the sole purpose of humiliating as many Democrats as possible.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was a political appointee of President Obama and worked under the immediate supervision of Secretary State Hillary Clinton. Democrats, both. Neither Obama nor Clinton have explained why their political appointee’s requests to get security in Benghazi increased were denied. The American people deserve to know the truth. That is hardly a partisan question, but it could expose incompetence once the real answers are uncovered.

Next Tomasky tells us that the Benghazi attack has been probed with two Senate reports and eight House reports. Case closed, right? What he doesn’t tell us is that Secretary of State Clinton has not been interviewed directly under oath. He mentions the investigation chaired by Admiral Mike Mullen and Thomas Pickering but fails to note that the secretary did not make herself available for questioning. Surely one cannot have a comprehensive review of the actions and activities undertaken by the State Department when the secretary is not part of the review process. For that matter, isn’t it odd that none of the personnel from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi have been interviewed on the record? What was their experience that evening, and did they witness a protest sparked by a video? A Select Committee on Benghazi will certainly provide these answers.

Tomasky tells us that Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador to the United Nations, merely told the American people what the CIA told her to say about Benghazi. I’m sorry to say that’s not true. The truth, sadly, is that the Obama White House misled the American people when it redacted a lawfully subpoenaed document that was disclosed only after a lawsuit by Judicial Watch. In that document, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes pushed the notion that the attack was triggered by a spontaneous demonstration, not a breakdown in policy. The first three goals in the document, which was withheld from Congress, were:

“To convey that the United States is doing everything we can to protect our people and our facilities abroad;

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

“To show we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast during these protests.”

Perhaps Tomasky can tell us how the United States has done everything to protect our people and our facilities abroad when our own State Department denied the ambassador’s requests for additional security. Perhaps he can show us how the protests were rooted in an Internet video, a claim our intelligence services and military officials immediately knew to be false. Or perhaps he can explain how the Obama administration has brought “people who harm Americans to justice” when The New York Times was able to interview a terrorist ringleader about the attack as he sipped a strawberry frappe barely a month after the attack. The grand total of those apprehended or held responsible to date has been zero.

I’ll tell you what’s BS: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night.

Finally, despite all the congressional Democrats’ snickering and posturing this week, a Select Committee on Benghazi can answer one question that remains unanswered: Where was the president of the United States the evening of September 11, 2012, and what steps did he take that evening?

We know from former National Security Council spokesman Tommy “Dude, That Was Two Years Ago” Vietor that the president was in the Executive Mansion but not in the Situation Room on the evening in question. Did he monitor the events unfolding overseas? Was he briefed throughout the evening? Why didn’t he order a military rescue mission? Only after the attack occurred did we find out it spanned nearly eight hours. Surely military assets could have been sent to Libya from Italy or elsewhere. Did the commander in chief ask military assets to stand down?

I’ll tell you what’s BS, Mr. Tomasky: The Obama administration has misled, dissembled, and otherwise given the finger to the families of those who lost their lives that night in service to their country. I’m willing to believe that the personnel on the ground in Benghazi were terrified, confused, and hoping the cavalry was on its way to save them from terrorists seeking to kill them. We need a Special Select Committee on Benghazi to ascertain these facts and ensure that such a disaster never occurs again. We need truth, not bullsh*t, from the president and his administration, but so far, that’s all they’ve been shoveling.

VOTE 02

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist
  • lies
  • Propaganda
  • Tyranny

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs


http://washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-conservative-media-drudge-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163

By Paul Bedard | MAY 7, 2014 AT 8:49 AM

Tyranney Alert
“I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers,” warned Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee E. Goodman in an interview.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added. SEE INTERVIEW HERE:

FEC

Noting the success of sites like the Drudge Report, Goodman said that protecting conservative media, especially those on the internet, “matters to me because I see the future going to the democratization of media largely through the internet. They can compete with the big boys now, and I have seen storm clouds that the second you start to regulate them, there is at least the possibility or indeed proclivity for selective enforcement, so we need to keep the media free and the internet free.”

All media has long benefited from an exemption from FEC rules, thereby allowing outlets to pick favorites in elections and promote them without any limits or disclosure requirements like political action committees.

But Goodman cited several examples where the FEC has considered regulating conservative media, including Sean Hannity‘s radio show and Citizens United’s movie division. Those efforts to lift the media exemption died in split votes at the politically evenly divided board, often with Democrats seeking regulation.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut of conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

“The picking and choosing has started to occur,” said Goodman. “There are some in this building that think we can actually regulate” media, added Goodman, a Republican whose chairmanship lasts through December. And if that occurs, he said, “then I am concerned about disparate treatment of conservative media.”

He added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Federal Election Chairman (FEC)
  • regulate conservative voices
  • Tyranny

THE MOST IMPORTANT REPORT YOU WILL READ THIS YEAR. PLEASE SHARE IT AFTER YOU READ IT.


Fundamental Transformation: Obama Again Calls the United States a Constitutional Democracy

http://www.independentsentinel.com/fundamental-transformation-obama-again-calls-the-united-states-a-constitutional-democracy/

May 2, 2014

By Sara Noble

o_3

Section 4 – Republican form of government guaranteed. Each State to be protected. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence. — United States Constitution Article 4, Section 4

Our country is a Constitutional Republic, not a Constitutional Democracy, however, Barack Obama continually calls it a constitutional democracy and did so again today during a press conference with Angela Merkel. Listen:

obama

He has a purpose in doing so.

The country is being fundamentally transformed from a constitutional republic into a constitutional democracy. The difference between the two is the difference between the United States as it was established and present-day Europe.

Constitutional democracies do not have the safeguards of the separation of powers and states’ rights.

Democracy is an unbridled mobocracy. It is the tyranny of the mob. The constitution limits that but in the United States, we have other safeguards that limit the power of government and the power of the mob. The safeguards are the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the separation of the individual states from the federal government.

These are under serious attack by Obama and his minions.

A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights. They are described by Thomas Jefferson as elected despots.

Zero Tolerance VoteA Republic prevents mob rule. You don’t have to wait for thousands or millions of people to make a decision because you have elected representatives who can make the decisions plus there are safeguards built into it.

Democrats like to call the United States a democracy because it enhances the very name of their party.

This is the correct definition of a constitutional democracy which was once similar to a republic:

“Constitutional democracy is a system of government in which (1) political authority–i.e., the power of government–is defined, limited, and distributed by a body of fundamental law called “the Constitution” and (2) the electorate–the general voting populace `within the political society–has effective means of (a) controlling the elected representatives in the government and (h) holding them accountable (responsible, or answerable) for their decisions and actions while in public office.”

This is how many Democrats define it now:

“A constitutional democracy is a government under law in which coalition and majority rule is balanced by minority and individual rights, and in which most rights are balanced by responsibilities – including the responsibility of each citizen to study the history of constitutional government in order to illuminate it in ways that no definition ever can … and in order, thereby, to allow it to evolve further in light of ancient wisdoms and the needs of our evolving global civilization.”

This definition gets us away from the rule of law. Once you can make decisions based on what someone thinks is a responsibility or what another person thinks conforms to an evolving civilization, you move towards anarchy.

In the second definition, we have to evolve to incorporate globalism which blurs the lines of our constitution and our sovereignty. It VOTEquickly erases states’ rights and state sovereignty. It also demeans the power of Congress and SCOTUS.

The Founders were knowledgeable about democracy and they feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people’s freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.

They knew very well the meaning of the word “democracy”, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent the United States from becoming a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its ruler – We the People.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a non-evolving Constitution that limits the powers of the government. The Constitution can only be amended. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

The goal of a Constitutional Republic is to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. It also emphasizes the checks and balances provided by giving certain rights to the states, rights which Barack Obama is continually usurping.

President Obama will not enforce immigration law. When Arizona attempted to protect itself from illegal immigration, the federal government sued them and stopped them in their tracks. When states try to pass voter ID laws, the federal government steps in. The federal government lost on the issue of voter ID’s at the Supreme Court so now the DOJ is suing individual states that attempt to require ID’s for voter registration. There are many other examples of President Obama usurping states’ rights.

Mr. Obama continually states that he is and he will continue to usurp the power of congress if they fail to act according to his dictates. He said it again Friday in his joint press conference with Angela Merkel. No one seems to care. Is this what so many before us sacrificed for?

Some quotes from free patriot that are worth reading:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Benjamin Franklin (maybe): Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.

Thomas Jefferson: All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that through the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

John Witherspoon: Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.

James Madison: We may define a republic to be – a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.

John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

Winston Churchill: The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Sydney J Harris: Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.

Karl Marx: Democracy is the road to socialism

Joseph Story (1779-1845) Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice & influential commentators on the U.S. Constitution: “Let the American youth never forget that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils and sufferings and blood of their ancestors, and capable, if wisely improved and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to the latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity;

  • its foundations are solid,
  • its compartments are beautiful as well as useful,
  • its arrangements are full of wisdom and order,
  • and its defenses are impregnable from without.

It has been reared for immortality, if the work of men may justly aspire to such a title. It may nevertheless perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, the People. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”

WE MUST NEVER FORGET

Complete MessageZero Tolerance Vote

 

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • Socialist
  • transforming our nation
  • Tyranny
  • Vote

Big chill: Feds want to scour Net, media for ‘hate speech’


http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/big-chill-feds-want-to-scour-net-media-for-hate-speech/#5Do5qlOM4h86wrkt.99

‘Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine’

Published: 20 hours ago

author-image

Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio.

The “Tyranny Twins”; President Barack Obama and Attorney General of the United States, Eric “I’ll-enforce-the-laws-I-like” Holder

Tyranney Alert

If two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”

This according to the text of a new bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.

The one-page bill, reviewed by WND, calls for the Justice Department and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to “analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The bill does not define which actions by broadcasters would be considered to have encouraged violence, seemingly leaving that open to interpretation. (Of course it doesn’t define anything. They leave those details to be defined as they go along and when it fits their twisted agenda. JB)

Once the report is compiled, the bill calls for “any recommendations” for action “consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” that is determined to be an “appropriate and necessary” way to address the purported encouragement of violent acts.

The Boston Herald took issue with the bill, calling it “frankly chilling” that Markey is seeking to “empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.”

“Perhaps he could crack a briefing book on the crisis in Ukraine rather than looking for his own extra-constitutional methods of punishing speech he finds unacceptable,” added the Herald editorial.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

  • Leftist
  • Marxist
  • Rep. Hakeem Jeffries D-N.Y
  • Sen. Ed Markey D-Mass.
  • Socialist
  • The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014
  • Tyranny

Teacher Confiscates Bible from 2nd Grader


http://lastresistance.com/5549/teacher-confiscates-bible-2nd-grader/#HJAw2uhHsjpf3WVo.99

Posted By Dave Jolly on Apr 26, 2014

Why is it that teachers seem to be so uneducated about the trampling of the rights of their students?  If they paid any attention to the media, they would see a plethora of cases where teachers were found to be wrong when they exerted their personal agenda and violated the constitutional rights of students.  They expect students to learn what’s going on in the world around them so why aren’t the teachers practicing what they preach?

This rant is prompted by yet another teacher violating the constitutional and First Amendment rights of a second grade student at Hamilton Elementary School in the Houston suburb of Cypress, Texas.

During a ‘read to myself’ time in class, a second grade girl was reading her favorite book, the Bible.  When the teacher saw her, she took the Bible away from the girl.  The parents of the girl contacted the Liberty Institute instead of contacting the school directly.  They have asked that their identity be protected for fear of retaliation of some sort.

When attorneys with the Liberty Institute contacted the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, school officials informed all district employees that it is okay for students to read their Bibles during independent reading time.

Michael Berry, Senior Counsel with the Liberty Institute said that the school library where the incident took place contains copies of the Bible for students to check out and read, prompting him to ask:

“So if it’s appropriate for their own library, why on Earth would it not be appropriate for their own students?”

One parent who has a child attending the school, Jennifer Muse commented about the incident when she heard the news:

“They are letting them read the Hunger Games, that’s kids killing kids, why can’t she read the Bible.”

However, another parent, obviously a liberal Democrat believes the teacher responded appropriately because of the so-called separation of church and state.  This demonstrates just how much some people have been brainwashed by anti-Christian liberals.

First off there never was a separation of church and state and secondly, the First Amendment gives the student the right to read her Bible on her free time without school or teacher interference.  I suspect that the teacher involved was either ignorant of the law or had her own personal anti-Christian agenda.  Unfortunately, there are many of both kinds of teachers in the public schools and more times than not they are getting away with it.

This is another reason why I believe that every teacher should be required to take a course or courses in constitutional law so that they know what is and isn’t allowed before they ever set foot in a classroom.  Then ignorance would no longer be an excuse and teachers who try to push their own personal agenda on their students can be singled out and dealt with accordingly.

My Own Two Cents

With all the incidents happening in various parts of America, I tend to believe that this was personal, and a private agenda of this teacher. When has it ever been acceptable for any teacher, at any level, to push their own personal agenda onto their students? This is a primary reason what State run schools have become Hitler’s type of schools. The Leftist are following his design of growing a nation of children that are brainwashed to the will of the Self-Appointed; Liberal; Leftist; Marxist; Socialist; Communist; Social-Engineering; radical-Left extremist who are determined to recreate the United States into their twisted, philosophical design.

This is one patriot that will fight them every step of the way.

Jerry Broussard

Share this:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
Like Loading...

Category:

Education, Political

Tagged with:

  • individual agenda
  • Leftist Agenda
  • Teacher
  • Tyranny

In His Service

Unknown's avatar

Follow What Did You Say? on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 886 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report
  • BREAKING: Democrats Cave as Shutdown Nears End — GOP Patience Pays Off
  • Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco
  • LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report
  • MORE Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and Memes

Family

  • American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame

NEWS

  • FOX Nation News, information and discussions
  • NEWSMAX News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion

Opinion

  • American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
  • Comically Incorrect by A.F. Branco Conservative Patriot Political Cartoonist Comically Incorrect by A.F. Branco Conservative Patriot Political Cartoonist
  • FOX Nation News, information and discussions
  • NEWSMAX News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
  • The Black Sphere Opinion and News

Personal

  • American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
  • Jerry's Facebook Page Face Book Pages
  • TWITTER My Twitter account
  • You Version Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more

Political

  • American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
  • Comically Incorrect by A.F. Branco Conservative Patriot Political Cartoonist Comically Incorrect by A.F. Branco Conservative Patriot Political Cartoonist
  • FOX Nation News, information and discussions
  • NEWSMAX News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion

Spiritual

  • American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame American Family Association American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
  • Bible Gateway The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
  • FOX Nation News, information and discussions
  • Jerry's Facebook Page Face Book Pages
  • You Version Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more

Archives

  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011

Spam Blocked

4,989 spam blocked by Akismet

Older Posts

Newer Posts

Tag Cloud

  • Democrats
  • Pro Life
  • Right to Life
  • politics
  • PLanned Parenthood
  • Donald Trump
  • Joe Biden
  • Pro Choice
  • LifeNews.com
  • abortion
  • Liberals
  • Socialism
  • Islam
  • Free Speech
  • President Trump
  • Liberalism
  • ISIS
  • Law
  • Islamic State
  • Trump
  • FBI
  • illegal Immigration
  • Sharia Law
  • ObamaCare
  • THE CLARION PROJECT
  • Terrorism
  • Israel
  • Biden
  • 2020 Election
  • gun control
  • Jonathan Turley
  • Socialist
  • radical islam
  • Transgender
  • Hunter Biden
  • Iran
  • Politically Incorrect
  • China
  • political speech
  • Russia
  • Supreme Court
  • Media
  • COVID-19
  • Ann Coulter
  • Muslims
  • Texas
  • Obama Administration
  • coronavirus
  • Hamas
  • Tyranny
  • Ukraine
  • DNC
  • Media Bias
  • radical Islamic terrorism
  • economy
  • GOP
  • California
  • Biden administration
  • society
  • Kamala Harris
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Leftist
  • antifa
  • Main Stream Media
  • immigration
  • DOJ
  • Crime
  • Congress
  • Nancy Pelosi
  • Radical Islamic Terrorist
  • Republicans
  • Syria
  • Twitter
  • political humor
  • North Korea
  • political left
  • Obama
  • abortion debate
  • courts
  • US News
  • political cartoons
  • riots
  • Elections
  • Minnesota
  • cnn
  • censorship
  • SCOTUS
  • Education
  • Racism
  • Black Lives Matter
  • corruption
  • Senate
  • Voter Fraud
  • government
  • Iraq
  • lies
  • First Amendment
  • Border Security
  • Illegal Aliens
  • LGBT
  • Facebook
  • Second Amendment
  • Illegal Immigrants
  • Border crisis
  • Impeachment
  • FOX News
  • White House
  • National Security
  • Florida
  • MSM
  • Trump Derangement Syndrome
  • Political Correctness
  • climate change
  • Georgia
  • New York
  • COLUMNS
  • ideology
  • Tucker Carlson
  • Academia
  • children
  • Elon Musk
  • inflation
  • CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  • Voting
  • Video
  • election integrity
  • Military
  • Democrat Party
  • CRIMINAL LAW
  • War
  • President Biden
  • IRS
  • Police
  • Political
  • murder
  • Mexico
  • new york times
  • Marxist
  • Big Tech
  • Religion
  • Terrorist
  • southern border
  • New York City
  • critical race theory
  • health
  • Bernie Sanders
  • transgenderism
  • Democrate
  • State Department
  • same sex marriage
  • Rhetoric
  • Virginia
  • House of Representatives
  • George Soros
  • Social Media
  • Marxism
  • Propaganda
  • blm
  • Trump Administration
  • Public Schools
  • Department of Justice
  • Homosexuality
  • Michigan
  • Afghanistan
  • Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)
  • dems
  • Rape
  • Barack Obama
  • Chuck Schumer
  • Taxes
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • fake news
  • Iran nuke deal
  • COVID
  • Rush Limbaugh
  • Border
  • corporate media
  • open borders
  • Pennsylvania
  • Wisconsin
  • political incorrectness
  • merrick garland
  • 2024 Election
  • jihad
  • Violence
  • Culture
  • MSNBC
  • 2024
  • opinion contributors
  • Faith
  • Jobs
  • russia collusion
  • 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
  • MIddle East
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Guns
  • Taliban
  • Liberal Media
  • RINOs
  • Opinion
  • ted cruz
  • 2020 Elections
  • Democratic Party
  • Christianity
  • Mitch McConnell
  • Foreign Policy
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  • global warming
  • James Comey
  • Mitt Romney
  • Executive Orders
  • Democrat
  • protests
  • Freedom
  • Arizona
  • Religious Freedom
  • Tim Walz
  • North Carolina
  • Green New Deal
  • Adam Schiff
  • Prayer
  • Putin
  • deep state
  • Life
  • Tea Party
  • Ohio
  • Parents
  • Mainstream Media
  • Talking-Points
  • United Nations
  • Germany
  • Oregon
  • Syrian Refugees
  • Pot Stirrer
  • Secretary of State John Kerry
  • GOP establishment
  • Islamic State (ISIS)
  • trans
  • robert mueller
  • JAN. 6
  • DEI
  • pundits
  • Republican Party
  • United States
  • sexual assault
  • christian persecution
  • Eric Holder
  • Republican
  • communism
  • gaza

What Did You Say?
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • What Did You Say?
    • Join 848 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • What Did You Say?
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d