Exodus 18:21  21 "But choose men of ability from all of the people. They must have respect for God. You must be able to trust them. They must not try to get money by cheating others. Appoint them as officials.   


WE CAN KEEP BARACK OBAMA OFF OF THE 2012 ELECTION BALLOT -- but we need YOUR help to make that happen!



We all know that four more years of Barack Hussein Obama would be DISASTROUS for America. Obamacare... bank bailouts... Solyndra "eco-scams"... crony capitalism... unconstitutional recess appointments... indefinite detention of American citizens...

The list goes ON AND ON! We can't TAKE four more years of this OBAMANATION!





http://news.investors.com/article/560911/201101251850/rahms-resident-evil.htm?Ntt=rahms-resident-evil                 There's an irony here if Emanuel is knocked off the ballot, a standard move in Chicago politics repeatedly executed by a powerful political machine that dislikes being challenged. This is how Emanuel's former boss, Barack Obama, got his start in politics.

According to the April 3, 2007, Chicago Tribune, Obama operatives flooded into the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners on the day after New Year's 1996 and began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer. They kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot. As the Tribune noted, "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."


1) We cannot be great if we are broke, see http://www.usdebtclock.org/  or  http://usadebtclock.com/  2)  We need to cut our unaffordable, greedy, wasteful, fraud-filled, abusive, corrupt, incompetent Fed Gov't at least in half by privatizing what we can, moving to the States what we can and streamlining what little is left through a Convention of States to save our liberty & our country by enacting the Liberty Amendments, which include term limits and a balanced budget, see http://www.conventionofstates.com/3)  Please vote for Ben Carson or Ted Cruz for President! https://www.bencarson.com/issues               https://www.tedcruz.org/         https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates 4)  The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html   5) The IRS must be abolished & replaced by the FAIR tax that should go through the states as it did before the 16th Amendment, see http://fairtax.org/, plus the EPA along with most other Fed agencies need to be moved down to the state level. 6) Also, all the RHINOs like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell etc. & all the Democraps, who bankrupt our country financially & morally, need to be primaried/voted out and replaced ASAP; get informed at https://www.conservativereview.com/7)  We need Affordable Gun Ownership with Concealed Carry & defense training for law abiding citizens, see http://www.gunowners.org/ or http://guntalk.com/site30.php  8)  Finally, we need to get back to personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, gratitude and God’s way, see  https://outreachjudaism.org/category/articles/page/2/ .          




Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NIV)  13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:  Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.  14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.


Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (NIV)  Worshiping Other Gods  13 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.



Three committees in the House of Representatives announced Friday that they were launching concurrent investigations into allegations that President Barack Obama deliberately manipulated intelligence reports from Syria and Iraq, allowing the Islamic State group to thrive.   Even Democrats have gotten on the president and the administration about the intelligence doctoring, including one of the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jackie Speier of California.  Do you think this deriliction of duty by Obama has helped the Islamic State group to thrive? Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know.  Demand Obama resign!



Obama has violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights numerous times, making him the most criminal president in history. From waging illegal wars and committing war crimes to wantonly violating the Fourth Amendment and actively plotting against the Second Amendment, he continues to flaunt the rule of law and commit impeachable offenses. It is well past time for him to go.  Here is the petition. Please sign it.   Of course, we realize that it is unlikely Obama will be impeached and he will certainly never resign. We are posting the petition in order to draw attention to crimes glossed over and even ignored by the establishment media. It is an effort to draw attention to the fact Obama has violated his oath of Office, has attacked the Constitution and betrayed the American people.  Nixon resigned and Bill Clinton was impeached for less egregious offenses. It is our duty to enumerate Obama’s crimes and call for his removal from office.






'Your cowardly lack of leadership has left a gaping hole': Parents of SEAL Team Six soldier killed in action call for President Obama's resignation in searing open letter about his handling of ISIS










(Listen to the Great one’s podcast!)  Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas is making the Convention of States a legislative priority. Part of Abbott’s agenda includes, prohibiting Congress from regulating activity that occurs in only one state, requiring Congress to balance its budget, and prohibit Administrative agencies from creating federal law. All of it is true because the framers put it in the Constitution as a fire alarm should Americans need to harness an out of control government. Later, the NRA seeks to protect the 2nd amendment and educates people on firearms, so why does President Obama hate them? What’s worse, being a member of an organization that encourages responsible gun ownership or a member of the Democrat Party, which is destroying America?



Is it better to have the Constitution amended de facto by a 5-to-4 vote of the Supreme Court? By the unilateral actions of a president? By administrative rulings by anonymous bureaucrats in federal agencies, to whom federal judges "defer"?
Despite the left's portrayal of themselves as champions of the people, they consistently try to move decisions out of the hands of the general public and into the hands of officials insulated from the voters, such as unelected federal judges and anonymous bureaucrats with iron-clad job protection.

FIVER--ARTICLE V--CONVENTION OF STATES!!!!  On Friday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot not only joined that movement, but he proposed a specific list of changes immediately that he says should be made.    A group called Convention of States, a project of the Citizens for Self-Government, already has been working on getting the necessary states to agree to such a convention.   The Convention of States website explains that the Founders provided the alternative, through which the states “can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power.”


Welcome to the Convention of States Store, your one-stop shop for apparel and promotional products to promote the Convention of States and get the word out!



https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates is sending every candidate that has declared for the GOP nomination a survey to help conservatives understand where candidates stand on important issues.






2016 Presidential Hopefuls   

Worker-Protection Immigration Grade Cards

Assessing immigration stances that affect Americans' jobs & wages by changing supply of workers.


our FRC Action Presidential Voter Guide is out.


2016 Presidential Voter Guide Here courtesy of MFC ally, Vision America.



"We've got a big credit card bill, folks, because of the Owebama Democrats and we gotta pay it back." 




Rush Limbaugh sent a clear signal to his radio audience Monday on the eve of Super Tuesday.  If you want to send a message to the Washington and GOP establishment, Ted Cruz is your candidate.  "Ted Cruz is only guy that was taking on the Republican establishment of all the Republicans in the race," Limbaugh told his 10 million listeners.  "And he was the only guy who had been fighting the establishment and he had done it to their face.   "He goes to the floor of the Senate, he calls Mitch McConnell a liar on any number of issues, from the budget, to amnesty, to Senate rules, and Cruz had made it plain he was the guy that was gonna take it to the establishment.

In his speech on Super Tuesday, Cruz told his supporters: If you’re angry with Washington, I understand. But Trump has been part of the Washington corruption for 40 years. He’s Harry Reid’s and Jimmy Carter’s favorite Republican.  “Together, we’ll repeal Obamacare, abolish the IRS, pull back the EPA regulators killing small businesses, stop amnesty and secure the borders. And the result will be small businesses exploding, wages going up, millions of new jobs, people coming out of school with two, four, five job offers.


“If you could work with the Senate and Congress to create a ‘Contract with America’ to unify the party, what three specific actions would you want to make sure are included in that contract?”


For me, party has always mattered less than political philosophy. I was always a conservative on most issues, from my opposition to racial quotas to my belief that the Soviet Union was indeed an evil empire. I vote for the candidate who best represents my principles -- and since 1980, that has been the GOP nominee. I haven't always been enthusiastic about my choices, but I have at least been confident that on the big issues, the Republican nominee would keep America safer and more prosperous than the alternative.



In elections, turnout determines everything, and on Super Tuesday, Republicans easily won 59 percent of the popular vote. If it had been the general election, it would have been a rout of historic proportions.  The so-called primary model accurately models the winner of the general election popular vote with few exceptions going back to 1912.  Primarymodel.com, Norpoth’s web site


On Monday the U.S. national debt hit a new record: $19,012,827,698,418. This is the first time the national debt has ever exceeded $19 trillion. That’s more than $58,000 for each person who lives in the U.S. today (including children).  That’s more than $58,000 for each person that lives in the U.S. today (including children).  The main culprit behind the rising deficits and debt is growing federal spending—especially among Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.  Default should never be an option. The Department of Treasury can prioritize debt obligations at the debt limit and, Congress would just as soon grant Treasury Department additional flexibility at the debt limit to borrow for the purpose of preserving the full faith and credit of the United States of America.  Congress should reform entitlement programs and put the budget on a path to balance, before increasing the debt limit again.


The Treasury Department takes charge -- especially VISA and MasterCard! Those are just two ways the U.S. government is accepting donations to pay down the $19,012,827,698,400 debt it owes as of February 1. (If you think that number's scary, wait until you see the interest!) Last year, Americans gave more than $3 million to the effort, which is just a drop in the IOU bucket at the rate Congress is spending.  Now, in historic borrowing trouble, the U.S. will need a lot more than people's charity to steer the country away from insolvency. Unfortunately, the crisis doesn't seem to faze President Obama, who's setting records (and not the good kind) by presiding over the single greatest debt increase in U.S. history. Remember when Barack Obama said it was "unpatriotic" and "irresponsible" for his predecessor to add $4 trillion to the national debt? Well, I wonder what it's called when you add double that with a year to go? And here's the kicker: the White House's latest budget proposal would dig the hole $8 trillion deeper over the next 10 years if it passed (which, thank goodness, it never will). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) could only shake his head. "President Obama will leave office having never proposed a budget that balances -- ever."


Jesse Patton, an insurance broker living in Iowa, has had clients with net worths ranging from $2 million to $5 million, which often stem from farmland or assets from divorce settlements. And those clients, he said, are enrolled in Medicaid in expansion states like Iowa.   “It was designed to help the lower-income population,” Patton told The Daily Signal of Medicaid. “But without the asset test, there are folks that have the financial means and assets there that are good at figuring out how to work the system and capture a benefit they’re entitled to.”  Under the Affordable Care Act, states that opted to expand Medicaid did away with an asset test, which was previously used to determine eligibility in regular Medicaid.



A lot of Bernie’s bitter class-clingers are millennials who can’t find jobs thanks to the sluggish Obama economy. And 59% of Sanders voters in New Hampshire cited the economy and jobs as their top issues. South Carolina echoed these concerns.  Clearly people “feeling the Bern” are also feeling the sting of the stunted Obama recovery, and that’s the main source of their anger.  But it’s misplaced. The blame lies with (Democrap) Washington policies, not Wall Street.  This is the record Clinton is running on, the economic mantel she carries.  Problem is, Sanderista youth don’t know Obama’s policies are to blame for their problems.   It was the Democrats in Washington who denied them economic opportunities. Voting for Sanders or Clinton will only intensify their misery.



Obama Lied, And The Debt Ceiling Died

But even as Lew was telling the senators this, the New York Fed was working out contingency plans to do just what Lew said was impossible make sure that creditors, retirees, the military and other priorities were paid before anyone else.

What’s more, Treasury had decided to prioritize payments as early as Sept. 17 — almost a month before Lew said it was impossible — if the debt limit fight wasn’t resolved in time. And it was telling the New York Fed that any delays in principle or interest payments on the debt “will never happen.”  All this has finally come to light, thanks to two years of investigation work by the House Financial Services oversight subcommittee.  A scathing staff report released on Monday concludes that the Obama administration purposely withheld its contingency plans from the public to gain leverage over Republicans. And that it “appears to have actively obstructed the committee’s investigation in the administration’s debt ceiling contingency plans.”  The committee unearthed documents showing that the staffers at the New York Fed and the Federal Reserve wanted Treasury to reveal these plans at the time to calm jittery markets and that Treasury’s refusal to do so was, as one put it, “crazy, counterproductive, and added risk to an already risky situation.”


Dr. King wrote his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" to seven clergymen and one rabbi. 

http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html  Dr. King wrote:   "You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws…. One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."  "Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."  our battles today are many: Forced participation in genocide through abortion funding violates both the revealed and Natural Law. Laws that deconstruct God's natural created order of marriage as being between male and female, and laws that force affirmation or promotion of sexual immorality, are unjust laws. The dismantling of our First and Second Amendment rights are both unconstitutional and unjust.


After 2012, when liberal journalists routinely hijacked the party’s 20 televised debates while cashing in on ratings and advertising revenue, the RNC resolved to change its narrative-surrendering business as usual.  RNC chairman Reince Priebus declared in 2014 after the committee adopted measures to reassert control over the process: “The liberal media doesn’t deserve to be in the driver’s seat.”  How’s that working out? It’s the same old, same old. The obvious, effective solution is to wrest control from mainstream media networks and hold debates sponsored by conservative media outlets with conservative journalists and broadcast/simulcast on neutral ground (hello, C-SPAN!). The RNC had one such debate in the works but abandoned the idea last month.  For the candidates, continuing with these rigged charades is an exercise in futility and masochism. For the RNC, it’s suicide. By its passivity and complicity, the current batch of GOP enablers have proved that they don’t deserve to be in the driver’s seat.


How you can defeat the mainstream media:  Please support WND. We believe WND is the kind of news organization America's founders would have approved. We don't mock patriotic Americans and tea partiers trying to set their country right. We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news. We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else. We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders want peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America. In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows. Instead, our team of experienced, professional journalists strives to do one thing – to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear. •  Simply choose the amount you would like to donate for your voluntary subscription payment by using the "Amount" drop-down menu. Then select the frequency of your donation from the "Frequency" drop-down menu – either monthly or a one-time donation. If you wish to donate monthly, the amount you select will be deducted from your credit card on or around the first day of each month. (Just call or e-mail WND if you ever want to cancel or change the amount.)  •  You may also donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund, to help us battle the lawsuits and threats that always accompany honest journalism. As yet another alternative, you may send a check to WND.com, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, OR 97501. (Be sure to mark your check "voluntary subscription payment" or "legal defense fund.")   Finally, if you prefer, you may donate by calling our toll-free order line: 1-800-4-WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).  Thank you very much. All of us at WND deeply appreciate your support. It's truly what enables us to keep going. And I think you'll agree, with everything going on in America today, we need a vibrant, free press more than ever.







Conservative Review, a for-profit media company offering conservative commentary on the Web, said Friday it has invited 11 GOP White House hopefuls to attend a Conservative Convention at the Bon Secours Wellness Arena on Feb. 18.




Very disappointed @realDonaldTrump has decided at the last minute to drop out of #CPAC -- his choice sends a clear message to conservatives.  — CPAC (@CPAC) March 4, 2016  Trump had been scheduled to speak at the annual event, hosted by the American Conservative Union..  Meanwhile, the three remaining candidates, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson are to speak on Friday, with Marco Rubio to speak on Saturday.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-drop-cpac-appearance/2016/03/04/id/717477/#ixzz41yAToCnm
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!


For more than a decade, I’ve been accusing the public system in America of brainwashing our kids into rejecting everything that made America great and embracing socialism.  He also noted that 18-26 year olds get most of their news via social media where there is no accountability and anyone can say anything they want about a candidate and then the comments go away. Luntz refers to them as the Snapchat generation that are listening to tons of inaccuracies and believing what they are seeing on social media instead of finding out the truth via the real world.


(Power of the Purse/defunding, Impeachment..)  Republican Rep. Steven Palazzo of Mississippi has an idea for pushing back: He is asking his colleagues in Congress to officially censure Obama for his unconstitutional actions, according to Breitbart.  He followed up his call for the censure of Obama with a press release to his congressional website, explaining why Obama must be censured and noting that there was precedent for such an action.  “‘The House Resolution to Censure Barack Obama’ would specifically censure and condemn the actions of President Obama regarding his announced actions on gun control this week,” Palazzo explained, noting that Obama has not only exceeded his authority regarding gun control, but also on immigration, so-called climate change, and the Iranian nuclear deal, among many other things.  He also noted that while Obama calls for new laws, he has been ignoring and not enforcing laws that are already on the books, again not simply with gun control, but also with immigration and Obamacare.  Palazzo continued on by laying out the precedent for a censure of the president, explaining how the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson in 1834 for unilaterally dismantling the Bank of the United States. He also pointed out that censure resolutions were introduced against both President Nixon and Clinton, though those resolutions were never officially adopted.  Unfortunately, thanks to the manner in which the Congress has been run for the past several years, they have virtually boxed themselves in and limited themselves in what they can do to push back against Obama.


Though Congress has given up much of its power when it comes to using its “power of the purse” to (defund) stop executive overreach, (impeachment too)  there is one power it still holds, and there is absolutely no reason not to use it. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, popularly known as “Advise and Consent,” requires the Senate to approve all presidential appointments of cabinet officials, ambassadors, and federal judges.  Refusing to confirm any more of the president’s judicial nominees is something Senate Republicans can do immediately. No filibuster by Minority Leader Harry Reid or veto by Obama can stop them.


(Spineless RHINOs) Obama continued to reshape the federal judiciary Wednesday with the confirmation of another judge to a lifetime appointment. He is the third this month approved by the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate.  John Michael Vazquez won confirmation late Wednesday on a vote of 84-2 to be a U.S. district judge in New Jersey. Vazquez had the backing of New Jersey’s two Democrat senators, Robert Menendez and Cory Booker.  Two Republicans opposed Vazquez’s confirmation: Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Dan Sullivan of Alaska. Fourteen senators missed the vote on the chamber’s first day back after last week’s blizzard.



There is a simple reason we never read about jihadi attacks in Japan. There are no Muslims there. No Muslims, no terrorists. 

Muslim immigration is officially and culturally discouraged, and a Japanese woman who marries a Muslim man becomes a social outcast.   Islamic proselytization is forbidden in Japan, it is very difficult to import Qur’ans into the country, and there are very few mosques. In Japan, Muslim men are expected to pray at home, not in mosques or in the middle of the street as they do in France. Islamic organizations are not allowed, so the Japanese do not have to deal with the incessant stream of propaganda coming from pro-jihadi groups like CAIR. There is only one imam in Tokyo, a city of over 13 million people.   Virtually the only Muslims who are in Japan come as employees of foreign companies. And even that is the exception rather than the rule. “The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region.”   The Japanese have a patriotic pride in Japanese exceptionalism, Japanese culture and Japanese traditions, and instinctively recognize that enculturating Islam threatens all that because its value system is so antithetical to what makes Japan Japan. Concluded Dr. Kedar, “Japan is teaching the whole world an interesting lesson: there is a direct correlation between national heritage and permission to immigrate: a people that has a solid and clear national heritage and identity will not allow the unemployed of the world to enter its country; and a people whose cultural heritage and national identity is weak and fragile, has no defense mechanisms to prevent a foreign culture from penetrating into its country and its land.”   Taking humble and grateful pride once again in what God has done to make America the most exceptional nation in history is not only the right thing to do, it is the safest thing to do.



He then pointed the finger of blame at both President Barack Obama and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for the rise of ISIS.  "They have a bunch of dishonest people," he said, Business Insider reports. "They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama — created with Obama."

Obama went on television the night of Feb. 1 and said the transition “must begin now.” With that, the die was cast: The Muslim Brotherhood, the strongest opposition force in Egypt, had been late to join the uprising but now moved to take advantage of it. Clinton and Wisner continued to urge caution, but Obama chided them for sending “mixed messages” that undercut the White House line. The Tahrir protests escalated, the army refused to intervene, and Mubarak resigned on Feb. 11.  The coup in the streets led to the election of President Mohamed Morsi; his abuses triggered a counter-coup by the Egyptian military. Emboldened by events in Egypt, Muslim revolutionaries (with U.S. help-Obama, Hillary & Democraps) toppled a dictator in Libya and are still trying to overthrow one in Syria. And the rulers of Saudi Arabia are still traumatized by America’s abandonment of Mubarak. (Horrible Iran nuke deal too) &  (YES, this is the failed Democrap interventionist foreign policies that give us things like 9/11…)



Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz appeared on Fox News to usher in 2016 Thursday night — and he did so by slamming President Barack Obama and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. “2016 is going to be an incredible year,” the Texas senator proclaimed. “2016 is going to be the last year of the Obama presidency. 2016 is going to be the last year before Hillary retires permanently to Chappaqua.” Cruz added, “2016 is going to be the last year that we have Obamacare. 2016 is going to be the last year until we abolish the IRS. And 2016 is going to be the last year until we utterly destroy ISIS and defeat radical Islamic terrorism. Like 1980, 2016 is going to be a very, very good year.” The presidential candidate, who has gained traction in recent weeks, ended his New Year’s Eve message by telling a story he said he’s “heard on the trail,” watch it above.



Imagine if you had to get your house from your employer? Would the housing market serve your needs? when the insurance company is terminating a policy because of non-payment of premium a notice should go to the State so they could decide to pay the premium instead of the medical bills with someone with cancer. (there should be an easy way for family, friends, community etc to be charitable to help pay insurance too)


A new report says that Iran recently tested another mid-range ballistic missile, breaching United Nations restrictions. This is the same country that President Obama imagines is going to obey his nuclear agreements.  Fox News reported that Iran tested a medium range ballistic missile despite two separate U.N. resolutions supposedly prohibiting them from carrying out such tests.  The missile that was tested is known as the Ghadr-110. The Missile has a range of 1,200 miles and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

(weakness encourages aggression vs. peace through strength & clarity)  Recall that in October, Iran test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in brazen violation of Security Council resolutions prohibiting such launches. President Obama did nothing.  One month later, Iran did it again. The administration made a few gestures at the U.N. Then nothing.  Just two weeks ago, Iran's Revolutionary Guards conducted live-fire exercises near the Strait of Hormuz. It gave nearby U.S. vessels exactly 23 seconds of warning. One rocket was launched 1,500 yards from the USS Harry S. Truman.  Obama's response? None.  The Gulf Arabs — rich, weak and, since FDR, dependent on America for security — are bewildered. If anything, Obama's openhanded appeasement has encouraged Iran's regional adventurism and intense anti-Americanism.   The Saudis feel surrounded, and it's not paranoia. To their north, Iran dominates a Shiite crescent stretching from Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean. To the Saudi south, Iran has been arming Yemen's Houthi rebels since at least 2009.  The danger is rising. For years, Iran has been supporting anti-regime agitation among Saudi Arabia's minority Shiites. The Persian Gulf is Iran's ultimate prize. The fall of the House of Saud would make Iran the undisputed regional hegemon and an emerging global power.  For the U.S., that would be the greatest geopolitical setback since China fell to communism in 1949 (Democrap Truman). Yet Obama seems oblivious. There is no price for defying Pax Americana — not even trivial sanctions on Iranian missile-enablers. Our enemies know it. Our allies see it


From the president who brought you Benghazi ... Benghazi 2!

Obama's 2011 Libyan military adventure is the gift that keeps on giving: Weapons flooding into Syria, the rise of ISIS, thousands of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean weekly into Italy, chaos in Tripoli, four dead Americans in Benghazi. Now he wants to to do it all again.   Can these outspoken generals keep Obama from committing another "trillion-dollar failure"?

Read the latest now on WND.com.


Recall the CIA program that spent $500 million to train 60 rebels who promptly lost or surrendered on the battlefield. How would this bureaucratic failure be different if it were conducted in one of Rubio’s safe zones?  Unfortunately, this desire to go to war first and worry about a strategy and exit plan later are the hallmark of Rubio and the Republican foreign policy establishment led by Rubio-mentor John McCain.


The Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero insisted that
gratitude was "the parent of all the other virtues."   He was not referring to a pop socialism, where all supposedly owe their successes to the government.  Instead, gratitude is proof of humility and offers perspective. It is an appreciation for others, often now dead, who have helped to make us what we are. Without it, we are narcissists and self-absorbed amnesiacs.  Unfortunately, our modern "me" generation has forgotten gratitude and replaced it with the art of victimization. Contemporary Americans prefer blaming others — parents, ancestors, their country, the world in general — for their own unhappiness, while patting themselves on the back for anything that goes well.  Nowhere is the death of gratitude more acute than at our elite universities.  But could today's student activists on beatific campuses have survived a covered-wagon trip through the Utah desert, or a 19th-century Appalachian coal mine or a mission with a B-17 crew over Schweinfurt, Germany?   Too often, immigrants assume that America owes them rather than they owe America — sort of like an uninvited guest moving into the house of the host and berating him over the menu and accommodations.


Rewriting genes can cure people of terrible diseases, but it can also, as Clapper points out, give our adversaries a lethal way to terrorize the world. That's becoming an even greater possibility now with the breakthrough of the CRISPR, one of the simplest and most inexpensive ways to edit genes. "Easy to use," MIT's Technology Review explains, "Hard to control." With "do-it-yourself" kits as cheap as $700 ("includes everything you'll need to 'bend DNA to your will!') experts are worried that this science is the biggest menace no one knows about.  "Clapper didn't lay out any particular bioweapons scenarios," MIT explained, "but scientists have previously speculated about whether CRISPR could be used to make 'killer mosquitoes,' plagues that wipe out staple crops, or even a virus that snips at people's DNA."



Maine’s governor, Paul LePage, recently established work requirements on recipients who are without dependents and able-bodied. In Maine, all able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program are now required to take a job, participate in training, or perform community service.  Job openings for lower-skill workers are abundant in Maine, and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. But despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation, most childless adult recipients in Maine refused to participate in training or even to perform community service for six hours per week. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased.  In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.  This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by almost as much, albeit over a few years rather than a few monthsSTATE Government should aid those in need, but welfare should not be a one-way handout.  The Maine food stamp work requirement is sound public policy. Government should aid those in need, but welfare should not be a one-way handout.


Dr. Phil McGraw joined Megyn Kelly tonight on “The Kelly File” to discuss how our culture has created a generation of entitled, narcissistic, fame-obsessed individuals. “We do have a generation that, I think, we have raised with a great deal of entitlement,”  Dr. Phil said. “We’ve got to stop rewarding bad behavior in America. When people don’t work and produce, then they need to get kicked to the curb.” “Get a damn job. Carry your own weight.”



the reality is that the human race is not entitled to anything, not even the food we need to stay alive. If we don’t produce food, we are just going to starve. If we don’t build housing, then we are not going to have housing, “affordable” or otherwise.  Particular individuals or groups can be given many things, to which politicians say they are “entitled,” only if other people are forced by the government to provide those things to people who don’t need to lift a finger to earn them. All the fancy talk about “entitlement” means simply forcing some people to work to produce things for other people, who have no obligation to work.  It gets worse. If we are all “entitled” to things, irrespective of whether we produce anything ourselves, then the question becomes: Why are some people getting so much more than others?  People who are producing nothing can feel a sense of grievance against those who are producing much, and being rewarded for it, if our basis for receiving economic benefits is supposed to be what we are all “entitled” to, rather than what we have worked to earn.  One of the most misleading uses of the notion of entitlement is to say that people who paid into Social Security for years are now entitled to the pensions they receive.  Really? It so happens that I have put money into the same bank account for more than 20 years. But if I were to write a check for a million dollars today, it would bounce! The question is not how long you have been putting money in, but how much money you put in.  If what you have been putting into Social Security over the years is enough to pay you a $1,500 a month pension, but you were promised a $3,000 a month pension, how much are you entitled to? On what basis?  We can be both realistic enough, and decent enough, to rescue older people who have been victimized by political fantasies. We can pay higher taxes temporarily to rescue them. But, there is no reason to bankrupt the country by keeping the fraud going forever.  Younger people can be allowed to opt out and arrange their own pension plans in the private sector, where the kind of irresponsible pyramid schemes that politicians set up are illegal.  But we don’t need to ruin the whole economy, in order to preserve the illusions created by toxic words like “entitlement.”



We already have two: the Fifth and 14th Amendments. The Fifth Amendment says that you cannot deprive somebody of life or liberty unless there’s due process. The 14th Amendment says that states neither can do that, and they have to provide equal protection under the law.  “What it means is really simple: if the unborn child is a person, they’re already protected under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. It just requires a president who appoints an attorney general who will recognize the personhood of every person from conception forward and say, ‘We have a constitutional obligation to protect people.'”  The only question in the court becomes is the unborn child a person? I’m willing to have that battle in court because … bring the best biologists in the world, put them under oath and ask them when 23 chromosomes from a man and 23 from a woman merge at fertilization, is that a life?

Planned Parenthood is an organization that cares about one thing: making a profit at the expense of women’s health,” said ADF Legal Communications Director Kerri Kupec. “The investigative videos, whose authenticity was confirmed by the report, show that Planned Parenthood is an abortion machine whose top executives and doctors haggle and joke about the harvesting and selling of baby body parts. Women deserve far better. American taxpayer money should be redirected to fund local community health centers and not subsidize a scandal-ridden, billion-dollar abortion business.”



I know that Obama’s grand plan for populating the U.S. with “refugees” basically hostile to individual rights and the U.S. Constitution does not include admitting swarms of individuals who are true refugees from tyranny and poverty who seek the security of a civilized country governed by the rule of law and not of men. He prefers to bring in Muslims who come here as part of a “Grand Jihad” to conquer the country by settling in it.  The (Democrap) INS has been given its marching orders: block Middle Eastern Christians from entering the U.S., but put out the welcome mat for anyone who wants to reclaim Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico as Mexican provinces, or for anyone who adheres to Islam and expects the rest of the U.S. to abide by its rules, and who wouldn’t mind the Constitution being replaced with Sharia law.  Or, simply make life miserable and expensive for anyone who does not toe the Obama line on immigration. Punish them. Smear them. Bankrupt them. Silence them.


Poll Of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad


If people want to live in America -- including Muslims -- they need to embrace our Constitution and our culture. Others have said in less artful ways what conservatives have been warning for years: there is no such thing as coexistence between Sharia law and our constitutional republic. That isn't religious prejudice, but an ideological reality.  What most people either don't realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion -- the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system.  The bottom line is this: the U.S. Constitution is an agreement between people about how they'll be governed. What good is it if people immigrate to America with the sole purpose of undermining that contract? We shouldn't be embarrassed to say that we oppose those who want to come to the United States to destroy it. And while most Muslims are not radicalized, Sharia certainly encourages it. Based on polling from the Center for Security Policy, that's the system most would choose.



A lot of moderate Muslims came here in the first place to get away from the crazies in their own religion; so why do we want to risk bringing those same crazies here by the thousands? Because of our inability to screen out radicals, we’d be better off doing anything and everything possible to cut back on the number of Muslims we allow to immigrate to our country.   In just 11 countries, there appears to be north of 60 million Muslims at a minimum who approve of an Islamic organization that’s every bit as evil as the Nazis.  Additionally, while it’s true that a relatively small number of Muslims are in favor of suicide bombing, those numbers can really add up. For example, 86% of American Muslims oppose suicide bombing. Should we be hailing those numbers even though it means roughly 460,000 American Muslims are okay with suicide bombing? Incidentally, the percentage of Muslims who are okay with suicide bombing goes up over the 25% mark in places like Afghanistan, Egypt, Bangladesh and the Palestinian territories. Ironically, most of the victims of these Muslims are other Muslims.  You can certainly argue that groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and Boko Haram are misinterpreting Islam or perverting the Koran, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are Muslims who believe they’re being faithful to their religion as they rape, murder, and enslave the innocent in the name of Allah.



“In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.  Cazeneuve also said that three mosques had been closed down in the national state of emergency following the attacks. One of the mosques authorities shuttered on Wednesday after authorities discovered a 9mm handgun, a concealed hard drive, a life insurance policy and — most tellingly — documents relating to jihad.



the flood of Muslims into the United States under Barack Hussein Obama. This is an invasion of a potential Muslim army into America by the lawless, pro-Muslim occupier of the White House – a man who rules like a tyrant and who clearly despises his country.  Obama is inviting what amounts to a Muslim army into the United States. How many Americans will die because of Democraps’ pro-Islam policies?  A green card entitles recipients to access federal benefits, lifetime residency, work authorization, and a direct route to becoming a U.S. citizen.



The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit had a one-on-one meeting with Barack Hussein Obama.

In this meeting, Obama stated that,  “He was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the step son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.”

50,000 Muslims enter Canada: U.S. border 'wide open'

As if the mayhem along our southern border with Mexico were not maddening enough. Now alarm bells are sounding loudly in the U.S. Congress, as 50,000 Syrian Muslims are entering Canada, and our northern border is said to be "wide open" ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.


That’s right, funny man Jackie Mason blames Democrats and Liberal Jews for the problems facing Israel today, and I think he’s 100% correct.



In another round of people who trusted Muslim "refugees" in their country only to have crimes committed against them and learn the hard way, a mother of a 10-year-old boy who was brutally raped in a swimming pool by a Muslim "refugee" says that she regrets welcoming refugees into her country.  Additionally, Swedish model Erin Krantz also learned the hard way when she promoted multiculturalism only to be raped and murdered at the hands of an African "refugee" immigrant.



However, as Breitbart reports, the Government Accountability Institute has released studies showing that Obama has actually attended less than half of his Presidential Daily Briefs.  (he hears only what he wants to hear and spends his time lying, destroying America, golfing, campaigning and vacationing)  There is absolutely no doubt that many of Obama’s PDBs contained vital information regarding the rise and expansion of, as well as known threats and plots in the works by the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.  The administration has laughably claimed that Obama doesn’t necessarily have to attend the daily briefings in person, as he receives the information on his iPad.  However, reading a few short summations on an iPad is not an acceptable replacement for personally hearing a detailed intelligence report, where one can engage in questions and answers.  President Obama blatantly lied during his prime-time speech, as he has attended less than half of the daily intelligence briefings he now claims to rely upon to take the threat of terrorism seriously.



Obama used to think it was appropriate for senators (including himself) to block judicial nominees. In fact, he filibustered Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court along with circuit court nominees Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Leslie Southwick.




Hope & Change:  The national debt was $10.6 trillion when Obama came into office in 2009. It now stands at $18.9 trillion—an astounding 80-percent increase in just seven years, the largest increase in history. Our government debt now eclipses the size of our economy.  What has all this spending, taxing, regulating, and new debt brought us? The slowest recovery since the Great Depression.   Many have fled the job market in favor of the callous arms of big government. Total means-tested welfare spending now stands at over $1 trillion annually—the highest ever even though the recession supposedly ended in 2010. Over 45 million people—one out of every seven Americans—receive food stamps, a remarkable 63 percent increase since the height of the recession in 2009.  (Food Stamp Prezzie. Read more on the website on foreign affairs etc…)


When Obama came into office, he would often publicly complain about CEOs being paid too much.  “What gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure,” he said at press conference in early 2009.  Later he opined that “the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance.”

It’s a complaint Democrats have made repeatedly over the years, as though they have a better way than the free market to determine the right compensation package.  But what if we were to hold Obama — the nation’s chief executive — to his own standard?  CEO Obama set extremely modest goals for growth — well below the average of all the economic recoveries since World War II. In fact, had Obama’s economic recovery been merely average, GDP would be more than $2 trillion bigger than it is today.  And each time the economy underperformed, Obama pointed fingers, blaming everything from a tsunami, a cold winter, the Arab Spring, gas prices and budget cuts to George Bush.  All the while he’s ignored the harm that his own policies have done: ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, massive EPA regulations, new labor costs, higher taxes and a failed Keynesian stimulus. Absent those shackles, the economy would have almost certainly recovered from the deep recession fast and furiously.  And for this lousy performance, Obama gets a $400,000 salary (more than twice the average for all CEOs), roughly $1.5 million in annual pension benefits, free room and board, gourmet chefs, generous expense accounts and paid vacations. IBD’s Andrew Malcolm discovered that Obama’s vacations alone have cost taxpayers more than $70 million, so far.  Most CEOs could only dream of living so well. Does anyone think Obama’s compensation matches up to his performance?



It is Republicans who are promoting the kinds of ideas and policies needed to help low-income Americans move up the ladder. Republicans don’t favor the rich; they favor those who want to get rich.  Recently, Brookings Institution scholar Ron Haskins gave congressional testimony and summarized the major factors perpetuating poverty and limiting economic upward mobility: rising share of single-mother homes, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, growing gaps in education between rich and poor, and low work rates and stagnating wages among low-income men.  The evidence today is overwhelming regarding the central importance of the traditional family to economic success. It is Republicans who promote the importance of traditional values. It is the Democratic Party that sells openness to alternative lifestyles, abortion, re-defining marriage and big government programs that subsidize these kinds of destructive behaviors.  Regarding education, public schools in poor neighborhoods are a disaster. Republicans promote school choice and opportunities to empower parents to choose where to send their children to school. Democrats uniformly fight these efforts.  Regarding work, the minimum wage that Democrats so love is a job destroyer. Today’s anemic economy is the result of big government Democratic policiesIf “favoring the poor” means promoting policies that keep the poor poor, blacks are right. This is Democrats. But if favoring the poor means policies that maximize chances of getting out of poverty, these are Republican proposals.



Breitbart News story, August 6th of 2015.  "Marco Rubio says he wants border fence, visa tracking system, but voted against both to pass the Gang of Eight bill."  And then from the article it says this:  "When the Schumer-Rubio bill hit the Senate floor, Sen. John Thune offered an amendment to required the completion of a border fence. Sen. Rubio joined all members of the Gang in voting against Thune’s amendment, which failed.  "Likewise, with respect to the implementation exit-entry tracking system, Sen. Rubio voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Vitter (R-LA), which would require the implementation of exit-entry tracking system in order to prevent foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas."  This is all about this E-Verify system and the E-Verify card that would be handed out.  "Similarly, the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill did not require the immediate implementation e-verify." 


(aren’t you tired of being lied to by Owebummer, Biden, Hillary Democraps all; we don’t want more liars like Trump & Rubio.)  here are several of Trump’s more blatant lies from tonight’s debate (all quotes from the debate come from The Washington Post’s transcript):


Trump and Rubio have recorded histories of lying or flip-flopping on a major issue: Amnesty.  All of this has led me to deeply distrust Marco Rubio×

. The question I ask myself is this: If he’ll lie about something as massive as amnesty, what won’t he lie about?  Trump is as bad, if not worse. As recently as 2012, Trump seemed to strongly support amnesty.


There is no one in this presidential race, save perhaps Hillary Clinton, with a stronger command of con-artistry than Rubio.  It wasn’t until Rubio began his run for the state Senate against the pro-amnesty Charlie Crist that he began whistling a dramatically different tune.  Carender notes that Rubio witnessed the massive voter pushback against Crist’s position and recalibrated accordingly.  On December 22, 2009, Rubio met with Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, the leader of the Tea Party of Fort Lauderdale, and a local Tea Party activist. Carender recalls: “He looked them in the eyes and promised that he heard them; he would opposed any form of legalization, including the DREAM Act and amnesty, for anyone that was in the country illegally.”   Carender quotes Rubio’s remarks from a Tampa Bay Times article from 2009.  Then, Rubio declared that “amnesty…will destroy any hope of having a legal immigration system that works.” He opposed the DREAM Act and even said—wait for it!—that an “earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty” (emphases added). Yet Carender continues, alluding to another Youtube interview in which Rubio insists that amnesty is indefensible. We can’t, “in essence…say, ‘Look, well you’ve been here for so long that even though you broke the law we’re going to let you stay,’” The problem with this is that “it demoralizes the people that are going through the legal process [.]”  Moreover, “it demoralizes the people enforcing the law.”  In an interview with Human Eventsfrom 2010, Rubio unequivocally rejected any pathway to citizenship. “Well,” he remarked, “we have a path for citizenship. It’s called coming legally into this country.”  Of course, everyone now knows that Rubio, via his enablers in “conservative” talk radio, aggressively promoted a “pathway to citizenship,” i.e. amnesty, on behalf of the Gang of Eight.   


There are many reasons, and here are ten, that the eminent, self-impressed Mr. Trump will fail to fix anything.  Starkly, he will fix nothing.  (1)   Closely aligned with Hillary Clinton.  Look yourself in the mirror tomorrow morning, and ask your Trump-contented reflection this question:  If someone has given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton, invited her to his wedding, contributed to her foundation, encouraged his daughter to befriend Clinton’s, tracks her positions (including abortion and government health care), and refuses to attack a swath of her agenda, is that person aligned with you or with her?  And honestly, how much has she fixed?      (3)   Relies on Cronies, not on experts.  Management is about people, full stop.  Who you pick, defines what you will get done.  Trump’s record is clear.  He does not pick tops in field, create a wide and empowered base of top performers, and then ask them to pick top performers.  The reverse.  He picks family and cronies, and makes no apologies for it.  He is not interested in hearing what he is not interested in hearing.  That is called a formula for bankruptcy.  Exhibit one:  Trump’s four bankruptcies. (4)   Merit System Board prevents mass firings.  The law. Oh yeah.  Ever heard of the Merit Systems Protection Board?  Neither has Big Don.  As a former Senate-confirmed official, who wanted to remove more people than I was ever able to, this wrench in the works slows all firings, even when they are or would be for merit.  It would prevent Mr. Trump – even if he were not a Clinton-Schumer protégé – from mass firings.  If he undertook mass firings and ignored the Board’s legal strictures, perhaps with his own executive orders, gridlock would become court-lock.  Until a savvy President, one who knows the system, works within it to reform it, no strongman will do more than get in legal trouble.


Yet, not only was Donald Trump’s belligerent voice absent in the fight, he echoed the very decrepit sentiments promulgated by the worst elements of the GOP establishment. This begs the question: Where the hell was Donald Trump’s aggressive voice and impervious persona when we needed him on this fight or any other political battle??  Isn’t it amazing how politically correct and establishmentarian Trump is when there is no personal political gain at stake?


Trump has habitually fallen well short of demonstrating that he can be counted upon to govern as a conservative. His capriciousness, his impulsivity, his incoherence, his mean-spiritedness, his pettiness, his chronic dishonesty and his policy ignorance are unpresidential in the extreme. And based on empirical data, he appears particularly ill-equipped to defeat an otherwise highly-vulnerable Hillary Clinton in the fall.  Last night's flailing debate performance served as a reminder of how wholly unprepared he is, on both temperament and basic knowledge, to be president.


Donald J. Trump's record on truth and accuracy is astonishingly poor," Angie Drobnic Holan, a reporter for PolitiFact, wrote in December in The New York Times. "So far, we've fact-checked more than 70 Trump statements and rated fully three-quarters of them as Mostly False, False or 'Pants on Fire' (we reserve this last designation for a claim that is not only inaccurate but also ridiculous)." Making stuff up is at the core of his campaign.  Of 96 Trump statements scrutinized by PolitiFact at last count, only seven were true. By contrast, Hillary Clinton, whom Republicans regard as a habitual liar, sticks to the facts slightly more than half the time, according to the fact-checkers.


If the public is to learn about Donald Trump, the man, there is a triad of documents that need be released immediately. First, Mr. Trump should release his federal and state tax income returns for 2012 and 2013. Second, Mr. Trump should release his college transcripts. Third, the public needs to understand how much money was lost by his investors and who those investors (direct and indirect) were in his four corporate bankruptcies.  Before his decision to run for the presidency, was he making significant cash contributions to charity..??

Michael Reagan: Trump Is No Reagan Republican

Ronald Reagan’s odyssey from Hollywood liberal to conservative backer took place over almost two decades.

Starting with his 1964 “Time for Choosing” speech that galvanized Americans for Barry Goldwater, Dad began a 16-year effort of crisscrossing America to support conservative candidates for office.  My dad also served eight years as California’s governor. When he ran for president, he had a proven conservative track record.  Donald Trump doesn’t have one. In fact, Trump still can’t explain his sudden change from being a liberal Democrat. When Dad ran in 1980, Trump donated the maximum amount to Jimmy Carter.  As the Wall Street Journal reported, Trump also donated to a PAC for Walter Mondale, who ran against Dad in 1984.Trump has criticized some candidates for their indiscretions made during their childhood.  But what can you say for a grown adult who supported both Carter and Mondale over Ronald Reagan?  One of my dad’s most important lessons to me was how to uncover a phony. He told me not to judge people by what they say; judge them by what they actually do. As president, Dad used this “trust but verify” principle on the Soviets and it worked.  Voters today should apply Reagan’s verify principle on Trump.  During the 2008 election, Trump told CNN that he wanted President George W. Bush impeached.  Then, during Obama’s first year in the White House, after he rammed through Congress a $800 billion stimulus and proposed a radical health care takeover, Trump praised the president, saying he was “amazing” and “truly phenomenal.”  Obama’s then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a player in passing Obamacare. Rahm eventually left the White House to run for Chicago’s mayor. In 2010, Trump actually donated $50,000 to Rahm’s mayoral campaign!  Just last year Trump told “60 Minutes” he wants single-payer health care like they have in Canada and Britain. It’s nothing less than socialized medicine.  For most of his life Trump had been a Democrat, backing strong gun control and abortion rights. Today he says he’s for the Second Amendment and pro-life. But when asked who he’d like for the Supreme Court, he suggested his sister, a sitting federal judge. It turns out she’s liberal and pro-choice.  Trump also donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. In 2012, after she had served almost four years as secretary of state, Trump had nothing but praise for her. He told CNN: “I think she does a good job ... The record of Hillary Clinton and how did she do as secretary of state, probably above and beyond everybody else.” Folks, this was in 2012.  Still, at some point Trump says he became a conservative. I am not sure when. In 2012, Trump sharply criticized Mitt Romney.  “He had a crazy policy of self-deportation which was maniacal,” Trump said of Romney’s plan for the nation’s illegal immigrants.


One language gauge, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index measures sophistication by syllables per word and words per sentence. This is meant for written language, but applied to campaign speeches and debates, it gives a rough sense of the relative levels of candidates’ rhetoric.  In speeches the night of the South Carolina primary, Cruz was at a ninth-grade level, Rubio at an eighth-grade level — and Trump at a fifth-grade level. In speeches after Nevada caucuses, Cruz and Democrat Bernie Sanders were at a ninth-grade level, Hillary Clinton was at seventh grade. And Trump? Second grade:  This is campaigning at the level of Captain Underpants, Geronimo Stilton and Rainbow Magic fairies.   Through it all, his vocabulary would have suited Dr. Seuss: “They will go out. They will come back. Some will come back. … The wall just got 10 feet taller. … We’re going to make many cuts. … We’re going to get rid of so many different things.”



It's not about race; it's about our national sovereignty, the rule of law, protecting jobs, protecting Americans against criminal elements and jihadis, and stanching an invasion of people who will further burden our welfare state -- not assimilate, not embrace the American idea -- and vote almost solely Democrat.   A sovereign nation must control its borders and encourage immigrants to assimilate and embrace the unique American experiment.  If establishment Republicans were the least bit repentant about their betrayals, truly believed in the conservative principles embodied in their party's platform and were realistic about stopping Trump, they'd quit posturing and unite behind Ted Cruz.


If only poor pathetic, low-energy Mitt would have reserved some of this anger, outrage and vitriol for Obama...if only he had called Obama a "phony" and "fraud"...Mitt would be running for his second term as president of the United States right now. Where was the outrage and anger then?  “If any of them were real Republicans they’d be using their shock, outrage and vitriol to attack Obama and Hillary and Bernie every second of every day.



the left (Democraps) has become an army of bullies, and Americans are sick to death of it.  But it is not enough for the left, which is on a permanent rampage against aspects of American culture that were once considered admirable and praiseworthy.  Into the ring steps Donald Trump. Yes, he is boorish and brash, vociferous and vulgar. But he says that he is willing to do what elected Republicans have not done. And whether or not that will prove to be true, at the very least he refuses to be cowed by the talking heads of the self-appointed elites, and this is an endless source of satisfaction. Americans have taken enough punches. They want someone who will punch back.


Perhaps this is what Ross Perot meant in the 1992 presidential debate when he famously said, “We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It’s pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor… have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making a car — have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.”  So, whatever the supposed virtues of globalization — lower prices of goods and services or more economic growth — there is a definite cost that must also be considered, and that is the ability to employ American workers.  Adding to the malaise is the higher cost of doing business in the U.S. brought on by greater taxes, more regulations and, more generally, just higher property and labor costs.



If, by some miracle, Trump became president, what kind of president would he be? Do we need another self-centered know-it-all in the White House to replace the one we have now?  Among the other Republican candidates, Dr. Ben Carson is a monumental figure in his field, and he is clearly revered even by people who would not vote for him. But votes are how elections are decided.

The governors among the Republican candidates can at least be judged by how their track record stands up in running a governmental organization. So can Senator Ted Cruz, who was solicitor general in Texas. But Senator Marco Rubio has no comparable experience -- and his inexperience has shown up in his abortive attempt to join Democrats in promoting amnesty.


(Rubio-RINO 2.0 version of Owebummer)  How do you trust Rubio on any issue after he so blatantly lied on immigration? The Gang-of-8 Bill was little more than a Democrat wish list with a couple of bells and whistles slapped on to give cover for squishy Republicans to support it as well. The bill legalized illegals before adding in any kind of security and despite Rubio’s dishonest hype, it would have done little to secure the border.  Well, we had Al-Qaeda then. Stopping that terrorist organization from getting across the border wasn’t important?  Keep in mind that Rubio can’t win a general election unless he gets the support of the 30-35% of GOP voters that currently support Donald Trump. Do you really think that after supporting Trump for months, those voters are going to fall in line behind an establishment candidate who is best known for betraying the people who supported him to push amnesty and open borders?


Republicans believe, "Don't criticize Obama! Don't be seen as shutting down the government! Don't disagree! Oh, my God, you're gonna be seen as an obstructionist and not wanting to make Washington work and the independents not gonna like it. They're gonna run right to the Democrats." Well, you can't find somebody that's more angry, obstinate, in-your-face, insulting, you, mean -- everything that the Republicans believe turns off moderates.  Trump is Hoovering them up. 


If voters want an angry candidate, they are not going to get it from Carson, whose demeanor is unswervingly cool and deliberative.  He continues to build on a groundswell of goodwill and popularity all over the country that is sure to carry over into anything he decides to do next.



Mexico’s elites, whose leadership failures are precisely the reason so many millions of Mexicans can’t stand the idea of living in their own country and seek better luck north. Fact is, the elites are the ones who owe an apology to all Mexicans.  Sitting in the lap of luxury, former Mexican President Vicente Fox opened fire at Trump, hurling barnyard epithets toward the New York real estate magnate, who, along with the other top two presidential contenders, proposes building a wall to protect the U.S.’ unguarded southern border. Trump also wants Mexico pay for it through taxes on remittances and other fees.

Chase your poorest, least-educated and least-productive citizens north, as a cynical means of ending social pressures for change, and force the U.S. to pay for their housing, education, health care and welfare instead. Maintain tight immigration controls over your own borders but demand open borders with the U.S. to ensure an escape from your nation. This is why Mexico’s elites are so shameless about championing illegal immigration despite the embarrassment it would bring on any other decent government watching its citizens flee.  Remittances to Mexico totaled $24 billion last year, topping the country’s oil earnings.


How could a faithful evangelical vote for (TRUMP) a man who admits to having engaged in multiple affairs with married women, says he has nothing in his life to repent to Our Lord about, was the first casino owner to open a strip club, has abandoned the cause of marriage and who once said he'd consider appointing to the US Supreme Court a federal judge (his sister) who approves of the barbaric partial birth abortion procedure where the baby is killed in the process of being born? (not including using Big Govt and imminent domain to steal, not including buying influence with politicians, not including no plans to save our country from Big Govt, Debt and unfunded welfare.)



The curious part is why people who flee the excesses of progressive regimes continue to embrace progressive notions about human nature, God and government. They’re importing the very scourge that caused them to leave. We should keep this in mind as millions of people from authoritarian countries pour over America’s southern border and are scooped up by vote-seeking groups that promise them the moon. Will America change them or will they change America?   Who needs God when government will supply everyone’s needs at someone else’s expense?


It takes more faith to depend on the government than it does to trust in God's provision, but you'd never know it watching Progressives (Democraps-RINOs) worship at their government golden calf that owns nothing at all unless it takes it from you.  To whom shall we bow, to God or the government?



The Daily Caller reports on Obama’s failures:  Over the first five years of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. economy grew more slowly than during any five-year period since just after the end of World War II, averaging less than 1.3 percent per year. If we leave out the sharp recession of 1945-46 following World War II, Obama looks even worse, ranking dead last among all presidents since 1932. No other president since the Great Depression has presided over such a steadily poor rate of economic growth during his first five years in office. This slow growth should not be a surprise in light of the policies this administration has pursued.



The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps of Iran is now stating that his sailors have extracted tons of intelligence from the US sailors that were captured in January. They got the intel from their cell phones and computers. This is a catastrophic military breach. They are also threatening to release the info to the public in a Snowdenesque move. Meanwhile, Obama and Kerry keep playing down an act of war as no big deal. They probably don’t think it is because this was intentional. It’s the redistribution of intel and military secrets. I call that treason.



Just 3,000 of roughly 6 million illegal visa overstays over the last 20 years are under active investigation by the Department of Homeland Security.


An automated entry-and-exit screening system for foreign visitors was passed by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. Since then, Congress has approved funding on seven different occasions, but three presidents, Pres. Clinton, Bush, and Obama have failed to implement the system.  It's not an exaggeration to say that had a biometric entry-exit system been in place in 2001, the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. I urge you to begin taking our national security and the integrity of our immigration system seriously by doing all you can to ensure implementation of a biometric entry-exit system at all ports of entry.



REFUGEES:  On Monday, Swedish authorities revealed that a squad of 10 police officers last week was forced to flee from a violent mob of migrants when the police arrived to rescue a 10-year-old boy who had been repeatedly raped at a refugee center.  A police officer described the scene for the Vestmanlands Läns Tidning newspaper: “Even more people appeared behind us. I was mentally prepared to fight for my life. We were 10 police officers in a narrow corridor. And I hear someone yell that there is an emergency exit.”  Staff at the the Signalisten asylum in Västerås had tried to recover the boy, but had been unable to because of the hostile refugees, so they called police.  Refusal to learn from the experiences of Sweden and the rest of Europe means Americans can expect the same sort of violence to be coming to a neighborhood near them soon, courtesy of our president.



Newsmax reported that some Texas lawmakers have suggested making any refugees entering their state take a polygraph to weed out potential radical Islamic terrorists.  While this idea might not be guaranteed to stop Islamic extremists from infiltrating America, the Lone Star State deserves credit for trying something to protect its people — .which is more than the Obama White House wants to do.  A simpler solution to this refugee problem would be not to take any refugees at all until our government can figure out a way to guarantee our safety.



This past week Ali Muhammad Brown was sentenced to 36 years in prison after being found guilty of armed robbery in New Jersey. However, Brown’s case isn’t one of simple violence. The Seattle Muslim has also been accused of four separate counts of murder and of a charge of terrorism.  A Seattle man charged with killing four people in Washington and New Jersey in 2014 to protest U.S. foreign policy was on a federal terrorism watch list ….While Brown was not a migrant, he was already known to our government and even being monitored as a possible terrorist supporter. Even with this extra level of scrutiny, observation and watchfulness, our government could not stop this man from committing terrible violence on two different sides of the country! If the government is unable to even monitor the actions of one “known” terrorist sympathizer, how can we expect them to be able to protect us from the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands if President Obama and John Kerry get their way) of unvetted Muslim refugees?


(They should have to show on screen this conflict of interest, so viewers know what they are getting) 

Media Bias: With his wife running for Congress as a Democrat, MSNBC “journalist” Chris Matthews has become more rabidly partisan than usual.   (Matthews) The former aide to Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill was on a short list of presidential debate moderators.  Democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders’ camp has accused Matthews of being in the tank for Hillary Clinton. His wife Kathleen Matthews, now running for a U.S. congressional seat from Maryland, has worked with Clinton and shares major donors with her.



Through Feb. 25, Trump's presidential campaign has received 923 minutes of coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, nearly five times given to Ted Cruz (205 minutes) and seven times the amount of coverage provided to Marco Rubio (139 minutes). The tone of Trump coverage is routinely negative. But it still plays into Trump's strategy of saying outrageous things to starve the other candidates of any oxygen from the establishment press. The billionaire pledged to self-fund his campaign but has spent little. It's being fueled almost entirely by free TV airtime. But there's one thing Trump doesn't want covered, and again the networks are complying. In that overflowing tank of news hours, only amount (14 minutes, or 1.5 percent of Trump's total) were spent talking about Trump's past record of support for liberal positions and liberal politicians.   Trump's unfavorable numbers hover around 60 percent of the electorate. If that number doesn't improve, he's unelectable, period.  The liberal media want this vulnerable, blabby billionaire with the high unfavorable numbers to be the Republican nominee.



No one is forced to use the service of Wall Streeters. Financial exchange is voluntary.  “Wall Street,” broadly defined to include investment banks, Silicon Valley venture capital, private equity funds and other types of participants in capital markets, create value by matching investors and savers and helping companies to obtain needed capital in the most efficient way.  They do a good job and are paid well if they succeed in directing savings to their highest and best use. They subtract from potential value and are paid poorly if they direct savings to low and poor uses.  Warren Buffett counts among the world’s richest because of his acute ability to match his shareholders’ capital with investment opportunities. It is strange that no one criticizes Buffett when he is doing what Wall Street does, while polishing his anti-greed image by currying political favor from Omaha, Neb.  Wall Street (including Buffett) intermediates between saving and investment because savers, such as contributors to retirement accounts or buyers of insurance policies, have little expertise in matching their savings to investments.  Business investors create new business and expand established ones, but they are not specialized in seeking out savers to fund their plans.  In Europe and Japan, banks play the role of Wall Street. They decide who gets investment finance and who does not. In many cases, these banks are closely tied to related businesses or to state and national governments.  Like their Chinese counterparts, they are inclined to allocate capital to lower-return but politically attractive uses.



For the last 30 years, when the ratio of gold-to-oil spikes, something systemically serious occurs globally..


Seven Fear & Greed Indicators-- How we calculate the index More »



U.S. District Judge Amy Berman has struck down Obama's assertion of executive privilege over documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice program that allowed the sale and trafficking of thousands of weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels. Berman was appointed to the Court by President Obama in 2011. POLITICO has the details: 



Former ISIS child soldiers have revealed how the jihadi group snatch young boys from their families and subject them to savage punishments if they refuse to become child soldiers.  The children who managed to escape describe how they were indoctrinated into the jihadi group’s radical brand of Islam and taught that they should execute their ‘unbeliever’ parents.  A Kurdish commander described the challenge his men face when fighting against ISIS. He said that ISIS frequently send children out on the frontline, wearing concealed explosive vests.  Aziz Abdullah Hadur said that when fighting on the Gweyr frontline, his men had witnessed numerous child soldiers fighting for ISIS on the frontline.  ‘Many times when we are facing ISIS, we see the children at the front line and they’re wearing explosive vests. They are brainwashed,’ he told CNN.  He explained how he was often faced with the challenge of helping children who have been freed by ISIS but who could be suicide bombers.  ‘When they make it through our lines they kill our fighters. It’s an unbelievably hard decision. You don’t know what to do because if you don’t kill them they’ll kill you,’ he lamented.



Babylonia has no regrets about leaving behind her two children and her job as a hairdresser to join a Christian female militia battling against the Islamic State group in Syria.  The fierce-looking 36-year-old in fatigues from the Syriac Christian minority in the northeast believes she is making the future safe for her children.  "I miss Limar and Gabriella and worry that they must be hungry, thirsty and cold. But I try to tell them I'm fighting to protect their future," she told AFP.  Babylonia belongs to a small, recently created battalion of Syriac Christian women in Hasakeh province who are fighting IS.  They are following in the footsteps of Syria's other main female force battling the jihadists – the women of the YPJ, the female counterpart to the Kurdish People's Protection Units or YPG.



(Big Money can’t buy it all:)  Between $100-150 million was spent on the Bush presidential investment, which turned out to be the Solyndra of political campaigns.   Bush donors remain in a state of shock, as they should, given that over $100 million was spent to clinch…four delegates. That’s a horrible investment.


(Censorship)  Adam Baldwin has had enough of Twitter. After the social media platform’s continued censorship of conservatives, the actor decided he’s leaving and never coming back. The recent banning of conservative Robert Stacy McCain that prompted Baldwin to call it quits.  “It’s really a shame that so-called ‘liberal thinkers’ and the so called ‘tolerant crowd’ is intolerant of varying viewpoints,” he said, reports IJR. “They’re so afraid to hear people disagree with them. Instead of ignoring it or providing their own arguments in return, they say “shut up!””



Sheriff Clarke comes right out and says that Obama has purposefully divided Americans on race. He looks forward to when “we can finally turn the page on the Obama reign of terror” and heal the wounds that Obama has deliberately opened up and festered during his presidency. He has done more damage to this nation than any other president in history.



Opening statements of five minutes by each candidate.  Limit the number of primary debates to four—one on economic issues, one on foreign policy, one on social issues, and a final free-for-all debate.


'Hillary for prosecution, not president'


The “big house”, not the White House for Hillary!



Asked by CNN anchor Jake Tapper about the latest development in the months-long email scandal, Mook tried to dismiss the judge’s ruling as a “right-wing” group’s attempt to hurt Clinton’s chances of becoming president. Tapper was quick to point out that Judge Emmett Sullivan, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was appointed by Clinton’s own husband, Bill Clinton.


Hillary Clinton's improperunsecure email server appears to have endangered national security even more than previously thought -- and her excuses continue to melt away under intensifying scrutiny.  Fox News exclusively obtained the text of the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP). That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets...  Intelligence from a "special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as "top secret" – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton's private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server.. former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling … could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.  She sure did. Here it is:  This one line in Clinton's NDA completely destroys her "wasn't marked classified" defense https://t.co/zPn1Ifbe6Q pic.twitter.com/jSWXTDzNtr


NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was charged under the law in April 2010 for retaining classified information on secret surveillance programs. The government claimed it was for the purpose of disclosure.  For disclosing classified information on FBI wiretaps to a blogger, FBI translator named Shamai Leibowitz was charged under the Espionage Act.  Pfc. Bradley Manning was charged with multiple violations of the Espionage Act in July 2010 after disclosing US government information to WikiLeaks.


Petraeus accepted two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine for allowing his mistress, Paula Broadwell, to read classified information for research on the biography she was writing about Petraeus.  Carter apparently wants to ensure that Petraeus is treated the same fashion as other miscreant generals and admirals who have lost rank. Yet there is no evidence that Broadwell (who enjoyed a military security clearance of her own) ever shared the classified information with anyone or disclosed it in the biography.  That does not excuse the bad judgment of Petraeus. But it does invite an obvious comparison with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She not only sent classified information over her unsecured email to several individuals, but remains untruthful about that fact.  Petraeus and his team promoted the so-called “surge” of troops into Iraq, and enlisted tens of thousands of Iraqis to join the American effort to defeat radical terrorists and insurrectionists.

Petraeus’ efforts saved Iraq — and thousands of American and Iraqi lives. Barack Obama entered office in 2009 with a mostly quiet Iraq. Petraeus’ legacy explains why Vice President Joe Biden claimed Iraq as possibly one of the administration’s “greatest achievements.” Obama himself boasted in late 2011 that he was pulling out all U.S. forces from a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” Iraq.  That claim was true — until Obama’s politically driven skedaddle from Iraq created a vacuum to be filled by Islamic State terrorists.


18 U.S.C. 1924 .     Other federal laws she potentially violated range from conspiracy to commit a federal offense to Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation.



Michael Bay’s 13 Hours brings home the anger and sadness of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Note: The Center for Security Policy has prepared a detailed timeline of events leading up to and following the Benghazi attack, a must-read to answer the question why no help ever arrived.


March 2011: Despite repeated Qaddafi efforts to negotiate abdication & exile, Obama White House & Clinton State Dept. insisted on official support to Libyan Muslim Brotherhood & al-Qa’eda militias; a Presidential Intelligence Finding authorized covert assistance & Chris Stevens managed the weapons flow from Qatar to Libyan al-Qa’eda militias

20 Oct 2011: Qaddafi was killed, the Libya MB-led Transitional National Council took over & soon black flag of jihad was seen flying over Benghazi courthouse

Jan-Sep 2012: Security conditions in Benghazi deteriorated drastically, Ansar al-Sharia formed from earlier AQ-MB-linked militias & attacked Western interests, including the US mission


3. Hillary Clinton   $45 mil      a greedy, white privileged 1%...



Why does the left have such an affinity and affection for criminals? Because deep down they know they are criminals themselves. Lincoln defined slavery as, “you work, I eat.” That is the mantra of the left (Democraps).  Living off the labor of others is called theft whether the gun is in the hand of a street criminal or an IRS agent.  This is the thesis of Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party.” D’Souza argues philosophical political discussions with liberals are totally pointless since they have no philosophy other than, we want what you’ve got and they will use the government to get it and whatever con they can think of to justify it.   Was Solyndra really an effort to build solar panels or was it a criminal enterprise to rip the taxpayers off for millions of dollars? Did anyone go to jail for that?

'When you investigate all Clinton scandals, you find DEAD people'

As people start to uncover the sordid, sexual past of the Clinton family, there are dark, disturbing details coming to light.
Among the nefarious activities are "death lists" and special orders to sic the IRS on these famous women ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.


“The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News,” wrote Herridge and Brown.  “This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server,” they added.

Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

The news greatly ratchets up the legal risk for Clinton.  “This is felony corruption. Is there a connection, the FBI says, between the government of whatever country giving Bill Clinton a million-dollar speech fee and the then-secretary of state, who happens to be his spouse, making a decision that benefits that country?” said former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing, who is also a former assistant U.S. attorney.  Toensing believes the probe was expanded a while ago and the nation is only finding out about it now. She also suspects that while the rest of Washington was waiting for Benghazi-related emails, the FBI was able to recover additional messages that led its work in this direction.  “I’m sure when they got into her server and saw all the emails they saw all kinds of back and forth between Bill Clinton getting paid and her making decisions at the State Department,” said Toensing.  "This Justice Department under this administration prosecuted and convicted Gov. (Bob) McDonnell of Virginia for just making a few phone calls for somebody he had known for several years," Toensing said.

"This is far beyond what McDonnell did. He made a few phone calls, which never amounted to anything. If Bill Clinton got paid for a speech ... and Hillary Clinton made decisions favorable to that entity, business or country in a reasonable time frame, that is per se a violation of law."  The expanded FBI investigation into Clinton's activities comes on the heels of a potentially damaging email in which Clinton appears to instruct a top aide to send a secure message through non-secure means and without markings that the information was classified.   Toensing said Clinton has two problems on this front: that she kept classified information on an unauthorized server and that she had a responsibility to know what information is classified whether it is marked or not.

Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

She said the law in 18 U.S.C. §1924 is crystal clear.  "It says it is a crime to put classified information in 'an unauthorized location.' It's as simple as that," Toensing said.



Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of nominating President Barack Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court, she said Tuesday, responding to a question at an Iowa town hall.  “I will certainly take that under advisement,” she said in Decorah, responding to a man’s recommendation. “I mean, he's brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor, so he’s got lots of credentials.”



Another Democrat who has no idea what the difference is between a socialist and a democrat. That doesn’t worry anyone else?



And it’s all ‘legal’ because they use their fortunes to buy as many political prostitutes in Washington as they want or need to write loopholes into laws or to gut regulations.”  As far as loopholes and regulations go, a dispassionate observer could easily conclude that the $5 million Soros gave to get Barack Obama elected president in 2008 was simply a Wall Street fat cat self-servingly purchasing the Dodd-Frank law that President Obama later happily signed.  As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney wrote, “if your goal were to foster more political cronyism, reward lobbyists, entrench incumbents, enrich the politically connected and get the revolving door spinning faster, you would have a hard time crafting a more useful piece of legislation than the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill.”  Somehow, Soros’ fortune has more than doubled under the Obama presidency..The MoveOn.org and Media Matters sugar daddy has now given another $6 million to Clinton’s super PAC Priorities USA Action, once again placing Soros “among the biggest givers in all of American politics.”  The Soros-financed MoveOn.org, meanwhile, has backed Clinton rival Bernie Sanders. But the important thing to remember is what Soros does with his money roll: funding the Democratic party, which has come to fully embrace the causes on which he has spent billions.



the democratic socialist ideal is to create a casino society, where everybody plays but few win, and nearly all walk away with much less.  The winners in this society will ultimately be the house itself, as any other winner will be deprived of their gains as surely as Bernie sits tied with Hillary because super-delegates negate his double-digit drubbing of the queen in waiting.

I urge my fellow millennials: keep striving for equality of opportunity and fair play. Just don’t expect the government to be any better than any other casino, where the house always comes out on top.


In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.

Bernie Sanders won 60% of the vote in New Hampshire Tuesday yet will collect fewer delegates in the electoral college than distant-second finisher Hillary Clinton. This is just plain rigging.  The Democratic Party had better reeducate itself about the word “democratic.”  “Tonight, we served notice to the political and economic establishment of this country that the American people will not continue to accept a corrupt campaign finance system that is undermining democracy,” Sanders, an avowed socialist, told his supporters in his Tuesday night victory speech in New Hampshire.  (Hillary would be the big money campaign recipient, but Sanders “won” in NH, likewise Cruz won over Billionaire Trump in IA.)  Well, he may have his eyes on the campaign finance system as the problem in the elections as many on the left do. But the more obvious one is that he walloped his rival, Hillary Clinton, 60% to 38% Tuesday, yet he takes home just 15 delegates for the Democratic nomination, same as the 15 she does…Democrats are setting themselves up for war with their own party members based on process of permitting “superdelegates” for 747, or almost a sixth, of all 5,083 nominating delegates.  Superdelegates are party insiders, governors, campaign operatives and former office holders who have nominating power but who are not selected on the basis of primary results. It means they can vote any way they want, even if it’s at odds with what the voters want.  Instead of railing against Wall Street, Sanders should be vowing to change the system of cronyism and insider-ism in his own party, a system that has undermined the will of his voters and ironically separated the word “democratic” from the Democrats.


We are living in a "Banana Republic" where the media is bought, paid for and in the bag for Hillary Clinton.  Reid “fixed” the results for Hillary by twisting the arms of casino and union bosses. Why isn’t the national media reporting this? She needed pure corruption, intimidation and manipulation to squeak out an unimpressive win in Nevada. After spending millions of dollars on TV ads, she needed union and casino bosses to basically order their union employees to take half their day off, and pay them to vote for Hillary.  Do other companies get caucus sites placed inside their building to enable employees to vote with ease? Why should union employees receive something of value that I don’t, in order to stuff the ballot box for Hillary Clinton? What did she agree to give to the union and the casino bosses in return for this favor?




The final results of the GOP Presidential primary in South Carolina are in, and all 50 delegates have been awarded to Donald Trump.  The GOP primary allowed Democrat cross-over voters in the "all or nothing" primary, while most future states proportionally distribute their delegates, so it will take MONTHS for any candidate to obtain the 1,237 delegates needed to win the GOP primary.  South Carolina results, with Iowa/NH delegates:  Trump:  33% with 67 delegates so far
Rubio:  22% with 11 delegates so far   Cruz:  22% with 10 delegates so far  Kasich:  8% with 4 delegates so far  Carson:  7% with 3 delegates so far

Part of this may be the result of many changes the Republican National Committee made last year. The “establishment” changed Republican primary rules, finance changes (hidden in the CRomnibus bill), how delegates could be distributed, and the dates of primaries were changed.  The “establishment” plan succeeded in that its road-map was established to block Ted Cruz, or anyone like him, from winning.  The GOP “establishment” sought to consolidate power within its existing structure in order to intentionally prevent a grassroots candidate from winning.


In Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont, if a potential candidate does not receive at least 20 percent of the vote, he is disqualified from receiving any delegates.  



The Commission had provided that the federal voter registration form would include Alabama, Georgia and Kansas requirements to enforce their respective state proof-of-citizenship voter registration laws.  For Alabama the new federal form states, “To register in Alabama you must: be a citizen of the United States. The county board of registrars shall accept any completed application for registration, but an applicant shall not be registered until the applicant has provided satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.”  But if the injunction is granted by Judge Leon and the new federal voter registration form is removed, then Alabama, Georgia and Kansas would have to begin processing federal applications to the state voter rolls once again even if there is no proof of citizenship.


the American culture is rapidly descending into a socialist point of view…and it’s brainwashing our kids. This meme illustrates the differences in mindset perfectly! (Must see, please click!) We need to get rid of this sense of entitlement and poverty mindset that has been engrained in this young generation. The answer to the economy of this country is to quit to quit getting people to depend on the government for fish, and invest in teaching them how to fish!



I said goodbye to the government plantation and Democrat Party politicians promising redemption with other people’s money. I turned to the Republican Party, which represented, for me, traditional values, personal responsibility and limited government.  These were the values of the healthy, prosperous parts of America. And it was these values that I wanted to bring to poor black communities as antidote to the damage done by the welfare state.  According to Sanders, it is big business and the wealthy that cause all our problems. According to Trump, it is Chinese imports and immigrants. For Sanders, government will solve all our problems. For Trump, Donald Trump will solve all our problems.  America’s greatness lies in giving individuals freedom to take responsibility for their own lives. Economically, this means ownership. Socially, this means family.  What makes America not great is this new era of blaming everyone else for our problems and looking for someone else to solve them.  Absence of personal responsibility has always been the message of Democrats.



growth is the salve that heals all wounds. A growing economy creates greater income, opportunity and resources for all.. Because of limits imposed on the economy — the highest marginal tax rates on corporations in the developed world, costly rules on factories from the EPA to curb CO2 output, ObamaCare taxes, and Dodd-Frank’s poisonous new regimen of financial regulation — this has been the most anti-growth administration in modern history.  If growth had merely been average emerging from the last recession — that is, 4% rather than Obama’s 2.2% — our economy would be $1.8 trillion larger. Cumulatively, we’ve lost more than $5.5 trillion in total output. Today, a record 94 million Americans over 16 are out of the workforce — meaning, they’re supported by the 135 million people who work. The employment-population ratio remains stuck below 60% — the lowest since the stagflationary 1970s.  While Obama touts the “14 million new jobs” created under his stewardship of the economy, he isn’t telling the whole truth: With merely average growth, we would have had 5 million more jobs created since 2009. In short, his administration has been a jobs disaster.  Truth is, our traditional economic freedom has been severely damaged under Obama. In the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, the U.S. tied its all-time worst score, and is now ranked 11th in the world — down from a ranking of sixth when Obama took office.  There is a very close link between economic freedom and economic growth, as repeated studies demonstrate. Yet, at every juncture during the past seven years, Obama has opted for class warfare, divisive identity politics, inequality battles and confrontations over race, rather than finding ways to make the economy grow.  Nor is any of this an accident. The current president has intentionally allowed the economy to deteriorate, knowing that it would set off furious battles over “fairness,” “equality,” “greed,” and the like.



“Democratic socialism” just means people voted for their own misery.   If you like being told what to think, vote for socialism.

If you like being told when to see a doctor or what care you may receive, vote for socialism.  If you like working hard only to give your paycheck to government, vote for socialism.  If you like being categorized and used according to your race or gender instead of your achievements, vote for socialism.   If you like being lied to by the media, vote for socialism.  If you like not only being unable to care for yourself and make your own decisions but legally prevented from doing so, vote for socialism.  So what’s wrong with socialism? It’s about your freedom, stupid.



Hillary Clinton supporters are asked to sign a petition to approve of “her choice” of Communist Karl Marx to be her vice president if she’s elected President of the United States.



Socialism will take something from someone else who earned it and give it to you and in return, you will do what socialists want you to do. If you’re irresponsible, lazy, have a habit of making poor decisions or just need a master, this can seem like a good deal. You can work a menial job and get paid more than you’re worth! You can go to college and you don’t have to pay for it! Someone else will give you a place to live, food stamps, welfare and health care! In return, you just have to give up on your pride, your dreams and control of your own life.  Capitalism is not perfect, but it won’t bankrupt the country, it doesn’t reward failure and it can’t control you like socialism.   At the end of the day, socialism is for slaves who are willing to give up their freedom for promises that they’ll be given some minimal level of support no matter what. On the other hand, capitalism is for people who want the freedom to rise or fall based on their own effort.



"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." -- Margaret Thatcher

"Socialism is when government's taking care of you, you send all your money to the government, the government decides how to spend it instead of letting the people spend it and make all those decisions." -- Bob Latta

 "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler

"The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin

socialism harms, it weakens the economies of countries that have tried it. Weaker economies hurt everybody in them. Socialism kills incentive, opportunity, freedom. It is the opposite of what America is all about. Look, socialism always harms the people it claims to help the most. It handicaps them, leaving them weaker, less self-determined, less free." -- Bobby Jindal

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” -- Frédéric Bastiat

I believe that all forms of socialism have been proven over time to result in a loss of both economic and civil liberties, with increasing poverty." -- John Mackey

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office." --  Ludwig von Mises

19) "Socialists cry 'Power to the people', and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean--power over people, power to the State." -- Margaret Thatcher

20) "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." -- Winston Churchill


Mein Kampf:736 "The swastika had been used as a symbol of the Germanic [pagan] religion by folkish groups in primitive cults."

Mein Kampf:845 "Nazism must claim the right to force its principles on the whole and educate everyone about its ideas and thoughts without regard to previous boundaries."

Mein Kampf:848 "Rarely is a great theorist a great leader. More usually he is an agitator who shows the ability of imparting an idea to the masses as a psychologist and demagogue. For to lead means to be able to move [seduce] the masses."

Mein Kampf:851 "The most striking success of the revolution of a view of life will always be won whenever the new view of life [religotic] is taught [dictated] to all people, and if necessary, is forced upon them."

Mein Kampf 960 "We must never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common bloodstained criminals, the scum of humanity. They butchered and rooted out millions of leading intellectuals with savagery. They have imposed the most frightful regime of tyranny of all time. The Marxist and their Jewish comrades combine bestial horror and an inconceivable gift for lying. They intend to impose bloody oppression on the whole world. One does not conclude a treaty with someone whose sole interest is destruction."

Mein Kampf:920 "We must reimplant in the people the spirit of proud self-respect, manly defiance, and wrathful hate."



Socialism perverts the biblical notion of charity, turning it into an excuse to empower the state. Since it advances at the expense of existing institutions, violating natural human relations rooted in the family, socialism is a driving force behind the sexual revolution. Hence, modern progressives naturally embrace abortion and promote the redefinition of marriage and family while denigrating religious faith – with the notable exception of Islam. As families fail, the state grows larger to pick up the pieces.



InThe Hunger Games, a few small gestures of disobedience grew into a revolution against Capital elites who lived well and ruled imperiously, while subjugated masses in the Districts starved in poverty and sent their children to die in televised “hunting games.”  In Divergent, a Faction system preserves a society that primarily benefits the ruling Erudites by stifling individuality. The heroes and heroines refuse to confine their lives and ambitions to only one of the other four factions in which they were placed at age sixteen. Again, the ruling class lives far better than the ruled masses. (Ponder the politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists in counties around Washington, DC.)  Are so many millennials really willing to let ruling classes confiscate wealth, impose penalties, determine appropriate welfare payments, and dole out favors? Has their “education” made them incapable of understanding the blessings of liberty, free enterprise capitalism, reliable and affordable fossil fuel energy, and entrepreneurial opportunities? Have instructors so brilliantly presented socialism through rose-colored glasses that young voters are blissfully unaware of its abject failures and horrid excesses?



After the bloodless annexation of Austria and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, Hitler assumed that Britain and France would not go to war at all if he went into Poland. Yet Western appeasement did not alone guarantee the outbreak of World War II.  The Germans invaded Poland only after a guarantee from Josef Stalin that the Soviet Union would soon join in attacking the Poles from the east. The two dictatorships could then divvy up the country.  Stalin’s communist Russia had foolishly gambled that by making a deal with Nazi Germany, Hitler would leave the Soviets alone. Yet Stalin’s collaboration with Hitler eventually guaranteed that Russia also would be double-crossed — less than two years after signing an agreement with the Third Reich. Germany surprise-attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Due to Stalin’s collaboration, almost 30 million Russians would die on the Eastern Front over the next four years.  A third, fatal decision was necessary to ensure a war. The U.S. had entered World War I late in April 1917, and it revived the sagging Allied effort, helping to crush the Germany army and win the war by November 1918.  But by 1919, America had rapidly disarmed and forgotten its key role in World War I.  America’s isolationism and disarmament also helped prompt another global war. Had the U.S. kept its military strong after World War I, and had it entered into a formal alliance with its former World War I partners, Germany never would have risked a second war against the combined strength of a fully armed Britain, France and United States.  The world of 2016 is eerily beginning to resemble the powder keg of 1939 Europe. Iran, China and North Korea, along with radical Islamic terrorist groups, all have particular contempt for Western democracies.  The European Union is largely unarmed. Yet it still trusts that it can use its vaunted “smart diplomacy” to reason with its enemies.  Appeasement, collaboration and isolationism always prove a lethal mix — past and present.



Islamabad writer Dr. Farrukh Saleem pointed out in 2005 indisputable facts about the Islamic world.  Combined, 57 Islamic countries are the world’s poorest and most illiterate:  In fact, historians have estimated that Muslims have enslaved over 100 million people over 14 centuries. Additionally, Muslims enslaved Africans 1,000 years prior to the European African slave trade and continued another 100 years after Europeans abolished it.  Not to mention, that Islam subjugates women and girls


After Muslims Rape 2,000 Women, the Women Turn Around and Form an Entire Army to Deal with Islamic Jihadists



The decision to grant al-Husseini the position was made by Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner of Palestine. It was odd that Samuel, a British Jew, would appoint a man who would be responsible for so much unrest within the Mandatory area. Al-Husseini in fact had been sentenced to ten years in prison by the British for inciting riots in 1920. None of that sentence was served, as al-Husseini had fled to Transjordan, and was soon after amnestied by Samuel himself.  During World War II, the mufti was involved in the mobilization of support for Germany among Muslims. In November 1941 the Mufti met with Hitler.


Speech by Adolf Hitler, January 31, 1939 (Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol XIII, p. 131):

Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!


Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism: actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle: on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews.


Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. In the ninth century, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany. 6

When Hitler introduced the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, he received telegrams of congratulation from all corners of the Arab world. 17 Later, during the war, one of his most ardent supporters was the Mufti of Jerusalem.  An Arabic translation of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf was distributed in East Jerusalem and the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and became a bestseller.




the socialist spending sprees of Denmark and Norway are bankrolled by oil: Big Oil, to be specific.  While Sanders is calling for a ban on oil production on U.S. government land, the Norwegian government, which owns a staggering 67% of Statoil ASA, the largest oil company in Norway, is producing oil and natural gas on government land — and lots of it. Norway is the largest oil producer in Western Europe and the seventh largest oil exporter in the world. The Nordic nation is also the leading exporter of natural gas to Western Europe, selling more natural gas to Western European counties than Russia does. Incredibly, half of Norway’s exports are related to petroleum.  The Economist reports that the Norwegian oil boom, which followed the discovery of oil in the North Sea in 1969, has enabled a boom in public spending.  Without oil and natural gas production, there’s little to no chance that the Norwegian welfare state could persist in its current form.  Although Sanders and his supporters often talk about concepts such as “free” college, “free” health care and expanded Social Security, we all know that nothing is really free. Ultimately, someone must foot the bill for this largesse.  It is one thing to advocate Scandinavian-style socialism, but it’s inconsistent and irresponsible to ignore how those countries pay for it.


(Socialism is Envy & Jealousy of hard work, ambition, effort and making something of oneself..)  His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.  “I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.  Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”   Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”  Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.  The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”  So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party.  Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.  The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.


Because we want a sovereign nation, closed borders, the rule of law followed and we don’t want terrorists brought in by the fricking plane full, the left paints us as bigots and haters. We are patriots and those who love our country and the laws and principles she was founded on. Bernie not so much. He sucks at economics and basic math, he thinks moral, upright Americans are hatemongers and he wants the government to rule every part of our lives. Everything will be free, but you’ll be taxed to death to get it.


One wonders whether Sanders would receive as much cheer from his youthful supporters if he were honest with them and told them he was going to provide for their "free" education by taking the earnings of another or by enslaving professors.  One cannot get something for nothing.  Donald Trump and business and labor groups, who are against Americans purchasing goods made in other countries, can simply ask the American people not to purchase from abroad.


Democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders says concerns about his honeymoon trip to the USSR in the ’80s are “silly.” He’ll have a harder time explaining his months-long stay at a hardcore Stalinist camp in the ’60s.  It’s clear the self-avowed socialist is even further left than he has admitted. Fifty years ago, during the height of the Cold War, he sought out communist indoctrination.  The Israeli press earlier this month broke the story that Sanders, who is Jewish, spent several months at an Israeli commune co-founded by a Soviet spy.  As a college student in 1963, Sanders was a guest of the Hashomer Hatzair, a Marxist youth movement founded by communist Ya’akov Hazan, who called the Soviet Union a second homeland and eulogized Stalin as “the great leader and extolled commander.  Ignoring Stalin’s atrocities, Hazan oozed: “His huge historical achievements will guide generations in their march toward the reign of socialism and communism the world over.”   Voters ought to know. Only, the media aren’t interested in finding out (like Obama, Hillary etc. the Big Marxist Media covers for its own) So far no debate moderator has asked Sanders about his commie camp days. Strikingly, even Fox News let Sanders off the hook in a rare interview last Sunday.  1985: In a letter to the (communist-controlled Nicaragua) Sandinistas, according to the New York Post, Sanders pledged his support for their “struggle,” calling it a “heroic revolution” while accusing the Reagan administration of engaging in “terrorist activities.”  1985: In the same interview, he praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, claiming “he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.” He later showed his affection by traveling to Havana and meeting with its mayor.  1985: In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders proclaimed: “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”  1988:  One day after wedding his second and current wife, Jane Sanders, the two traveled to the USSR for their honeymoon. Upon returning, Sanders praised communist health care and housing, noting “the cost of both services is much, much higher in the United States.”  Sanders isn’t just a “socialist.” Or even a communist sympathizer. He is a hard-core communist collaborator who is far, far outside the American political mainstream.



How very interesting that in American politics that blue is associated with the Democrat party and red with the Republican party. If you take the blue pill you can stay in the fantasy world of the Matrix…but the red pill will free your mind, and you will see how deep the rabbit hole goes. The red pill represents freedom and liberty, allowing the individual to separate from the collective. However, the real world is not one of fantasy and pleasure; it is about survival, working hard, and evading the sentinels – the hunter machines, the liberal progressive media.



For those who believe that electricity comes from the wall, food comes from the grocery store and clean water comes in a recyclable plastic bottle, Obama's latest tax proposal to put a $10-per-barrel tax on oil consumed in the United States must seem like a peachy idea.  Who will pay this tax?  Well, it will be collected by the oil companies — who will get the blame for the resulting price increase — but in reality, the average person trying to survive in the current stagnant wage environment is the one who will pay.  Leave it to Obama to view the good news that a working single-mother can fill up her 13-gallon gas tank for under $25 as an opportunity to soak her for more taxes.  And this is not even mentioning those who are currently able to heat their homes using lower-cost home heating oil during this winter season, saving a few coins due to the collapsing oil prices. No windfall for the American consumer can be allowed in Obama's world, as he covets that money being saved to spend on his priorities.  Lower oil prices affect the cost of plastics, airline tickets, the delivery of goods and, overall, have the net result of making things less expensive for consumers. While the low-price good times will not last, the one thing that will would be Obama's $10-per-barrel larceny out of each American's pocket.  One of the problems you get when you hire a president who views your pocketbook as his pocketbook is that he will always believe that the government should get a take of any good fortune you have.



When Florida Gov. Rick Scott took over as the Sunshine State’s chief executive in 2011, the state’s economy was struggling—unemployment hovered around 11 percent, Florida’s tourism industry was suffering and the state had added $5.2 billion to its debt. Now, as Scott heads into his fifth year serving as governor, he’s touting the successes he’s had in boosting Florida’s economy. During Republican Scott’s tenure, Florida’s unemployment rate has dropped to 5 percent, according to preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more than 1 million private-sector jobs were added.



“I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. … It never goes away,” Broaddrick tweeted Wednesday.  "Was dreading seeing my abuser on TV campaign trail for enabler wife, but his physical appearance reflects ghosts of past are catching up," she also tweeted on Tuesday.



When Todd said Clinton had traveled more than any other secretary of state, Trump said she (Hillary) was merely "sitting on an airplane," but didn't accomplish anything in her travels.  Trump reiterated his claim that "hundreds of thousands of people have been killed because of her faulty decisions." He pointed to Libya and the mass migration of Syrian refugees as proof.



Hilarious ‘Bad Lip Reading’ of the First Democrat Debate Is The Best Thing Ever



Charles Woods, the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods who was killed in Benghazi, has challenged the 2016 presidential candidate to sit-down to a polygraph test which could force her to be truthful about the circumstances of his son’s death and Clinton’s words to him in the days after Tyrone’s murder. (how about her unsecure email server, Clinton money laundering Foundation, the Democraps’ war in Libya etc..)



"We have now gotten used to the temper tantrums, or Trumper Tantrums, that he throws," Cruz said Wednesday on "The Hard Line." "Whenever he's unhappy, he melts down and he explodes on Twitter. It is odd behavior for a grown man, and it is more something you would expect to see in Romper Rooms."  Earlier in the day, Cruz told reporters in Iowa his 5-year-old and 7-year-old daughters are better behaved than Trump. Republican voters "don't want Trumpcare socialized medicine" and don't agree with Trump's support of eminent domain "to take your home and to give it to giant corporations and casinos," he said.

Former Democratic president Jimmy Carter said Wednesday that he would choose Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination over Ted Cruz.  "I think I would choose Trump, which may surprise some of you," Carter, 91, who was in the White House from 1977 to 1981, said in taking questions after speaking to the British House of Lords in London.   "The reason is, Trump has proven already he’s completely malleable," the former president explained. "I don’t think he has any fixed positions that he’d go the White House and fight for. "On the other hand, Ted Cruz is not malleable," he added. "He has far-right wing policies he'd pursue if he became president."   "Of course, I’m a Democrat and I will support the nominee."

Levin said he isn't impressed at Trump's constant claims he will be better at making deals in Washington than his opponents, since the problem on Capitol Hill isn't the inability to make deals, but "the kind of deals they make."  He accused Trump of "dirty, low-down politics," ..Nixonesque"

Donald Trump is "a menace to conservatism" who should not be elected president of the United States, 22 conservative leaders argue in the new issue of National Review.

Essays by the conservative thinkers were
posted online Thursday night and will be included in the conservative journal's Feb. 15 print edition, which goes to press Jan. 27.  The magazine also includes an editorial, titled "Against Trump," that concludes: "Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as The Donald himself."    "These contributors have many differences of opinion among themselves, but all agree that Trump is not a conservative, he is a mistake for the Republican Party, and he is the wrong man to pick up the pieces after the wreckage of the Obama years."

TAXPAYER ALERT:  Trump actually said that he believed Obamacare wasn’t socialist enough and that the government had to completely take over the healthcare industry!  Donald Trump: “Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, ‘No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.’ But…”  Scott Pelley: “Universal Healthcare?”  Donald Trump:  I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”  Scott Pelley: “But who’s going to pay for it?”  Donald Trump: “The government’s gonna pay for it.  (Government is already so broke & it gets its money from TAXPAYERS..)


A dealmaker by definition cuts deals, and Trump has by his own admission cut deals that used the government to serve his interests quite profitably. A dealmaker doesn't stand on principle; instead, a dealmaker looks for common ground.  If the past seven years have taught me anything, it is that the Democrats are unrelenting in their pursuit of bigger, more expansive government, and the GOP consistently looks for common ground that is only partially disastrous, calling that a bipartisan win.  When Trump says he would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a government-paid healthcare system, I believe him, and that makes me very uneasy.  It reveals a man who accepts big government and would expand it if the right deal were on the table. Lastly, the sudden embrace of Trump by GOP establishment members in an attempt to knock out their real nemesis, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), has got to force Trump voters to take pause.


Trump frequently invokes Ronald Reagan’s name to defend his sudden, 180-degree switch from being a life-long, pro-Clinton Democrat to a Reagan Republican.  Both men did make a switch, but almost all the similarities between the two end there. Ronald Reagan’s odyssey from Hollywood liberal to conservative backer took place over almost two decades.  Starting with his 1964 “Time for Choosing” speech that galvanized Americans for Barry Goldwater, dad began a 16-year effort of crisscrossing America to support conservative candidates for office. My dad also served eight years as California’s governor. When he ran for President, he had a proven conservative track record.  Donald Trump doesn’t have one. In fact, Trump still can’t explain his sudden change from being a liberal Democrat. When dad ran in 1980, Trump donated the maximum amount to Jimmy Carter. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Trump also donated to a PAC for Walter Mondale, who ran against dad in 1984.Trump has criticized some candidates for their indiscretions made during their childhood. But what can you say for a grown adult who supported both Carter and Mondale over Ronald Reagan?  One of my dad’s most important lessons to me was how to uncover a phony. He told me not to judge people by what they say; judge them by what they actually do. As President, dad used this “trust but verify” principle on the Soviets and it worked. Voters today should apply Reagan’s verify principle on Trump.  During the 2008 election, Trump told CNN that he wanted President George W. Bush impeached. Then, during Obama’s first year in the White House, after he rammed through Congress a $800 billion stimulus and proposed a radical health care takeover, Trump praised the President, saying he was “amazing” and “truly phenomenal.” 


For the first time on the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz viciously attacked front-runner Donald Trump on Saturday, accusing him of not being a conservative and for lacking the temperament and judgment befitting the White House.

"Donald’s record does not match what he says as a candidate," the Texas senator said to reporters in Fort Mill, S.C., The Washington Post reports.

Trump said he's always had a "great relationship" with Pelosi, and with Reid as well. "If I weren't running for office I would be able to deal with her or anybody," said Trump of Pelosi. "I think I could get along very well with Nancy Pelosi and just about everybody. I think I'll get along well with Chuck Schumer. I was close to Schumer in many ways."


Colbert on Thursday hosted an all-Trump debate — in which Trump debated himself. What followed was a “debate” in which Colbert cut back and forth between some of Trump’s many contradicting past comments.


15) Trump was publicly supporting amnesty in 2013   19) Trump loves Planned Parenthood    20) Trump can’t be trusted to pick a Supreme Court Justice   22) Eminent domain    24) Trump isn’t a conservative and has no consistent ideological values: Trump has switched political parties 5 times in his life, was endorsing Democrats three years ago and his positions on the issues sometimes change week to week.  29) Donald Trump has been a big supporter of the Democrat Party   38) Trump’s a phony Christian: There’s no such thing as an unrepentant adulterer who doesn’t ask God for forgiveness who also happens to be a Christian.


Do not be duped by Donald Trump!  The issue is whether he can be trusted and whether we even know what his real positions are.   So I ask you, if you are a Trump supporter, with all respect for your zeal and with affirmation of your frustration with status-quo politics, how can you know what Trump really believes or what he will actually do if elected?   He changes his views from one day to the next – sometimes diametrically – and flatly contradicts his previous positions, then insults and mocks those who challenge him, often in the most puerile ways.  Trump is either lying or vacillating or both, but either way, he’s untrustworthy.  This prompted the gay, PinkNews website to opine, “It’s all very clear: if you’re a lesbian voter he will support your marriage, but if you’re an evangelical voter he’ll oppose lesbian marriage. If you ask on Fox News then he will absolutely consider it, but if you ask on NBC then he hasn’t decided whether he will decide to decide yet.”  Others called him out during the debating for reversing his position on Libya’s Qaddafi, contrasting his remarks in the debate (“[Cruz is] saying I was in favor of Libya? I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gadhafi were in charge right now.”) with his 2011 comments that, “Now we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives.”  So, not only did he deny ever discussing the subject – either an outright lie or an example of a terrible memory – but he also reversed his earlier position.  Then there are his contradictory statements on government funded health-care, Planned Parenthood, and a host of other important subjects.


Who do you trust to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice(s)?

It's a question that is on every one's minds after the sad news this weekend of Justice Antonin Scalia's passing.
Ask yourself:  Is it Donald Trump, who says that his perfect nominee to the Supreme Court would be his sister, 
a judge who has consistently ruled in defense of partial birth abortion?  Whoever wins could have as many as 3 Supreme Court nominees

The Senate must ensure that any nominee’s past history and prior statements demonstrate an uncompromising fidelity to the Constitution as written.   They owe deference to the Constitution, not the president. The importance of preserving the rule of law and adhering to the Constitution is too important for them to continue to hold this manifestly wrong and, frankly, dangerous view.


Obama was one of 25 Democrats who filibustered Alito's nomination, a vote that has come back to haunt him, since Obama is now asking the Senate to confirm his pending nomination to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Many Republicans have said Obama's vote on Alito shows the Senate has the right to block even the important nominees to join the highest court in the land.


"Nowhere in [the Constitution]," Senator Reid insisted in 2005, "does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote." Then-Senator Obama even fought the Supreme Court nominee of the president who had just been elected! "There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee ... [and] there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view."


In a floor speech June 25, 1992, Sen. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, argued that senators “should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on [any Bush] nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”


Further, he pointed out, “Elections have consequences. In 2014, the American people elected a Republican Senate majority as a check against President Obama’s executive overreach. Should a tie occur, the ruling of the lower court is simply upheld,” he noted. “Although unlikely, should any controversy arise, the court has the authority to hold cases over or reargue them once a new justice is confirmed.”  The statement continued, “Senate Democrats have been responsible for every major escalation in the so-called ‘Confirmation Wars’ – from the character assassinations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the unprecedented obstruction of President George W. Bush’s nominees and the use of the ‘nuclear option’ to dismantle the judicial filibuster for lower court nominees in 2013. They have no credibility in criticizing Republicans for following precedents set by Democratic leaders.”  “It’s about preserving the independence and integrity of the court. It’s about defending the Senate’s role in the confirmation process as a real check, not a rubber stamp on the president’s appointment power.”


Many people know that Donald Trump made a lot of money in the casino business, but they don’t know just how bad gambling can be for families and communities.  Suicide rates, bankruptcies, divorce, and child abuse all increase in communities after casinos open. It’s not just bad, it’s horrifying.  In fact, it’s why, over at American Principles Project, we decided to launch TrumpWinsYouLose.com today -- to highlight just how much damage billionaire casino moguls like Donald Trump have done to working Americans   Visit TrumpWinsYouLose.com and take a few spins on the Donald Trump slot machine and find out why when Trump wins, we all lose.



His opinions and dissents were often filled with fiery originalist arguments and humorous prose. Some of his dissents in the most recent term were so memorable that the post-hardcore band Coheed and Cambria put them into song.

NOM developed our
Presidential Marriage Pledge and fashioned it along the lines of specific actions a candidate will take if elected president.  Ted Cruz signed NOM's Presidential Marriage Pledge while Donald Trump did not.  In fact, Ted Cruz has already proven himself to be a champion for marriage by authorizing a proposed constitutional amendment preserving the right of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He also has co-sponsored federal legislation, the First Amendment Defense Act, to protect people who believe in traditional marriage from being punished by government for living out their beliefs concerning marriage in their daily lives and at work.  Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC:  "You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land."  Think about the implications of Donald Trump's comments. By his reasoning, the nation would "have to go with" slavery as "the law of the land" once the Supreme Court issued their illegitimate Dred Scott decision.  But the nation didn't go along with this manifestly immoral, anti-constitutional ruling on slavery. Fortunately, we had a political leader, Abraham Lincoln, who was willing to lead a principled fight for the dignity of every human being, and slavery was eventually repudiated.


With this country at a crossroads, facing social degeneration at home and dire threats from abroad, the last thing we need is an uninformed bluffer with a runaway ego in charge of our fate. Neither Trump's talent as a media performer nor his wheeler-dealer economic success is a substitute for the depth of knowledge and the chastening experience required for governing a great nation.  We can only hope that never again will the fate of this nation depend upon a media gimmick like these "debates," which obscure and mislead far more than they inform us about anything beyond the candidates' talents for glib responses. Having each candidate sit down alone with an experienced interviewer for an hour-long, in-depth discussion of the problems facing the country would tell us a lot more about the things that matter. But such discussions would be unlikely to have as high media ratings as the sound-bite circuses we have seen.



(So smart Owedumbo, what does he know about supply/demand or the economy?  What was his Economics grade, an F?)

“We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,” President Obama told an audience four years ago at the University of Miami. Like this year, it was an election year and Obama was running for re-election. Later in his speech, he added: “anybody who tells you that we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or just isn’t telling you the truth.” He scoffed at the Republicans for believing that drilling would result in $2 gasoline — remember this was when prices at the pump, in many places, spiked to more than $4 a gallon: “You can bet that since it is an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, step three is drill.”  Well, Mr. President, you owe America, and the Republicans, an apology.  The Republican’s supposed three-point plan, which you mocked, was correct.


The U.S. shipped a Hellfire missile to Europe in 2014 for a routine training exercise. The only problem is that the missile and its highly secret technology ended up in Cuba. Incompetence or something far worse?    Through reverse engineering, an enemy government could discover the missile's secrets or, just as badly, discover ways to counter it — thus making all the money spent on the missile's development totally wasted.  Did Obama know that Cuba had a Hellfire missile that it refused to give back when he began "normalizing" ties with the communist nation? When he travels there, will he demand the missile back?
Is NATO ally Spain penetrated by Cuban intelligence, as Cuban-American writer
Humberto Fontova suggests?  The Wall Street Journal report called it "a loss of sensitive military technology that ranks among the worst-known incidents of its kind." That may understate our own government's incompetence.


In sports, if a game plan is not working, the coach changes it. In medicine, if a course of treatment does not cure a disease, doctors try a different approach. In government, failure means nothing. Government keeps cash flowing with little regard for results. In government, failure endures.



(Federal agencies MUST be Fundamentally Transformed & replaced..IRS by the FAIR TAX &/or moved to state level..EPA) Leading Republican presidential hopefuls Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson all vowed to overturn the Obama orders if elected. But if Lynch gets her way, that will be easier said than done.  And Lynch is not the first Obama appointee to make such a comment.  WND reported in April 2015 Obama’s top domestic adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, said she was also working to institutionalize Obama’s policies. Only in the case of Muñoz, her focus would not be on gun control but on immigration.  Muñoz, a former executive with the National Council of La Raza, said it was her job “to make sure we build this really into the DNA across the federal bureaucracy, at a leadership level, but much more importantly to make sure that when political appointees like me are no longer here this (immigration strategy) is built into what those agencies do and think about every day.”



(You and our loved ones are in danger thanks to Owebummer, Biden, Hillary, Democraps all for the Owebummer retreat/withdrawal out of Iraq, Hillary’s Libya war and basic cowardice, appeasement and Democrap Vietnam process to demoralize, defund and defang our war efforts..) The FBI and members of Congress confirm ISIS has been creating high-quality, fake passports for travel to Europe, the U.S. and many other countries who have already been dispersed to their destinations. U.S. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch said he has been briefed on the ISIS passport threat, adding both the FBI and federal immigration officials have confirmed the security nightmare.  "This is a reason for very high concern, especially with the number of refugees piling into Germany and France," Lynch said. Lynch added ISIS got its hands on blank passports and the machine needed to print them when the group's fighters overran Deir ez-Zour in eastern Syria more than a year ago.  "They can put together a very high quality counterfeit passport," said Lynch.



Citing statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, Sessions' Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest reports between 2009 and 2013, DHS issued some 680,000 green cards to migrants, including refugees, from Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh, among other countries.   Another 660,000 are likely to be issued over the next five years, the number "could be higher still," Sessions states in a news release.   (ISIS has only an estimated 30,000 fighters)


Below is just a small sampling of refugees:  The Boston Marathon bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers, entered the country as asylum seekers from Chechnya.  Omar Muhammad Kalmio, who came to Minnesota as a boy refugee, was charged with four murders in 2011 in North Dakota, allegedly shooting to death a 19-year-old woman, her brother, mother and the mother’s boyfriend.  Since 2007, the FBI confirms that at least 48 Somalis have left the U.S. to fight for al-Shabab and ISIS. They hold U.S. passports and could return at any time.  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/lawmakers-to-obama-stop-importing-the-threat/#mB64D8SG5I3Wx47b.99



FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION:  A leaked police report indicated several suspects in the Cologne sexual assaults claimed to be Syrian refugees. One suspect reportedly told authorities: "I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs. Merkel invited me."  German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opened the floodgates to migrants with her "open-door" refugee policy, bringing in 1.1 million asylum-seekers in 2015. She plans to bring hundreds of thousands more Muslim migrants into the nation.  German officials have reportedly been told to cover up crimes committed by migrants in order to avoid spreading panic among the population. And no arrests have been made in Cologne. Several German government officials appear anxious to make sure migrants do not receive any of the blame. Facebook, Google and Twitter are working with German authorities to control speech as angry citizens react to the chaos caused by refugees. The deal with social-media giants comes as Germans fume over 100 sexual assaults and robberies perpetrated by migrants last Friday in Cologne.



The Obama administration cannot be sure of the whereabouts of thousands of foreigners in the U.S. who had their visas revoked over terror concerns and other reasons, a State Department official acknowledged Thursday. 



Lutheran Social Services that has been paid by the federal government to bring Muslims to St. Cloud. But Catholic Charities is not off the hook when it comes to statewide resettlements of Muslims in Minnesota, says Ann Corcoran, a refugee watchdog who blogs at Refugee Resettlement Watch.   More than two dozen young Somalis have left Minnesota since 2007 to go fight for either al-Shabab in Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria, the FBI has confirmed. Dozens of other Somali refugees in the U.S. have been convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorist organizations.



WND reported last week that Chobani’s billionaire Muslim CEO has been working with the federal government to import refugees to work in his massive yogurt plant in Twin Falls.  They are trying to educate their state and local representatives about how the refugee resettlement program actually works, including the high welfare usage of refugees, the costs of educating children who speak zero English and the risks to national security.  Under the resettlement program, as governed by the Refugee Act of 1980 (authored by former Sens. Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden), local elected leaders are not afforded any control over the number of refugees the federal government sends into their communities. One group, Soft Landing Montana, is affiliated with the International Rescue Committee or IRC, which is one of nine major contractors the U.S. government pays to resettle refugees.   “I have a problem with people who come here as immigrants or refugees and do not assimilate. They do not want to assimilate. I would have never thought that this little part of Brussels where we used to shop would be a place where terrorists hide in a no-go zone. The younger generation of Muslims, they do not want to assimilate, and I think there are forces pushing these young people (into jihad).”


When British, French, and German leaders begin to say that immigrants and their children must assimilate and that those who join ISIS may? lose their citizenship, it’s time to sit up and take notice.  Of course, however, these leaders must follow their new rhetoric with actual policies.



Likewise, with Obama’s promise the U.S. “will not relent,” Hodges said, “What his super-intel is saying is that Obama will continue to relent, doing nothing of real consequence, in fact accepting the ISIS attacks as normal.  “Indeed, he has constructed a new normal by failing to protect America, a stance which he has totally rationalized. In fact, he remains totally submissive to ISIS.”    Hodges has helped pioneer work on the brilliant unconscious mind, which he explained in his 1994 book, “The Deeper Intelligence.”


Islam’s Muhammad: The White 'Prophet' with Black Slaves



Even Muslim websites acknowledge that “Islam” means “submission” [to Allah], that it comes from the Arabic root “aslama” meaning submission, and that “Islam” is in the command form of that verb.  That’s why “Muslim” means “One who submits,” not “One who is peaceful.”  Obama: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Quran.”  The reason Jefferson had a copy of the Quran was to try to understand it in light of what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had told him and John Adams. When asked why Tripoli pirates were attacking American ships and enslaving Americans, the Muslim ambassador explained that Muslims are commanded to do so by the Quran: “It was written in their Quran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise.”  That’s why Jefferson and Adams had Qurans.


Nearly one year ago to the day, “Obama’s Fictional History About Islam and the Crusades” was published in response to Obama’s false remarks about Christianity, the Crusades, and Islam– at a national prayer breakfast. Around the same time Obama refused to aid Jordan in its fight against ISIS– modern-day Islamic crusaders.  This year, Obama continues to import Islamist “Syrian refugees” who admit they hate America, who are also modern-day crusaders. And he recently announced even more buffoonery at a terrorist-connected Islamic Center in Baltimore.  Obama’s lies about Islam, denial of historical facts and invention of entirely fictional ones continue. Contrary to Obama’s claims, historical facts reveal that Islam has never been a friend of America. Ever.  The early Americans knew full well world history, which meant they were well aware that their new enemy had been invading the West since the 7th Century.  The Barbary Pirates had been attacking the West since the 13th Century and began attacking American ships after the War of Independence. Algerian Dey Muhammad declared war on the United States, creating a catalyst for two separate wars America fought against Tripoli (1801-1805) and Algiers (1815-1816).



they see their tax dollars being used, with the authorization of a Republican Congress, to fund what is a national suicide and few of their elected officials battling to stop the Obama administration.   In 2016, Republicans in Congress will need to demonstrate that they share that urgency by using every power at their disposal to slow Obama’s roll. Wait ‘til next year may be a great slogan for the Chicago Cubs, but when your country is being deliberately destroyed by an unchecked President, it is unacceptable.

And in this new political world being carved by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz failure to fight is not an option.



Former CIA official Dr. Peter Pry warns, "There is an imminent threat from ISIS to the national electric grid and not just to a single U.S. city." Dr. Pry says that attacks on just 9 of the nation's 55,000 electrical substations could result in nationwide blackouts for up to 18 months.  the grid's vulnerability to physical, electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and cyber-attack by ISIS and other terrorist groups.  Without access to a generator, your fridge, electric range and microwave would be dead. All the food in your fridge and freezer would spoil.  Your well couldn't pump any fresh water into your house. And even if you don't have a well, a total grid failure means no fresh water to drink, cook, or clean with.  Veteran news anchor Ted Koppel just wrote a book called Lights Out that details this exact scenario. And CENTCOM General Lloyd Austin says, "It's not a question of if, it's a question of when."



After Turkish Daily Cumhuriyet Released Video Footage Of Weapons-Filled Syria-Bound Turkish Trucks, Paper’s Editor-In-Chief, Ankara Bureau Chief Are Imprisoned, Charged With Treason, Espionage, And Terrorism

On November 26, 2015, Can Dundar, prominent journalist and editor-in-chief of Turkey’s oldest dailyCumhuriyet, and Erdem Gul, its Ankara bureau chief, were arrested; they are now being held in isolation pending a trial initiated by Erdogan himself, on charges of espionage, treason, and providing support for terrorism.




Only a small number of studies of Syrian textbooks have been published, although they stop around 2003. Nonetheless, they give us a good picture of what Syrians who may soon be our neighbors were taught for decades.  According to one of the most cited studies, Prof. Joshua Landis at University of Oklahoma found that the Syrian textbooks do not malign Christians, unlike those of other Arab countries. However, Jews – not Israel – are singled out for contempt and extermination. A tenth grade text book teaches: “The logic of justice requires the application of a single inescapable verdict on the Jews; namely, that their criminal intentions be turned against them and that they be eliminated.”  All other religions are treated even more poorly. Landis’ summary: “Islam accepts only two choices for pagans: that they convert to Islam or be killed.”  The psychological community has similar exams that pick up on antisocial traits, deceit, paranoia, elitism, narcissistic qualities, ethnocentric delusions and other characteristics which would make some candidates excellent choices for admission, and others less so. That kind of screening, alongside medical evaluation, should serve as the cornerstone of the process.



Islamic doctrine (which commands death for homosexuals) and public persecution aside, many of us have considered and discussed the Muslim proclivity for pedophilia and pederasty, despite liberals’ contention that we’re big fat meanies if we do so. The point is that stating there’s a Muslim proclivity for buggery exists is a truism.  Further evidence: Recent treatises crafted by imams which advocate or condone male rape in the case of conquered enemies and prisoners in war, this being a symbolic, humiliating gesture calculated to “make a woman out of them” (being a woman itself carrying a negative connotation in the Islamic world). The ISIS (Islamic State) terror group has also been known to “initiate” young males into the group by repeatedly sodomizing them.  One may recall a scene in the biographical film “Lawrence of Arabia” when T.E. Lawrence is captured, beaten and then raped by a Turkish officer, although the rape is merely suggested due to the cinematic standards of the day. Last year, the press – well, some press – reported on the outrage of U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan who had been told by their superiors to ignore their Afghani allies’ practice of sodomizing young boys. Some of their testimony was both heartbreaking and nauseating.  Thus, it would seem that in Islam, the adult male who happens to possess this inordinate fixation with other mens’ rectums could successfully play the role of the socially conservative, patriarchal Islamic man quite easily. He might marry, grudgingly attending to his wife or wives for their value as chambers of offspring gestation – which most Muslim men appear to favor doing anyway – while relying on other men or boys for their sexual release. As long as he didn’t actually cop to being a homosexual, or was demonstrably so, he’d have little to fear.  A certain 44th U.S. President might be springing to mind right about now…


Stacy Harp, who has attended as  undercover spy several pro-homose xual political conferences in recent years.
Without fail these groups have several "child education" (i.e. recruiting) booths that either hint toward or openly advocate for adult gay sex with children.  The illegal pedophilia movement dovetails with or stands on the fringes of the homose xual movement, often without rebuke from their own.  Stacy Harp explains the criminal elements of this movement.
Watch!  Dr. Chaps interviews Stacy Harp, undercover spy against the LGBT pedophile movement-->



(the love of money)  The 700 Club” host told viewers Monday he recently received a booklet from Yale entitled “Reading the Quran as a Law Book.” The document was written after Joseph Lowry, an associate professor from the University of Pennsylvania, gave a lecture at the school Aug. 25.  “This follows Yale’s decision to create a Center for Islamic Law and Civilization after a Saudi businessman gave a $10 million donation to the law school,” Robertson said. “The dean says, and I quote, ‘Islamic law has a long and proud tradition, which encompasses great intellectual achievements.’   Robertson asked Sleiman how Lowry would explain Shariah law, which “has to do with the subjugation of women. It has to do with a husband having the privilege of beating his wife. It has to do with beheadings.”  When Yale tries to basically endorse or apply the laws, then there will be no separation between the state and Islam.”


Americans again name government as the top problem facing the United States, according to a new Gallup poll.

The economy came in second with 13 percent. Unemployment tied for third, with immigration at 8 percent. The result landed immigration in the top four problems for the first time since 2007.



(Owebummer—the Food Stamp President.  All bills should stand on their own and be subject to prioritization & budgeting)  Separate agricultural programs from the food stamp program.  Food stamps account for about 80 percent of the farm bill costs, making “food stamp bill” a more accurate title than the “farm bill.”  From a policy perspective, separation should be noncontroversial, and it has been widely supported. Unfortunately, food stamps and agricultural programs have been combined for political reasons in order to simply  get “something” passed.   The House separated the programs in 2013 when it passed a separate agriculture-only bill and a food stamp bill. Even when the House combined the programs back together in one bill for conference (to work out differences with the Senate farm bill), it authorized agricultural programs for five years and food stamps for three years. This different authorization schedule would have helped to ensure that the programs be considered separately in the future.  If agricultural policy is important, why in the world should the central piece of agricultural policy legislation (i.e., the farm bill) bury farm programs in a food stamp bill? On the same lines, if food stamps are so important, why should this program not get the full attention of Congress when it is to be reauthorized?


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/010616-788493-homeless-victimized-by-their-right-to-live-on-street.htm#ixzz3x4Hs0rJ4 Last fall, a federal court in Boise, Idaho, let police clear an encampment of vagrants — an Obamaville — and move them into a shelter, over the objections of the Justice Department. DOJ argued people have a "right" to sleep on the street if there are no shelter beds. Boise proved there are beds, many still unused after the clean-up.  Unfortunately, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is squelching Los Angeles' efforts to halt vagrancy. This court has ruled that homeless have a "right" to sleep in their cars and store their possessions on the sidewalk when shelter space is lacking.  It's the left's tolerance for homelessness as a lifestyle — our public safety and quality of life be damned. Not just vagrants are victims.  Sunday night a McDonald's worker got stabbed to death in the Bronx by a homeless man heading to the restaurant's bathroom. And a midtown steak house is reporting a 24% drop in business because of a homeless encampment outside. Victims of a city's warped progressive ideology.  From New York to Los Angeles, businesses are intimidated and law abiding residents are harassed and threatened by street dwellers, abetted by an army of progressive lawyers and the Obama administration.



(EPA must be defunded & moved down to the States.)  Twenty-five states (and four state agencies) are petitioning the Supreme Court to halt the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Power Plan, after the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to stay the rule last week. The states described the Clean Power Plan “as the most far reaching and burdensome rule EPA has ever forced onto the states.”  Regardless of the final decision in the courts, Congress should act.  A group of unelected bureaucrats in the EPA are attempting to completely re-engineer the nation’s electricity source based on one criterion—carbon dioxide emissions—rather than looking at safety, affordability, reliability, or other considerations.  Though it’s easily taken for granted, affordable, reliable electricity is invaluable to Americans’ jobs, homes, and well-being. Such an impactful decision at the very least belongs with the peoples’ representatives in Congress.




The Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) casts itself as a spontaneous uprising born of inner city frustration, but is, in fact, the latest and most dangerous face of a web of well-funded communist/socialist organizations that have been agitating against America for decades. Its agitation has provoked police killings and other violence, lawlessness and unrest in minority communities throughout the U.S. If allowed to continue, that agitation could devolve into anarchy and civil war. The BLM crowd appears to be spoiling for just such an outcome.  Nevertheless, BLM appears to be exercising considerable leverage over the Democratic Party, in part by pressuring and intimidating Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (VT) into embracing their cause. The movement could also assist President Obama’s exploitation of racial divisions in society beyond his final term in office.



So much of Hollywood is agenda-driven.  Liberals talk about how bad it is to objectify women, and yet films are filled with objectified women. Liberal Hollywood types support more gun control but have their own armed security and perform in films with hordes of gun violence scenes.   The NBA is dominated by tall black men. “According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2011 was composed of 83 percent non-white players, including 78 percent black, four percent Latino, and one percent Asian; 17 percent of the players were white. The league had the highest percentage of black players of any major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada.” It’s about the same for the NFL.



Liberal Professors Outnumber Conservative Faculty 5 to 1

In 2014, 60 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far left,” according to the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, as reported by The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog.” Compare that with 1990 survey data, when only 42 percent said the same.  Daniel Klein, a professor of economics at George Mason University, said the reported 5-to-1 ratio is “not very meaningful” because the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have become “exceedingly troubled.”  Instead, Klein predicted that the imbalance between faculty who vote Democratic compared with those who vote Republican is closer to 9 to 1 or even 10 to 1.   And although a prescriptive fix to obtain greater balance won’t happen on its own, Klein said, “donors, students and parents should vote with their dollars, and voters should vote with their votes against pouring taxpayer money into a leftist apparatus.



The federal government funds “Trade Adjustment Assistance” benefits for workers who lose their job to foreign trade. The program includes generous federal subsidies and free job training. You might expect this to improve displaced workers’ incomes. But when Mathematica evaluated the program, it found participants made $27,000 less than workers outside the program.  Congress should think carefully before creating another federal job training program. They could easily wind up hurting the workers they want to help.  Obama’s remarks tonight reaffirmed what everyone already knew: that there is no strategy to defeat ISIS and he cannot wait to pass the buck to his successor.  what Obama claims to be his “smarter” approach has led to disasters in Libya, Syria and Yemen, to name but three.  Rather than leaving energy choices to American families and businesses, “we” has consistently meant forcing taxpayers to subsidize politically preferred energy technologies.


We have one job this year, and that’s to fund the government in a responsible, thoughtful, and constitutional manner,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. “If we are here next year having just passed an omnibus, that is an F-minus [for Ryan]. If we pass 12 appropriations bills and stand our ground and force the Senate to face these issues, that’s an A.”  Conservatives cheered a repeal vote of Obamacare Wednesday as a good first step, but they have a long list of action items.  “We need to show how we are different than the Democrats,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, the Freedom Caucus chairman.



A team from University College London has discovered that on the surface of every cell in a patient’s tumour is a biological “flag” and also immune “killer” cells that can target that flag. In effect, they say it is the disease’s “Achilles heel”.  Their research has shown that patients could receive bespoke vaccines made from proteins from their own tumours that can spark the immune system to fight the cancer.  This would mean that healthy tissue would not be targeted and could work well against fast-mutating forms of the disease like lung cancer, although there is hope it could work on all forms of the disease.  Charles Swanton, from the UCL Cancer Institute told The Times: “I will be disappointed if we haven’t treated a patient within two years.” Peter Johnson, from Cancer Research UK, which funded the research told the newspaper: “We have big optimism about what it will deliver.”

The research which was published in the journal Science, highlights two possible future treatments.



Republicans who want a national market for health insurance, without federal regulation of health insurance:  The Federation of State Medical Boards has established an Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which now has 12 states signed up, and legislation pending in six more. This follows the Interstate Nurse Licensure Compact and the Physical Therapy Licensure Compact. What these compacts achieve is a national market for health professionals, because the professionals do not have to spend time and money earning licenses in each state. With respect to insurance, the Interstate Insurance Product Regulatory Commission was established in 2006, and covers life insurance, annuities, disability income, and long-term care insurance. According to the commission: “In an increasingly mobile society, these are products that have a long life and will travel with people as they move across state lines.” That is what we want for health insurance, too. The emerging House Republican health reform plan would benefit significantly from Mr. Upton’s proposal to allow states to establish a health insurance compact.



A trio of Republicans, Reps. Brad Klippert, Tom Dent and Dan Griffey, introduced a bill that requires that a person’s DNA be used to determine what facilities they are and aren’t allowed to use.   Rep. Graham Hunt, a conservative from Orting, Wash., wants to ban anyone from using public facilities opposite from his or her anatomical sex unless that person has undergone sex-reassignment surgery.    “I’ve tried to make this about the genitalia,” Hunt told The Daily Signal. “If you don’t have the parts … if you don’t have the plumbing, then you don’t go in.”   Citing statistics that say less than one percent of the American population is transgender, Flores asked, “Why are the 99 percent having to change our whole way of doing things for less than one percent?”  Since sharing her story on The Federalist, Triller Haver said she’s heard from “hundreds” of other sexual assault victims who share her concerns with the new policies.



Citing student privacy rights, the South Dakota Senate this week passed a bill that would prohibit students at public elementary and secondary schools from using bathrooms, lockers, and shower rooms that don’t match their biological sex. The bill, however, also requires reasonable accommodation of students who identify as transgender through the provision of alternate facilities if requested.  The Senate passed the bill with a 20-15 vote on Tuesday after the state House of Representatives voted in favor of it on Jan. 27. It now awaits Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s signature to become law.   The bill defines biological sex as “the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth.”

If a student, with the consent of his parent, reports that his gender identity does not conform with his biological sex, a “reasonable accommodation” must be made as long as it does not cause “undue hardship” on a school district.

“A reasonable accommodation may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty,” reads the bill.  “This is a commonsense bill that protects the rights and interests of all students,” said Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon fellow at The Heritage Foundation.



Responsibility rather than hedonism. Care for yourself and your baby rather than selfishness. These are the values we must impart on women of all ages.  The birth control pill is not the panacea these governmental bozos think it is. However, chastity before marriage is!  Let’s hear it for common sense! Protect yourself from getting pregnant by practicing self-control, people! That way nobody is hurt physically, psychologically, or spiritually.





In adopting negative interest rates Japan is reaching for a new weapon in its long battle against deflation, which since the 1990s have discouraged consumers from buying big because they expect prices to fall further. Deflation is seen as the root of two decades of economic malaise.  Kuroda said the world's third-biggest economy was recovering moderately and the underlying price trend was rising steadily.


And just this month, joining the European Central Bank, Denmark and Sweden with negative interest rates at the central bank level is the Bank of Japan, which just went negative, too.  Now, the Japanese 10-year treasury is testing 0 percent, a threshold it already crossed once on Feb. 9, just days after the Bank of Japan’s announcement. On Friday, it was at 0.013 percent. The implication of negative rates, not just on excess reserves, but also the discount window, is that banks will get paid to borrow from the Fed.  Should the deposit rate go negative, depositors will be charged to save money.   Well, when you want less of something, you tax it. And taxing investors for holding dollars via negative interest rates creates a disincentive for holding them for very long — or at all.  But the real risk is that instead of stimulating aggregate demand, negative rates actually encourage investors and foreigners to get out of dollar-denominated assets like U.S. treasuries. It would encourage institutions to start trading with something that actually has a positive yield, instead of paying for the privilege of merely engaging in commerce.

Would you consider sponsoring "The Shoe That Grows" for two, five, 10 or even 20 impoverished kids and help meet their practical footwear needs for up to five years? Go here to see this amazing shoe and help make a difference in the lives of needy kids right nowPlease note that your tax-deductible contribution goes directly to Because International and will immediately be put to work to help needy kids.


Just google Surgery Center of Oklahoma and here is what you will find. For Achilles tendon repair, you will pay $5,730. That’s not an estimate with a huge variance around it. It’s a package price that includes doctor, nurse, anesthesia, room, drugs, supplies – everything.  How refreshing, therefore, to find a hospital that quotes package prices in advance and is willing to compete for patients based on price and quality. Why are they doing it? For the simplest reason of all: to attract patients.  Five years ago, Dr. Smith was frustrated. His surgery center had the best surgeons, the best outcomes and the lowest prices (sometimes by as much as 80 percent). His lobby should have been packed. Patients should have been beating down his door. But they weren’t. In fact, the patient flow was stagnant. He was outperforming his competitors, yet no one knew it. So, Dr. Smith started posting his prices online, while at the same time calling his center “free market-loving, price-displaying and state-of-the-art.”



New Hampshire has consequences.  A Granite State defeat by Sen. Estes Kefauver ended Harry Truman's bid for re-election in 1952. Lyndon Johnson's narrow write-in victory over Sen. Eugene McCarthy, 49-42, brought Bobby Kennedy into the race -- and LBJ's withdrawal two weeks later.  George H. W. Bush's unimpressive New Hampshire win in 1992 brought Ross Perot in as a third-party candidate two days later, and Bob Dole's loss in 1996 portended defeat in the general election.  But if a cloud is forming over the Clinton campaign, the sun continues to shine on The Donald.




(Owebummer & Democraps coddle terrorists & dictators; weak on our enemies, hard on our allies..)  North Korean leader Kim Jong-un asserted last month that his country had built a hydrogen nuclear bomb to “defend its sovereignty and the dignity of the nation.” Kim’s initial assertion about hydrogen bombs was met with expert skepticism, and it is more likely that Pyongyang has achieved a boosted fission rather than a fusion bomb. Such a weapon would be larger than its first three nuclear tests (and the 1945 U.S. atomic weapons) but not of the magnitude of a hydrogen fusion bomb.  If confirmed, North Korea’s fourth nuclear test is a dangerous development. Coupled with ongoing development of several different missile systems, North Korea poses an increasing and direct threat to the United States, South Korea, and Japan.  Experts estimate that Pyongyang currently has 10-16 nuclear weapons with potentially as many as 50-100 by 2020. North Korea has likely already achieved warhead miniaturization, the ability to place nuclear weapons on its medium-range missiles, and a preliminary ability to reach the continental United States with a missile.   Washington should immediately request a U.N. Security Council meeting to produce a new resolution to impose stronger punitive sanctions and close loopholes, such as including Article 42 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows for enforcement by military means. Washington should call upon all U.N. member nations to fully implement existing sanctions to hinder North Korea’s procurement and export of missile-related and WMD-related items.  In addition to U.N. actions, Washington should augment U.S. sanctions. President Barack Obama’s assertion that North Korea is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world is simply not true. The Obama administration has not fully implemented U.S. laws and has targeted fewer North Korean entities than those of the Balkans, Burma, Cuba, Iran, and Zimbabwe. The U.S. should target financial and regulatory measures against any government, financial, or business entity assisting North Korean nuclear, missile, and conventional arms; criminal activities; money laundering; or import of luxury goods.  North Korea’s nuclear test is a serious and irreparable violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions.


According to the Associated Press, the recently launched North Korean satellite Kwangmyongsong, or "Shining Star," soared over the San Fransisco Bay area in close proximity to Super Bowl 50 on Sunday night.  (they can hit us with a nuclear weapon, thank weak and pathetic Bill Clinton)


(Liar in Chief)  Back in 2007, when candidate Barack Obama was wowing the left’s opinion mavens with his supposedly intellectually rigorous foreign policy plans, he treated North Korea and Iran as identical challenges.  In his much-celebrated article in Foreign Affairs magazine that year, then-Sen. Obama wrote: “We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program” because “Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia.”  How? “Our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy — the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.”  The president, who in 2007 promised that his untried diplomatic skills would denuclearize both North Korea and Iran, had by 2016 substantially escalated both of these fanatical terrorist powers’ atomic threats to America.



Bronze Star Marine Corps veteran Christopher Marquez was the victim of a brutal beating at a Washington D.C. McDonald’s when several African American individuals approached Marquez at the fast-food restaurant, asking him if “black lives matter.”  Now The Washington Times is reporting that two arrests have been made:  “The male teen was charged with aggravated assault and the female was charged with robbery. Police are still looking for a third suspect involved in the assault.”  Marquez has mixed feeling about the arrests, and some strong words for President Obama, telling The Daily Caller:  “I am glad two suspects have been arrested, but I am deeply disappointed they have not been charged with a hate crime yet. Not prosecuting this as a hate crime will only encourage more hate crimes against white people and create further division in this great country….



Another crime in a gun free zone.  New York police are looking for five men who forced a father at gunpoint to leave his daughter behind so they could take turns raping her, according to a press release.  The 18-year-old female was with her father at the Osborn Playground in Brooklyn around 9 p.m. Thursday when they were approached by five men, according to a press release from the NYPD. One of the men pulled a gun on the father and daughter and demanded that the father leave the area, the press release said.Then each of the five suspects raped the teenager, according to the NYPD. "The father returned a short time later with two uniformed police officers," the press release said. The suspects then quickly fled the park and evaded police capture.  So when people say they need more police protection do the mean they want the police to investigate after they have been killed, raped, or otherwise victimized? Obama-Democraps never weep for the many people who die because they have been disarmed by their own government.  Socialism is always about depriving society of its natural abilities to deal with the peoples' needs on the basis of the empty promise that the government can do it better. Gun control is just part of the socialist vision.


In fact, the field of mental health itself is communist in origin and seeks to dominate human behavior with the goal of conditioning people to accept servitude.  Communists do not believe in the same values as Americans do. To them the idea of traditional family, individualism and patriotism are signs of a sick individual because they do not align with collective goals of the state.  The tenets of rugged individualism, personal determination, self-will, imagination, and personal creativeness are alike in the masses antipathetic to the good of the greater state. These willful and unaligned forces are no more than illnesses which will bring about disaffection, disunity, and at length, the collapse of the group to which the individual is attached.” (Beria, pp. 9)  This is an alarming quote as the Obama administration seeks to use mental health as a means of disarming the population and eradicating the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the idea of rugged individualism and free-will are the values that this country was founded on.


The Los Angeles Police Protective League – the labor union for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) – warned residents that they’d better “be able to protect themselves,” because of long police response times resulting from being understaffed.  In San Bernardino a few years ago, city attorney Jim Penman stated in a city council meeting that residents will need to lock their doors and load their guns because of police budget cuts.



Americans should be alarmed at the prospect of forced mental health screenings because mental health issues are used as a means of gaining coercive control over those that oppose state goals. In fact, the field of mental health itself is communist in origin and seeks to dominate human behavior with the goal of conditioning people to accept servitude.  This is an alarming quote as the Obama administration seeks to use mental health as a means of disarming the population and eradicating the Second Amendment.

Help GOA elect strong pro-gun candidates like Ted Cruz.  Contribute here.  Who this nation puts in the Oval Office this year is crucial, as it will have a tremendous impact upon our Second Amendment rights.  Consider the Supreme Court.  Hillary Clinton has already stated that, if elected, Barack Obama would be a good nominee for the Supreme Court!  This is especially scary when you consider that the next President could appoint four Justices.  Ted Cruz has the legal background to protect the Constitution.  As Solicitor General of Texas, he drafted the amicus brief in the famous Heller case that was signed by 31 state attorneys general.  This was the case where the Supreme Court conclusively stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.  After being elected to the U.S. Senate, Cruz went toe-to-toe against anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein and embarrassed her -- exposing her ignorance on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.  Senator Cruz also helped lead the attack to defeat every gun control proposal offered in the U.S. Senate in 2013, when the President tried to use the Sandy Hook tragedy to implement a draconian gun control agenda.  Ted Cruz is not a recent convert to the pro-gun position.  He is solidly pro-gun -- and is 100 percent pro-Constitution.  Of course, I certainly recognize that some gun owners are supporting other candidates.  Our endorsement of Ted Cruz does NOT in any way disparage the other pro-gun candidates -- in fact we have worked closely on legislative matters with Senators who are in the presidential race.  But GOA endorsed Cruz because we believe he has the strongest pro-gun and constitutional record -- as indicated in our endorsement statement last year.  “The first thing I intend to do as President is rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Barack Obama.” -- Ted Cruz, February 2, 2016


(Democraps: SOFT ON CRIMINALS--HARD ON LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS)  At a time when Baltimore broke its annual homicide record and Chicago has returned to the days of Capone with eleven murders in the first week of the new year, a bi-partisan supported criminal justice reform measure would put a Republican rubber stamp on the release of thousands of major drug dealers back onto the streets from which they were forcibly removed.  Obama is drastically increasing Justice Department staff to handle the expected massive increase in pardons and clemency that the President is expected to issue beyond the 40,000 plus convicts he began releasing starting in Oct. 2015.  And into this mix, Congress is trying to pass legislation, which the President will sign, that retroactively cuts mandatory sentences of those still serving time in the federal penitentiary.  This might make sense if federal prisons were overrun with people who were caught up, arrested and convicted of simple possession of drugs charges.  But that is not the case, in fact, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission as of the end of 2014, only 15 U.S. citizens were serving in federal prison for “simple possession,” and most were likely plead down from more serious charges.



Finally after all the insanity resulting from gun control advocates willfully lying to the police in the hope that they accidentally kill a law abiding citizen, federal lawmakers are stepping in to actually make these “pranks” a crime.  Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) Rep. Katherine Clark 14% ×

(D-MA) recently introduced the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act.



The brutal Columbus, Ohio murder of Erveena Hammonds and her 7 and 10 year-old daughters, whose throats were slit by an early-released felon, is exhibit A of why Congress should reject legislation designed to let thousands more convicted drug criminals out of federal prison prematurely.  If Congress had not enacted the so-called 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, Wendell Callahan would still be in jail and Erveena Hammonds and her two daughters, Breya and Anaesia, would still be alive.  The tragedy of a felon who got almost four years knocked off his sentence re-entering the life of his former girlfriend and violently ending it was sadly predictable. A multi-year 30 state study on the recidivism of more than 400,000 felons released in 2005 showed that unfortunately 75 percent of those released re-entered the criminal justice system and 25 percent of the crimes were violent.  Simply stated, if Congress passes the mass criminal release bill that is being considered under the auspices of ‘reform’ Erveena Hammond and her two girls will not be the last to die due to Congressional prisoner reprieves.


"Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture but ... after a shooting, the problem is the gun?" In other words, after a shooting, it is the gun, an inanimate object, that is the culprit, but after a bombing, it is not the bomb that receives the blame but the evil individual. In both cases it is the evil individual who is to blame.

Ronald Reagan had it right when he said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."  Speaking of guns, the letter has a 1950s photo of high school girls at an indoor shooting range. The photo caption states: "Back in the 1950s and even later, many high schools had shooting ranges. Students even brought their own rifles to school." It asks, "What changed in society that we could trust such activities then, but not now?"   Have guns become more evil or have people become more evil?  "Get it straight: Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC ... are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements. Social Security and Veterans Benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients."



Pinera says that Clinton began thinking in earnest about privatizing part of Social Security back in 1995, after a discussion with former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, an ardent advocate for Social Security reform and, like Clinton, a moderate Democrat.

According to Pinera, Clinton saw private accounts as a way to cement his presidential record as a reformer. And the model for doing so that he had in mind was from Chile, where Pinera and a group of reformers created private retirement accounts that helped fuel that nation’s decade-long growth boom. It was a rousing success.  Clinton even sent his former chief of staff, Mack McLarty, to Chile in 1996 to see how private personal accounts worked. In a letter to Pinera, he talked about how impressive Chile’s program was, calling it “the mother of all reforms,” adding: “We can learn a great deal from your country’s bold initiative, which is widely envied throughout the hemisphere.”  Three years later, in December 1998, Pinera attended a White House conference on Social Security reform. There, he outlined the simple elements of the Chilean Model: “Every Chilean worker has a pension passbook — I always carry one of them.   Just one month later, in his 1999 State of the Union address, he proposed what he called “USA accounts,” universal savings accounts funded by about 11% of the then-Social Security surplus as a means of taking pressure off the Social Security program, which was even then approaching insolvency. Every American would have had a private savings account, funded by a portion of his or her payroll taxes.  “USA accounts will help all Americans to share in our nation’s wealth and to enjoy a more secure retirement,” Clinton said. And he was right.  But it was not to be. Clinton’s involvement in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice derailed his plans. Despite being found not guilty, his reputation was in tatters. He never recovered, and his entire final-year agenda for his presidency went by the wayside — a victim of his own insatiable appetites.  When Bush proposed private accounts in 2005, Democrats opposed it.  Sadly, we’re paying a price for that. Today, a mere six months after Social Security’s 80th anniversary, the program is insolvent.


people shoot people, and going after guns will not stop violence.   One of the greatest threats to our nation’s security and to our ongoing fight against violent crime is an open and porous southern border. The border between the U.S. and Mexico is controlled by criminal cartels that regularly smuggle narcotics, weapons, contraband, and people into the United States.   The president has chosen to ignore a significant security threat, and now, instead of funding more border patrol agents, his executive order calls for the hiring of 200 more ATF agents to investigate the sale of firearms to U.S. citizens.  ISIS and al-Qaeda have clearly stated that they would exploit our refugee resettlement program as a way to infiltrate jihadists into our nation. Congress recently passed legislation that would have halted this program, but, once again, Congress did something the president didn’t like, so he ignored Congress and continued at full speed resettling refugees into our states.  One of our greatest vulnerabilities is the lack of effort the administration is putting into curbing the radicalization of America’s youth by extreme Islamic terrorist organizations.  by his inaction on securing our borders, ignoring terrorists’ threats to infiltrate our nation, and redirecting law enforcement and national security resources to advance a political agenda, he has proven that his plan is not to make America safer.   Mr. President, if you want to protect the American people, then secure our borders, stop the influx of refugees coming to our states from terrorist-controlled nations, and remove the bureaucratic hurdles keeping our TSA from implementing the technology they need. This would be a legacy worth pursuing.


In a peer-to-peer, private firearms transaction, it is already illegal to sell a firearm to another individual if the seller “knows or has reasonable cause to believe” that the buyer meets any of the prohibited categories for possession of a firearm (felon, fugitive, illegal alien, etc.).  Local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present both in uniform and/or covertly in plain clothes to monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing; purchases made by prohibited individuals, including non-residents; and the attempted sale of any illegal firearms.   An individual can pay for the firearm over the Internet at websites and online sporting goods retailers. The firearm, however, must be picked up from a federal firearms licensee, such as a gun store. In many cases, this is the brick-and-mortar store associated with the website where the gun purchase was made. Once at the retail store, the Internet purchaser must then fill out the requisite forms, including ATF Form 4473, which initiates the NICS background check process. Thus, an Internet purchase of a firearm from a firearms retailer requires a background check.  The Obama administration has used its limited criminal enforcement resources to focus on clemency for convicted and imprisoned felons, the investigation of police departments, and civil rights cases.  Criminals, however, obtain firearms in myriad illegal ways, including home invasion robbery; trading narcotics for firearms; burglary of homes, vehicles, and businesses; and straw purchasing.



If you decide to commit violent crimes against law-abiding residents, expect to be shot.  That’s the message Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd had for his community after a home invader was dispatched by an armed homeowner.  Via My News 13 in Lakeland, Florida:



The Chicago Tribune reports, "10 days into new year, more than 100 people shot in Chicago."  Notice also that after gun control comes speech control. The logic of the statement is that if we didn't have social media we wouldn't have the problem of gang violence.  I would like to know how often the average violent criminal gets caught in Chicago and how often a violent criminal who is caught sees the inside of prison. It seems these gang members don't fear the consequences of breaking the law. Are there any?


My name is Lily Tang Williams from Douglas County. I am here to represent Our America Initiative, a non-profit grassroots organization, Libertarian Party of Colorado and myself to strongly support SB15-175 Repeal Magazine Ban. I was born and grew up in People’s Republic of China, where the Communist Party rules everything. Chinese citizens are not allowed to have any guns ever since the Communist party took over in 1949. So, Chinese people are left helpless when they need to defend themselves. I grew up with fear like millions of other children. Fear police will pound our doors at night for no good reason (search warrant is not necessary for them to do that), fear bad guys will come to rob us (there were crimes in our poor neighborhood), fear my parents and brothers would get hurt and taken away.  Guns do not kill people, tyranny kills millions and millions of people. I lived under tyranny for 24 years, I do not want to ever live under it again.



What are the leading causes of death (abortion is not included and there isn’t a breakdown on gang/gun or criminal/gun violence)?  In 2011, five major causes of death (heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, stroke, and accidents) accounted for 62% of all deaths in the United States (1). However, this general profile of leading causes varies substantially based on a decedent's age.  The five leading causes of death for those aged 1–24 years include external causes (i.e., accidents, homicide, and suicide), followed by cancer and heart disease (Figure 4).


Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979, suicide: 41,149, Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557


Expanded Homicide Data Table 8   Murder Victims by Weapon, 2007–2011

Handguns, Knives or cutting instruments, Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) Knives or cutting instruments


Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2011


I recently had the privilege of interviewing an "unsung hero" of the pro-life movement, activist Joseph Mortone, who has rescued 150 babies from abortion by peaceful persuasion using specific techniques outside of Planned Parenthood.  Watch!  Dr. Chaps' interview (Part 1) with Joseph Mortone, pro-life activist-->  In this interview, you will learn real techniques used to save real children from the horrific crime of abortion-murder.  Joseph has learned from decades of trial and error, what works and what doesn't.


I was a Pastor, minding my own business.  Abortion was simply a word we debated, we discussed.  But it wasn't until I saw the graphic pictures of abortion where I literally saw little babies made in the image of God, torn apart.  It just broke my heart."
Watch!  Dr. Chaps' interview with Pro-Life Activist Rusty Thomas, the "no compromise" pro-life evangelist-->
Rusty has also helped persuade abortionists to stop their killing, by daring to publish their names and protest their crimes.
"We went to them privately, on several occasions, pleading with them to no longer murder babies made in the image of God.  So it wasn't just a public proclamation.or exposure.  We went privately, several times.  But we told them, if they did not stop privately, that we would publically expose what they're doing.  And if they're proud of killing children, then just consider us as free publicity."



Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has issued an order directing state judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the full state Supreme Court can determine the scope of the US Supreme Court ruling in the Obergefell case redefining marriage and assess how it impacts their state constitutional provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Please stand with Chief Justice Moore in support of marriage, state rights, and the constitution by signing this petition.


George Washington made the conclusive assertion, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."  Attorney, Statesman, and the famous gentleman that coined the phrase “give me liberty or give me death,” Patrick Henry made the claim, “The Bible is worth all the other books which have ever been printed.”  Recently, my friend and public servant, Chief Justice Roy Moore was willing to make a decision based solely on law, truth and conscience.


The United Kingdom declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group after an 18-month study ordered by British Prime Minister David Cameron…The report, which Cameron presented to the House of Commons on Thursday, described the Muslim Brotherhood as anti-democratic, openly supportive of terrorism, dedicated to establishing an Islamist government — and opposed to the rule of law, individual liberty, and equality.  "Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and activities … run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs," Cameron said in a statement with the report's release. "The Muslim Brotherhood is not the only movement that promotes values which appear intolerant of equality and freedom of faith and belief."



The House of Representatives easily passed the end of year Omnibus $1.14 trillion spending bill, with strong Democrat support: nearly 100 GOP members voted against it.  The final vote for the bill was 316-133, (only 133 patriots worth keeping) which was stronger than anticipated. Republicans (Traitors who need to be voted out) backed it by a 150-95 margin, while the Democrats (Traitors who need to be voted out) gave it almost unanimous support with a 166-18 tally


The vote overwhelmingly passed the House with a total vote count of 359-67. Only three Democrats – Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Mike McIntyre (D-NC) – voted against it, while 64 Republicans did the same.  (only 64 keepers then, the rest must be voted out!)


The 2,009-page, $1.1 Trillion Consolidated Omnibus spending bill, which the Republican Congress approved and President Obama signed a week before Christmas, violates every promise that Republicans made to the voters who rewarded them with landslide victories in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections. It’s no wonder that betrayed Republican voters have adopted a throw-the-bums-out attitude that supports the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Dr. Ben Carson.  Although the current congressional leadership seems to have lost its will to fight for conservative policies, the 95 Representatives and 16 Senators who voted against the deal provide hope for building a more effective conservative majority next year. Our marvelous Constitution provides many ways for concerned citizens reduce the size of our government.



Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) is bringing together many of the most important economic riders into a single bill, The Article I Consolidated Appropriations Amendments of 2016, to keep these issues at the top of the agenda rather than losing the value of the hard work done last year to rein in President Obama's pen-and-phone approach to governance.  Among the dozens of policy riders and defunds incorporated into the act are a number of measures that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory onslaught against energy producers, mining and agriculture. Other measures would stop the Labor Department and National Labor Relations Board from becoming virtual proxies for Big Labor through various actions that attack the franchise and independent consultant business models, putting union reps into the middle of OSHA inspections at non-union companies, and ambush union elections.  The genius of the legislation is that a vast majority of the proposals contained within it have already been vetted through regular order processes, and passed by the House, giving the legislation an aura of consensus that every Republican should be able to rally round.  Buck argues that "By doing our work, House Republicans have laid out a counterbalance to President Obama's wholesale assault on free markets and individual liberties."



Politicians are selling a product, themselves, to you the voter. Become an informed voter and hold them accountable.



Which candidate matches you on the issues? Find out.




Ahead of "gun/gun violence" were such issues as: Congress, the economy, unemployment, immigration, terrorism, race relations, the federal budget deficit, healthcare, poverty and education.  According to Gallup, just one percent of those polled cited "guns/gun control" as a concern for most of 2015. The number rose to 7 percent in October and December following two mass shootings.  Still, for the second consecutive year, dissatisfaction with government beat the economy as the problem more Americans identified as the nation's top problem in 2015, according to Gallup.


Obama has already had more than 300 federal judges confirmed to the federal bench, about as many as his predecessor, George W. Bush.  Why are Senate Republicans giving any more judges to President Obama in his lame duck year when their goal should be to bottle up the remainder of the Obama agenda?   It is puzzling why the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to confirm Obama’s judicial appointments in light of the President’s continued abuse of power.


(Democrap Big Wasteful Government Socialism runs out of other peoples’ money..)  Puerto Rico will skip payments on some of its debt due Jan. 4, the island's second default this year, but will remain current on its most important debt, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla said on Wednesday. When asked about the shutdown of key government services, Garcia Padilla told reporters at a press conference: "We have to do all we can to avoid that situation."  The U.S. Commonwealth, suffering from (too much wasteful big government spending) a near decade-long recession with a 45 percent poverty rate and a shrinking tax base due to people leaving the island, first defaulted in August when it failed to make the full payment on its Public Finance Corp (PFC) bonds.


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was clearly trying to "subvert the rules" when she asked aide Jake Sullivan in an email to turn a secure fax that wasn't transmitting into "nonpaper with no identifying information and send nonsecure," says The Washington Post's Bob Woodward.  The recently released email making the request is important, Woodward said on Fox News Sunday, "Because you have here the secretary of state in 2011 saying, 'Let's subvert the rules.' … It's very clear from the earlier emails that this was a security issue."



Congress will have a shorter session this year, making it difficult for legislators to pass all 12 appropriations bills individually—a feat that hasn’t been accomplished in over two decades.  In recent years, Congress has made a habit of approving government spending with a single vote. Instead of voting to fund individual agencies and programs one at a time, legislators bundle smaller appropriations bills into a single lump package.  Inside Washington, that massive legislation is known as the omnibus. Ryan calls it a “crap sandwich.”


The new hit movie "The Big Short," based on Michael Lewis' bestselling book, is an entertaining and suspenseful reenactment of all the breakdowns in the banking and housing industries that caused the financial world to go collectively mad and the many unsavory characters.  It brings back bad memories of how symbiotic relationships among auditors, credit rating agencies, banks and insurance companies created dastardly conflicts of interest.  I've never understood why auditors and credit rating agencies work for the financial institutions, not the investors.  The credit agencies were giving triple-A bond ratings to junk mortgage-backed securities without even examining the unpayable low down payment "NINJA" (no income, no job) loans in the portfolios. These ratings were handed out right up to the very eve of the crash.  The big banks kept buying more and more of these MBSes, even as the default rates were skyrocketing. Government regulators encouraged them to buy as many of these "safe" mortgages as possible to meet capital requirements.  "The Big Short" portrays well the infuriating dereliction of the auditors, the rating agencies, the mortgage originators, the bankers, the securitizers — and, yes, the homebuyers too.   Where the movie falls short is its moralizing at the end. It portrays "capitalism" and "greed" as the villains.  But the real insanity of the bubble is that so few of the people who made financially reckless decisions went bankrupt.   Capitalism doesn't work if the government provides a trampoline-sized safety net for those who take risks that don't pay off. By encouraging the breakdown of due diligence and underwriting standards, bailouts create bubbles.  "The Big Short" also neglects to even once mention the worst actors of all in the financial meltdown: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-run institutions lost $150 billion of taxpayer money by securitizing mortgages and providing near 100% guarantees on repayment.  Also never mentioned was that GOVERNMENT first caused the erosion of sound lending practices through the Community Reinvestment Act. The politicians kept pushing the banks to make riskier loans to lower-income borrowers in the name of "fairness."  The insanity continues in part because no one has learned the right lessons from 2008. Regrettably, "The Big Short" doesn't teach them.

Over 94% of AAA-rated subprime tranches experienced no losses at all.  While it was certainly not apparent at the time of the crisis, the overwhelming majority of subprime MBS performed as rated. Sen. Sander's assertion that the rating agencies knew their ratings were "bogus" is simply inconsistent with the performance of the rated assets.  So if subprime MBS performed as rated, why then did we have a crisis? For a number of reasons, one of which is that the over-leveraged nature of banks forced them to sell securities, including subprime MBS, as an avenue to cover mark-to-market losses that would have otherwise threatened their insolvency.  When many banks tried to sell the same securities at once, in an almost fire-sale manner, prices fell, reflecting the massive imbalance between the supply for sale and the much lower demand.  Subsequent research has found that it was the most highly leveraged companies that sold MBS during the crisis, and that those with greater capital shortfalls sold at greater discounts. Observed prices were ultimately reflective of illiquidity and the capital needs of sellers, not the long-run value of subprime MBS.  One contributor to fire sales is that banking regulation, including an overreliance on ratings, encourages uniformity in bank balance sheets. If everyone is required to hold only AAA and searches for yield within AAA, then everyone ends up with similar balance sheets.  Unfortunately, when many are forced to sell, they end up selling similar assets, resulting in fire-sale prices. Sanders is also wrong in suggesting that regulators or nonprofits would do a better job predicting default. After all, it was the international financial regulators, not the rating agencies, who decided that Greek debt was "risk-free."  Europe was not alone in this regard. For instance, the rating agencies had downgraded Washington Mutual, while its primary regulator still gave it a favorable Camels (CELS) rating.  Where the rating agencies erred most was in their forecast of housing prices. They clearly didn't see a bust coming. But neither did regulators or government forecasters.


(WELFARE & TAXED SERVITUDE)  Suppose there is an elderly widow in your neighborhood. She does not have the strength to mow her lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks. Plus she does not have the financial means to hire someone to perform them. Here is my question: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the widow's lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as a fine, property confiscation or imprisonment? I believe and hope that most of my fellow Americans would find such a mandate repulsive. They would rightfully condemn it as a form of slavery, which can also be described as the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.  Would there be the same condemnation if, instead of forcing one of your neighbors to actually perform the household tasks, your neighbor were forced to fork over $50 of his weekly earnings to the widow? That way, she could hire someone to perform the tasks that she is unable to do. Would that mandate differ from one under which your neighbor is forced to actually perform the household tasks? I'd answer no. Just the mechanism differs for forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another. (does she have family or friends to help or pay or how about a reverse mortgage or how about if she can’t maintain it, then she has to sell it and move in with family?)  Congress has completely succumbed to the pressure to use one American to serve the purposes of another. As a result, spending grows. Today's federal budget is about $3.8 trillion. At least two-thirds of it can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another.   I personally believe in helping one's fellow man in need. Doing so by reaching into one's own pockets is laudable and praiseworthy. Doing so by reaching into another's pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation.




The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"


Yes, this is the stock that has almost singlehandedly destroyed a handful of hedge funds this year: SunEdison (SUNE).




Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Ted Cruz of Texas -- that would poison S.744 in a variety of ways, like setting unattainable standards for certifying that the border is sealed..."  You can view actions that both Hopefuls have taken on immigration during their time in the Senate by visiting our Congressional grade cards. Rubio has earned an overall career grade of a D+, while Cruz has earned a career grade of an A+.



‘Marcobot.’ In the debate, it appeared as if someone has programmed him with artificial intelligence in a series of eloquent and powerful phrases that fit almost any policy matter. Re: He sounded like Siri answering a question about driving-directions. In case you don’t have an iPhone: Sometimes Siri just keeps repeating the same phrase or question because she doesn’t understand the question and has no clue as to the answer. This is what happens when every moment can’t be scripted by a handler. There is no doubt Marco Rubio’s rhetoric is eloquent, uplifting and powerful. But, so were Barack Obama’s speeches, circa 2008. I’m not criticizing Marco Rubio’s qualities as a person. I’m simply stating that he’s not experienced enough in leadership to be given the Nation’s top-job.


(Rubio an untrustworthy liar--the Republican Owebummer..) When Rubio came to Washington he immediately began working on the DREAM Act he campaigned against. He staffed his office with several of the most pro-amnesty individuals in Washington (like Cesar Conda) and was limp to the point of lifeless in his response when the President nullified immigration law with the DREAMer executive amnesty.  His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.

Pro-Rubio radio star now mocks Marco 'Robot'

This radio star may have been the reason Marco Rubio got elected to the U.S. Senate in the first place.
But that was then, and this is now, as the broadcaster is scorching Marco as a "pathological liar" ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.


Special-ops.org reported that 80 Australian special forces soldiers embedded in front-line Iraqi units and directed over 1,000 airstrikes. This is precisely what Washington should have done in mid-2014, when the Islamic State first invaded Iraq: provide embedded air control teams and combat advisers. 


Gaping holes in the K1 fiance visa interview process. Reckless bans on scrutinizing visa applicants' social media posts. Ignored alarms over marriage fraud. New details keep seeping out about all the "red flags" Obama's immigration officials missed in the case of the San Bernardino jihadists.  These hacks won't even vet each other. They place "optics," "diversity" and political protectionism above national security.


ABC News is reporting that Homeland Security officials have been bound by a secret (Democrap Owebummer) US policy not to scrutinize visa applicants' social media footprint because the Obama administration feared bad press over "civil liberties." This represents a stunning, intentional dereliction of duty -- all for PR.. a) maybe we should stem the flow of immigrants to a rate at which we can properly screen people, & (b) perhaps some form of "profiling" to trigger additional screening should be considered?  Remember how the US State Department declared itself perfectly "satisfied" with the visa screening process that green-lit San Bernadino terrorist Tashfeen Malik's entry into the country -- even as concerning details about her background and family have come to light?  Set aside the detail that her husband was reportedly in contact with several suspected jihadists who had attracted the feds' attention.  Set aside the apparent fact that she provided false information on her visa application, which then sailed through.  Let's focus on this New York Times story published over the weekend, which contains frightening and baffling information..  Haney was given an agency award for his work identifying potential terrorists and he was asked to become part of the National Targeting Center, which works to connect the dots between radical figures and groups, he said. After more than six months tracking the Deobandi movement, Homeland Security halted the investigation at the urging of the State Department’s Office of Civil Rights, Haney said.


The Department of Homeland Security says they "can't" monitor the social media of terrorists? Why not! As Presidential Candidiate Carly Fiorina said, "For heaven's sake, every parent in America is checking social media and employers are, too."


ABC News Digs Up Video of Jimmy Carter Announcing Ban on Iranian Immigration   April 7, 1980

DONALDSON:  The president ordered four steps immediately: A complete break in diplomatic relations: Iranian diplomats must leave the United States by tomorrow midnight.  Official sanctions preventing exports to Iran.  An inventory of frozen Iranian assets of over $8 billion, and a virtual shutting off of all Iranian immigration into this country by refusing new visas to Iranian citizens.  Moreover, the president warned these four steps may be just the beginning.  CARTER:  Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.


US Code 1182: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, written and passed by Democrat-controlled Congress.  "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president.  Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."   There is precedent for everything Donald Trump has said he wants to do.  In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office.  Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.  This law was passed in 1952.  There was no immigration in 1952.  It was shut down.  Immigration was shut down 1924 to 1965.  What was the need for this in 1952?  Oh, yeah, we had rampant illegal immigration. I'm talking about we suspended legal immigration from 1924 to 1965, but we were being overrun in 1952 like we always are.  That law was written to allow the president to keep undesirables out and to kick undesirables out. 


Otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was meant to exclude certain immigrants from immigrating to America, post World War II and in the early Cold War. The McCarran-Walter Act moved away from excluding immigrants based simply upon country of origin. Instead it focused upon denying immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc. and accepting those who were willing and able to assimilate into the US economic, social, and political structures, which restructured how immigration law was handled. Furthermore, the most notable exclusions were anyone even remotely associated with communism which in the early days of the Cold War was seen as a serious threat to US democracy.



FDR in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and the entrance of the U.S. into war with Germany, Italy, and Japan doing the following things that would make Donald Trump look like a nerdy weakling.  Germany, Italy and the Japanese were the Muslims of the day in December, 1941. Actually, FDR being the thorough kind of guy that he was, had his Proclamation 2526 come after his Proclamation 2525, which targeted the perpetrators of Pearl Harbor — the Japanese.  Oh. And don’t forget the Italians. The Fascists. (Democrap) FDR went on after his proclamations about how America would deal with German and Japanese immigrants to include Mussolini’s Fascists. That would be in presidential proclamation 2527, which was headed with a proclamation about “Alien Enemies—Italians.”  What did this treatment mean if you were an actual German, Japanese or Italian immigrant to America living under the FDR regime? Try this if you were Italian:  Nationwide, approximately 600,000 Italian-born residents of the United States were declared enemy aliens. The term “enemy alien” was not unique to World War II. The classification traces its roots to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which stated that if the United States was at war with a country then any “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation” residing in the United States who were not naturalized citizens were considered “enemy aliens.”   Not a peep from the whitewashing DNC that their hero FDR was Donald Trump on steroids when America was under attack, with FDR using his presidential powers to declare Germans, Italians, and Japanese in America “enemy aliens,” slapping curfews on them, registering them, taking away everything from their guns to their binoculars to their right to travel to their jobs.



French authorities also raided the homes of some 2,235 private homes resulting in the arrests of 232 people on terror-related charges.  In all, more than three hundred weapons were discovered in the mosques and the private homes that authorities targeted. According to France 24, the haul included a large cache of 7.62mm ammunition, Kalashnikov rifles and terrorist propaganda videos.  “In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year,” France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told the Express newspaper.  By some accounts, French authorities are planning to shut down 100 mosques and Islamic centers.



Hawaii Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard appeared on CNN with Wolf Spitzer recently to discuss Obama’s failed effort to overthrow the government of Syria. Gabbard is a former Iraq war veteran.  According to Gabbard, Obama is “arming our enemies which are radical Islam” and leading America into a wider conflict – potentially World War III.  When asked how this potential conflict could be avoided, she stated:  “Very simple. The U.S. and the CIA should stop this illegal and counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and should stay focused on fighting against who our enemy is, the Islamic extremist groups,” she said.  Gabbard is a member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee and appears to be one of a few Democrats who can actually think logically about Islamic terrorism.


The 34-year-old combat veteran has ramped up her argument that Syrian President Bashar Assad should be left in power to help tamp down the Islamic State (ISIS). She has introduced legislation to defund efforts by the United States to overthrow Assad.
She also voted with Republicans to toughen screening of Syrian refugees – despite a veto threat from Obama.  "My responsibility is to the people of Hawaii and the American people to stand up and fight for what is right and what is in the best interest of our country," she told the Times. "That has nothing to do with party politics."


Sen. Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 vetted refugees who joined jihad plots to attack America to raise awareness of just how dangerous these individuals can be.  “This list — which only covers 2015 and not the many jihadis from prior years — illustrates just how incapable our government is of vetting refugees or predicting post-entry radicalization,” a Washington aide to the Alabama Republican told Breitbart.



The Holy Quran, as Obama likes to call it, teaches that this false god’s will must be obeyed and that all infidels must perish from the earth. As the inscription reads on a ring the “Muslim of the Year” has worn since college, “There is no god but Allah,”
Notwithstanding that Obama’s Kenyan father was a Muslim – who, ironically, was deported from the United States as having been illegally here under an expired visa – Thanks in large part to Obama, there now exists ISIS and its Islamic state, coupled with a nuclear Islamic Iran, with the means and money to eventually achieve Allah’s goal of worldwide domination by Muslims and extinction of the rest of us.



AZRAQ REFUGEE CAMP, Jordan — Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson has visited a camp for Syrian refugees and suggested they should be absorbed by neighboring Middle Eastern countries.


However the phony feel-goods quickly change their tune when they were asked if they would be willing to house refugees themselves. Their bleeding hearts suddenly turned ice cold and they stated flatly that they couldn’t take in any refugees.  “I think they all ought to go read the Statue of Liberty,” one man said regarding the governors refusing to take in refugees.  However, when presented a “form” with which he could sign up to house refugees, he coldly refused: “I’m not going to be able to do that.”  There were many more in the video with similar reactions, and you can see them all for yourself in the video from In The Now



6)  you’d deny you’re racist for insisting that black Americans aren’t competent enough to get an ID to vote.

9) ….You simultaneously believe the police are violent trigger-happy racists who shoot people for no good reason and that we should disarm the populace so that only the government has guns.

13) ….You believe that anyone who dislikes Barack Obama must hate him because he’s a minority, but your hatred of Ted Cruz and Clarence Thomas is perfectly justifiable.

16) ….You blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.

17) ….Your first response to a terrorist attack committed by radical Islamists who’ve sworn allegiance to ISIS is to try to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country.

18) ….You think an unemployed, white factory worker who’s struggling to feed his family has some sort of racial privilege compared to Barack Obama, Melissa Harris Perry or Al Sharpton.

19) ….You say fences don’t work and gun-free zones do, but if Republicans wanted the fence around the White House taken down and demanded that the Secret Service be disarmed, you’d accuse them of trying to get Obama killed.

20) ….You believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, Rachel Dolezal is black and Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.



In the year 2000 George Soros and other billionaires met at a "Thunder Road" conference to plot the creation of several anti-Christian organizations, such as the Center for American Progress, Media Matters, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), America Votes, and MoveOn.org.  "It's just sheer genius, in a way, because they call them the most benevolent names possible," Wallnau said. "Let's MoveOn.org. Move on from what? Well, move on from values and God into anarchy, but they don't say that; it's move on from Bush and his nutty stuff."  Watch!  Dr. Chaps' interview with Lance Wallnau on how the left strategized to take over America-->  Wallnau explains with clarity how the Church must re-take the "7 Mountains" of Arts, Media, Education, Government, Business, Family, and Church.


Zionica has partnered with http://constitution.com/  to give you a FREE subscription to the Constitution.com Newsletter. Every day, you'll receive exclusive news and commentary that can't be found anywhere else on the web. All at no cost to you! While you're waiting for your first edition, we'd like to offer you a free downloadable PDF of The Pocket Catechism on the Constitution, originally published in 1828! Click here to download your copy now.



Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council.  He is a national bestselling author of three books: Rebuilding America: A Prescription For Creating Strong Families, Building The Wealth Of Working People, And Ending WelfareThe Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency; and Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.




Terrorists use cell phones, experts say, especially the disposable pre-paid type, to communicate with each other. The cell phones can also be converted for use as detonators for explosive devices.



Jihad Watch reports on the latest case of Muslim rape gangs in England being caught sexualy assaulting young non-Muslim girls.  Under Islam, a Muslim man is perfectly justified in raping non-Muslim women as part of the spoils of war. In fact, the Quran repeatedly encourages Muslim men to enjoy sex slaves.  They [the Muslim rapists] consider what they did to be perfectly justified: according to the Qur’an, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war (33:50).  Qur’an 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls.


Nadia Murad Basee Taha, 21   The 21-year-old described the persecution the Yazidi people face under ISIS, which trades women and children from the minority population as ‘war booty’. ‘They took us to Mosul with more than 150 other Yazidi families. In a building, there were thousands of Yazidi families and children who were exchanged as gifts


Professor Suad Saleh is a teacher at Al-Azhar, and she has some interesting things to tell you about Islam and rape.

Rape is okay, If you’re doing it to humiliate your female prisoner of war who is now a captured slave.



Nezar Hamze is a leader in the Hamas-related Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). He is also a Deputy Sheriff in the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO), in Broward County, Florida. This background has given him the opportunity to exploit his position in law enforcement to assist his Islamist friends in their desire for weapons training. This month, he did so at a Tampa Bay, Florida mosque that partners with designated terrorist organizations.


What is constitutional verdict on Trump's Muslim ban?

There's been plenty of controversy about Donald Trump's plan to stop Muslims from coming to America.
And apparently, the issue of its constitutionality may have already been settled ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.


Trump gets away with his mistakes, such is the bond of loyalty his support base has for him that he gets away with them and I don't think he's made that many, don't misunderstand," Rush said (bolding is mine). "But for any of you that are holding out hope that Trump is a genuine conservative, even in the Republican field, would not go after Cruz this way. That just raised a red flag for me."   You can listen to the exchange on TheRightScoop here.   UPDATE: Limbaugh denies an attack on Trump.   He clarified, “I haven’t turned on anybody. I haven’t thrown anybody away. I haven’t announced support for anybody.”
He insisted he was just disappointed and asking a question about Trump’s attack on Cruz “because it sounded like the same kind of criticism we would get from the establishment Republicans.”


Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin blasted GOP front-runner Donald Trump for falling for media traps on Sunday and criticizing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.  "It's been a tough two days for Donald Trump. I hope he learns from this," Levin said on his radio show Monday.


Here are several key characteristics of a fascist leader according to CNN:

"The superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason."  2. "The belief of one group that it is the victim, justifying any action."  3. "The need for authority by natural leaders (always male) culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny."  Wait a minute. What modern politician best fits this description? "Liberal fascism," as my friend Jonah Goldberg has aptly pointed out in his book of the same title, is the "collaboration of government, church, unions and interest groups to expand government. It is simply the liberal impulse for controlling the lives of others." It is the religion of the left.  the real definition of a fascist is a leader who wants to use governmental power to suppress rights of individuals. It is the partnership of government and private industry for the "collective good."  Fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism are all just variations on this same theme. These "isms" all feed on the subjugation of freedom.



a much-needed lesson in Islam 101 is now in session.  On a Facebook page called Silence is Consent, an unnamed woman who grew up as a Muslim in the Middle East is presenting the facts about Islam because so many people get it wrong.  I have never seen more developed Muslims in my life, and I grew up as one.”  She criticized those who teach a “sugar coated” version of Islam and reminded viewers to investigate the reality of Islam’s founder.  “What did Muhammad do? He was a rapist, a pedophile, a mass murderer,” she said. “Not to mention a warmonger, liar, cheater, thief, adulterer.”  “You want to teach about Islam, teach about Muhammad’s sex slaves,” she said. After calling feminists and LGBT activists “hypocrites,” she reminded the West that in Islam, women are stoned and butchered.


(the Religion of Peace)  Farook, 28, and his wife Tashfeen Malik, 27, killed 14 at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. The two brought rifles, pistols, improvised explosive devices and a large amount of ammunition to their rampage. They were killed less than three miles away during a shootout with police.


“Well,” he continued, “now let me see, Mr. President. She seemed to be an immigrant … that was brought in under your administration through all of your screening practices. (She went through our “vetting” process) You just mocked us for being afraid of women and children and widows. What, are you afraid of a new bride?”  He concluded by insisting that he is scared of anyone coming from Islam-dominated corners of the world.


Law enforcement officials told CNN on Thursday that Farook had been in touch with individuals under investigation by the FBI for ties to international terrorism.  Nice to see that NSA spying program has proven so effective.  Farook took part in the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca that Islamic law requires all able-bodied Muslims to make at least once during their lifetimes, in 2013. He reportedly met Malik during that trip and brought her back to the United States on a “fiancée visa.” 


Tashfeen Malik came in under a K-1 visa, colloquially known as a “fiancee visa.” It requires a good deal more scrutiny than a 90-day visa waiver, something that should have been able to pick up on any indication that Malik was a threat.  However, as we previously reported, the Department of Homeland Security passed Malik on her counterterrorism screening even though she gave a nonexistent address in Pakistan to obtain her K-1 visa — something that should have been an enormous red flag.


Here’s a quick list of the laws in California that the terrorists broke during the shooting Wednesday:  The long guns used were banned and illegal to purchase.  The magazines used in the pistols were illegal to purchase in.  It is illegal in the state to modify a weapon to make it fully automatic, and one of the long guns was modified in that way.  Stockpiling weapons and ammunition in one’s home is illegal in California.  The guns and ammunition were stored in an illegal manner, accessible to any child.  In light of the strict gun laws, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy pressed White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest with this question: “Does the president really think that common sense gun laws would deter terrorists now that he has admitted these two may have been terrorists?”  Doocy dug further into the matter, asking, “But so the president thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder, they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common sense gun laws?”  (they were NOT on the no fly list either, so why bring that up? Which terrorist was on this no fly list? skip the gun control BS and arrest & interrogate them, lock them up at Gitmo.)


First Amendment aside, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently released a report showing that, if the administration is actually worried about protecting religious Americans from violent outbursts, it is focusing on the wrong faith. The agency studied all hate crimes reported during the year 2014, finding that just over 17 percent were based on the victim’s faith. Of that number, a disproportionate percentage – more than half – of the victims belonged to one religion. Despite making up just over two percent of the nation’s population, Jews represented 56.8 percent of hate crimes committed against a religion. Muslim bias was a far less common problem, the FBI found, with roughly 16 percent of all anti-religious hate crime victims belonging to the faith. As Breitbart’s John Nolte opined in the aftermath of Obama’s speech, there “is simply no Muslim backlash evident in the U.S., aside from “Obama’s push to create Second Amendment internment camps for gun rights


Although not all are bad characters, the San Bernardino shooters were Sunni Muslims.  According to CNSNews's numbers, the Obama administration is still letting in hundreds of Syrian refugees -- just not the ones who identify as Christians. Since the November 13 terrorist tragedy in France, the U.S. has opened its doors to 236 Sunni Muslims and one (one!) Christian.



“The headlines say Farook and his wife were a couple ‘bent on jihad,'” Graham wrote. “President Obama and his administration are trying to blame this incident on gun control when it was caused by hate-filled hearts intent on killing infidels in the name of Islam.”  Graham furthered emphasized the fact that the oft-touted Obama mantra in which any type of shooting is blamed on gun control issues is entirely wrong because Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were terrorists with bomb-making materials in their possession.  “Take away the guns and this couple would’ve still slaughtered innocent civilians,” Graham continued. “Their apartment was a bomb-making factory!”  (these radical Islamic terrorists will use bombs, poison, fires/arson, vehicles, arrows, knives, hammers, bats, rocks etc. to kill us, wake up.)  He concluded his post by imploring Obama to reconsider his immigration plan for anyone associated with radical Islam.  “Mr. President, we don’t need more gun control — we need border & immigration control. No Muslims should be allowed into this country until there’s a process in place to fully vet them (Tashfeen Malik made it through our “vetting” process), ” he wrote. “We’ve got to turn away those who could potentially pose a threat until this war with radical Islam is over.”


Even if 90 percent of all Muslims are fine people, and we admit 10,000 refugees from the Middle East, does that mean that we need not be concerned about adding a thousand potential terrorists -- even after we have seen in San Bernardino what just two terrorists can do? The first responsibility of any government is to protect the people already in the country. Even in this age of an entitlement mentality, no one in a foreign country is entitled to be in America if the American people don't want them here.   Obama may think of himself as a citizen of the world, but he was elected President of the United States, not head of a world government, and that does not authorize him to gamble the lives of Americans for the benefit of people in other countries.   The illusion that you can take in large numbers of people from a fundamentally different culture, without jeopardizing your own culture -- and everything that depends on it -- should have been dispelled by many counterproductive social consequences in Europe, even aside from the fatal dangers of terrorists.   Most refugees in the Middle East can be helped in the Middle East, and many Americans would undoubtedly be willing to financially help Muslim countries like Jordan or Egypt to care for these refugees in societies more compatible with their beliefs and values.   First of all, those immigrants were stopped at Ellis Island to be checked medically and otherwise, and were allowed to get off that island to go ashore only after they had met whatever legal standards there were. Otherwise, they were sent back where they came from.   More fundamentally, people came here to assimilate into the American society they found, not to become isolated enclaves of aggrieved foreigners, demanding that Americans adjust to their languages, their values and their ways of life.   Like so much that President Obama says, his talk of "stronger screening" of people coming into the United States is sheer fantasy, when even his own intelligence officials and law enforcement officials say that we have no adequate data on which to base a meaningful screening of Syrian refugees.



If Americans tuned in to the president's speech last night hoping for a substantive, long-term strategy to defeat ISIS, they're still waiting. In a rare talk on terrorism (from an even rarer setting), the president managed to talk for 13 minutes without saying anything new. Backed into a corner by tragedies his failed policies helped create, President Obama tried to answer his critics on the administration's inadequate response to radical Islam. But after a familiar lecture on tolerance and gun control, all he accomplished was proving his opponents right.  If his strategy had been working, last night's speech wouldn't have been necessary! "As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people," he said, while providing no evidence that he takes that security seriously.  With a military frayed by seven years of social experimentation and the Muslim faith afforded more tolerance than the Christians who founded this nation, Americans last night were far from reassured.  Americans with guns aren't the problem. The problem is that the policies of the Obama administration allow people into the country who hate America. The idea that radicalized Muslims can be stopped through stricter gun control laws shows a serious lack of understanding of the threat and tactics of terrorists.



The internet is saturated with data that has been tinkered with enough to provide them with “evidence” that gun control “works”.  The goal is simple: get them to admit that what they want is gun confiscation, and in the process, demonstrate that this will never happen. Watch with glee as their vision of Utopia crumbles (again) before their eyes, before cognitive dissonance takes over and forces them to de-friend you.  1) Gun ownership is a Constitutional right that will not be overturned by legislation, the courts, or a constitutional amendment. Ever. The last attempt, and the first one in 70 years to be heard by SCOTUS, was a resounding failure.  Restrictions only harm law-abiding individuals, depriving them of any ability to defend themselves. Criminals don't obey laws, and neither do terrorists.  7) Any attempt at confiscation not only violates the 2nd Amendment, it violates the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.  That’s it. Ten simple facts. You can add a bonus if you like. Every time Obama talks about gun control, gun sales rise.  Why claim that they want gun control “even if it saves just one life”, while simultaneously claiming that abortions should be legal?  It always goes back to the Leftist desire for Utopia, where bad things never happen. The only way to prevent bad things is to control everything.



His proposed legislation, the Regulatory Agency De-militarization Act, would repeal the authorization for these types of agencies to arrest individuals. It would also take away their ability to purchase and own firearms.  The bill would furthermore require reports detailing every agency that receives military training.  This legislation is sure to upset President Barack Obama and his administration, which likes the idea of government having guns, but not the people.  The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave many federal organizations the ability to establish their own police-like divisions over the years to carry out raids, and this has many GOP lawmakers thinking the act went too far, according to the Washington Examiner.  Offices like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Food and Drug Administration have established teams that could conduct their own raids and arrests.  “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,” he said.



I have a 1st Amendment right, Ms Lynch, to say whatever I want about Muslims.  You want to try and prosecute me for what I say? I dare you. Here goes:   "Most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Shariah law. They are our enemy. I don't want them in America. Any Muslim that won't assimilate should get the hell out of America. Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If 'moderate' Muslims don't speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.



“I don’t think it’s about more gun control,” Samuel L. Jackson told the Los Angeles Times three years ago, just after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. “I grew up in the South with guns everywhere, and we never shot anyone. This is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.”


Tell your Representative and Senators to oppose every effort from the White House to cynically use Obama’s failure to curb terrorism as an excuse to impose a “secret blacklist” gun ban (Who decides who are on this list and what criteria do they use, while keeping in mind the abusive, corrupt Democraps who fill our gov’t).  There is a better way.  Repeal Gun Free Zones and allow the American people to defend themselves. Focus should be on encouraging concealed carry and attending a good shooting school, plus having more shooting schools available. How about Affordable Gun Ownership and training!  www.gunsite.com    www.shootrite.com   www.thunderranchinc.com    
If you are serious about personal defense, you really and truly need to attend a good shooting school.

http://guntalk.com/site30.php                   http://www.shopguntalk.com/DVDs_c5.htm           




Falwell encouraged students to take free conceal-carry courses offered at the Lynchburg, Va. university.  "I just want to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit," he said in his convocation speech. "We offer you a free course. And let's teach them a lesson if they ever show up here."  I've got three favorites at this point: [Donald] Trump, [Ted] Cruz and [Ben] Carson, not necessarily in that order," Falwell said.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson – author of the just-released book. "The Antidote: Healing America From the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood" – explained to Hannity's vast audience how fatherlessness and a toxic culture of victimhood, common to far too many black Americans, profoundly shaped Barack Obama and shaped him into the lying, deceitful politician he is today.  "The Antidote," says Peterson early on in the book, is "the book I've always wanted to write – a book that tells the truth, that provides the roadmap to rebuilding families, that lets the reader know there really is an antidote so they no longer need to hate, blame, or play the victim."


at least two of the emails Hillary Clinton received on her private, unsecure server as secretary of state were not only classified, but “top secret.”   This is more affirmation that Clinton placed American national security at risk by receiving intelligence that was not properly stored.



(Why do Jewish people vote for Democraps?)  On 13 May 1939, more than 900 Jews fled Germany aboard a luxury cruise liner, the SS St Louis.  For the next seven days, Captain Schroder tried in vain to persuade the Cuban authorities to allow them in. In fact, the Cubans had already decided to revoke all but a handful of the visas - probably out of fear of being inundated with more refugees fleeing Europe. The captain then steered the St Louis towards the Florida coast, but the US authorities also refused it the right to dock, despite direct appeals to (D) President Franklin Roosevelt. Granston thinks he too was worried about the potential flood of migrants. By early June, Captain Schroder had no option but to turn the giant liner back towards Europe. In the end, the ship's passengers did not have to go back to Nazi Germany. Instead, Belgium, France, Holland and the UK agreed to take the refugees. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) posted a cash guarantee of $500,000 - or $8 million (£4.7m) in today's money - as part of an agreement to cover any associated costs.


In September 1944, the Union of Orthodox Rabbi's of the United States and Canada pleaded with the U.S. War Refugee Board and War Department to bomb the railway lines headed to Auschwitz as news of mass deportations of Hungarian Jews began to reach the States.  The Allies never bombed the lines nor the camps and to this day, one of the longstanding controversies about World War II


The Noachide Laws are seven laws considered by rabbinic tradition as the minimal moral duties required by the Bible on all men. While Jews are obligated to observe the whole Torah - 613 commandments, every non-Jew is considered a "son of the covenant of Noah" and he who accepts these obligations is considered a righteous person who is guaranteed a place in the world to come.

The seven Noachide laws, as traditionally enumerated are:

  1. Do Not Deny God     (Godless Evolution promoted by Democraps)
  2. Do Not Blaspheme God
  3. Do Not Murder   (Abortion promoted by Democraps)
  4. Do Not Engage in Incestuous, Adulterous or Homosexual Relationships.  (All Promoted by Democraps)
  5. Do Not Steal   (Democraps love to use the government to steal)
  6. Do Not Eat of a Live Animal
  7. Establish Courts/Legal System to Ensure Law Obedience (Democraps pick and choose laws and use Government to make immoral laws)




Had Obama's lies about his triumph over terrorism been exposed on the eve of the election, that could have ended his stay in the White House. And that could have spared us and the world many of Obama's disasters in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. That is why it matters, and will continue to matter in the future.  If there is anything that is bipartisan in Washington, it is lying. The most recent budget deal showed that Congressional Republicans lied wholesale when they said that they would defund Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other pet projects of the Democrats.  



As determined by Islamic law, church bells did not sound throughout the Middle East for more than a thousand years from the 7th century conquests until modern times (except under the Crusaders).  This was due to the conditions set by the Pact of the Caliph Umar, by which Christians of Syria surrendered to Islamic conquest in the 7th century AD. 



Jeff Foxworthy on Muslims:  1. If you grow and refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor,
You may be a Muslim.  2. If you own a $3,000 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can’t afford shoes,
You may be a Muslim.  3. If you have more wives than teeth, You may be a Muslim.   4.If you wipe your butt with your bare hand but consider bacon to be unclean,  You may be a Muslim.  5. If you think vests come in two styles: Bullet-proof and suicide.
You may be a Muslim  9. If you have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four, You may be a Muslim


According to new research, "the military's suicide story is mostly about millennials." Thanks to the University of Utah, the Defense Department is getting a clearer picture of the epidemic, which is taking more lives than combat deaths.

Desperate for bonding they aren't getting from their parents, more young men and women are joining the military in hopes of finding it, the Washington Times explains. And it's no coincidence that this same generation is more affected by divorce and family breakdown than any other. The effects of family breakdown are affecting every facet of society. At FRC's Marriage and Religious Research Institute (MARRI), Dr. Pat Fagan's team has found that in countries and cultures as far apart as Denmark and China, those from intact married families are much less prone to suicide. Once again, the data shows: America has nothing to lose and everything to gain by putting a new focus on the family -- and policies that encourage its formation.



At the Evans pool in Seattle, Washington, a man walked into the changing room of a local swimming pool and stripped naked in front of a girls’ swim team. When confronted about the disgusting display, the man simply replied that the city’s transgender policies gave him the freedom to do as he pleased.. The man left, only to return to the dressing room again a short while later during a youth swim time.



The Act authorized production of the following coins:[3]  All other sections of the act have been superseded, as for example the Coinage Act of 1834 changing the silver-to-gold weight ratio.



But then Grzanka lit this bombshell:  “And yet there is little scientific evidence to suggest that the categories we use today in the United States—categories that are historically quite new—originate in the body at all,” he said. “I think social scientists, lawyers, biological researchers and activists all need to examine why it is that many of us are so deeply invested in biological explanations of sexual orientation, particularly when they appear to have limited efficacy in terms of promoting more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities.”  Wait a minute; if it’s not biological, if it’s not genetic—and if that has been the whole reason for the gay rights movement—what is it? Is it a choice? You can’t change a leopard’s spots, but you can change a human being’s choices. Why, then, is sexual conversion therapy harmful?  Gay Science?  As we have seen, science journals and reporters have jumped on the gay-rights bandwagon, showing full support for the LGBT agenda (e.g., Live Science) even to the point of publishing frauds (remember the Lacour fraud, 12/12/14). Live Science happily announced this week that more young people are reporting same-sex attraction. But then watch this paragraph:  The latest findings showed that 92 percent of women and 95 percent of men identified themselves as being heterosexual or straight. Just less than 2 percent of men and a little more than 1 percent of women identified themselves as gay or lesbian, which is consistent with past survey data results.

Heterosexuals, meanwhile, may not feel very gay (happy) about the new decision by the FDA to lift the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood (Medical Xpress). That ban had been imposed to protect the public from HIV which is primarily carried by gay men. But how many realize that HIV is still a huge problem in the gay community? It’s not discussed as much now as it was in the 1980s, but Science Magazine just stated that “Despite the relative success of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the rate of new diagnoses has remained fairly constant.The article speaks of “men at risk of transmission” without stating the obvious: it’s gay men engaging in gay sex.  The ban has worked; there is no scientific reason to change it. Such government decisions play Russian Roulette with the lives of the 98% of straight Americans citizens, apparently for political correctness, so as not to hurt the feelings of the 2% who don’t want to be looked at as abnormal in any way.



South Dakota could soon become the first state in the nation to pass legislation that would ban students from using public school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers that are opposite from their biological sex.  The legislation requires that a “reasonable accommodation” be made for students asserting their gender is different from their biological sex, and described a reasonable accommodation as “one that does not impose an undue hardship on a school district,” “a single-occupancy restroom,” “a unisex restroom,” or the “controlled use of a restroom, locker room or shower room that is designated for use by faculty.”  “I’m concerned about what I see happening in schools across our country,” said Rep. Fred Deutsch, a Republican from Florence who introduced a bill last week that would ban transgender students from using school facilities opposite from their biological sex.



What does it mean to have sexual integrity?  Sexual integrity means living out one’s sexuality in a way consistent with the conjugal purpose and meaning of sex. This means the same thing for married and single people, albeit lived out in different ways – both are called to reserve sex for marriage and to be faithful in mind and body to one’s spouse.  Sexual integrity also refers to the attitudes and habits that make abstinence from extra-marital sex possible and that help reinforce marital fidelity. Read more.

What is marriage?  Marriage is the lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman. It is based on the reality that a man and a woman are necessary for reproduction and that children need a father and a mother. Marriage brings together a man and a woman to be committed to each other as husband and wife and together committed to their children as father and mother. Read more.

What do stable, intact families contribute to society?  Because stable, intact families are rooted in stable marriages, they benefit children and society in the same ways that intact marriages do. First, married men and women tend to be happier, healthier and wealthier than their single peers. As for their children, growing up in an intact family is strongly associated with better emotional health and higher levels of education, work, and income among young men and women. Adolescents from intact families are also more likely to delay becoming sexually active, which also means lower levels of teen pregnancy. Stability at home also tends to be associated with less risky behavior overall. Even something as simple as frequently having dinner with one’s family is associated with lower risk for substance abuse among teens. Finally, intact families rooted in stable marriages tend to lead to future stable marriages among the grown children of those unions. In other words, marriage reinforces marriages among the next generation. Individuals thrive when they have the security of a stable, intact family life. And when individuals and their families thrive, society thrives. Read more.



I lived as a transgender, Laura Jensen, female, for eight years. While studying psychology in a university program, I discovered that trans kids most often are suffering from a variety of disorders, starting with depression—the result of personal loss, broken families, sexual abuse, and unstable homes. Deep depression leads kids to want to be someone other than who they are.  Caregivers all too often collaborate with a mental disorder instead of treating it. Telling a psychologically troubled boy he has changed genders is not compassion, but can become reckless parenting. By withholding psychotherapy, parents could be abusing the kid.



There’s been no firm evidence that there’s a genetic basis for homosexuality. But that’s never been one of our main points in arguing against homosexuality. We believe that people are born with all sorts of inborn tendencies that are sinful. Lots of heterosexual men don’t find monogamy very natural, but we don’t change God’s commands to allow for their sinful tendency.



(but we can’t put to death convicted murderers this way too since this is so “humane”??)  In 1997, Oregon became the first state in the nation to legalize physician-assisted suicide. It has since been legalized in Washington, Vermont, and most recently California.



1) One in five college-age women have been raped.  How many college-age women are raped according to the FBI? The actual rate is “6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5).” Rape is a serious issue and dramatically misrepresenting the number of women being raped is despicable.

3) Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. If you get married at this point, especially to a college-educated woman over the age of 25, it’ll probably be for life.   Rather than viewing marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as having a 70 percent likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.  for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20 percent!

4) Ten percent of the population is gay.  The survey found that a mere 1.6 percent of the adult population self-identifies as “lesbian/gay,” and an even smaller 0.7 percent told interviewers they were bisexual. The bisexuals were outnumbered by the 1.1 percent who didn’t know, wouldn’t answer or said they were “something else.”  This result was far from the 10 percent that homosexual rights advocates have claimed since the 1970s.

5) Ninety seven percent of scientists agree that global warming is manmade and dangerous. How do you prove 97% of people agree with you? Find a tiny subset of a group that thinks just like you do and claim that it speaks for a much larger group of people. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer did an excellent piece explaining how this works at the WSJSeventy-nine scientists only—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.  Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.  It’s simply untrue that the scientific community has decided almost as a whole that global warming is happening, manmade and problematic.



(Evolution, Global cooling-warming-climate change-weather)  Pure speculations that are demonstrably unempirical are published daily by Big Science and Big Media, with no rebuttals or caveats.  Here’s how it works: a “scientist” or “researcher” gets a wacky idea that cannot be proved. Because they wear the honorable label of “scientist,” their opinions have presumptive authority.



(Greedy, power hungry Democraps—follow the money)  state taxpayers fund political activism that not only advances alarmist theories, but works to silence, marginalize, and even criminalize dissent.  As previously reported by The Daily Signal, a House committee wants to know more about Shukla’s work and the relationship between taxpayer money received by the academics and their urging of Obama to use racketeering law to go after businesses and other groups that oppose his climate change agenda. 

The Virginia Institute for Public Policy describes its mission as promoting policies that uphold the rule of law and constitutional limited government.  Taylor, the organization’s president, said he faults the Republican Party for not doing more to dismantle incestuous relationships between academics and government agencies as well as similar arrangements that give rise to conflicts of interests, wasteful spending, and bloated bureaucracies that burden taxpayers.  “Every time the Republicans come to power they leave the infrastructure the Democrats put into place untouched,” Taylor said. “This way when the Democrats come back into power, they just pick up right where they left off.”  “Renowned scientists like hurricane expert Dr. Bill Gray found out that when you challenge skepticism, your federal funding dries up.”



Matt Ridley, a member of a British coal-producing family and author of "The Rational Optimist," notes that the path of mankind's progress, material as well as moral, has been from reliance on renewable but insufficient energy sources to today's 85% reliance on energy from fossil fuels.  The progression has been from reliance on human (often slaves') muscles, to animal energy (first oxen, then horses), to burning wood and peat as stores of sunlight, to energy from water and wind, to, at last, fossil fuels.

Sustained economic growth, a necessary prerequisite for scientific and technological dynamism, became possible, Ridley writes, when humanity was able to rely on "non-renewable, non-green, non-clean power."  Because "there appeared from underground a near-magical substance," Britain's landscape was spared: "Coal gave Britain fuel equivalent to the output of 15 million extra acres of forest to burn, an area nearly the size of Scotland.  "By 1870, the burning of coal in Britain was generating as many calories as would have been expended by 850 million laborers. . .. The capacity of the country's steam engines alone was equivalent to 6 million horses or 40 million men."  And cheap coal produced the iron for new labor-saving machines. The environmental toll from burning coal (it emits carbon dioxide, radioactivity and mercury) has been slight relative to the environmental and other blessings from burning it.


The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.  Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.  a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.  The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time.  When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival.

Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”?  Of course not.  Every year, the temperatures rise and fall with spring, summer, fall, and winter. A year is simply a 365-day cycle.  The sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth. When its temperature changes, our temperature changes.  Every day, the temperatures rise and fall with daytime and nighttime. A day is simply a 24-hour cycle.  These two cycles happen automatically. We can neither change them nor stop them any more than we can stop the Earth’s rotation. It’s impossible. The temperatures fluctuate based on these cycles.  So clearly, the Earth’s temperatures rise and fall based on its exposure to . . . the sun.  Essentially, there are times when the sun gets hotter and times when it cools off as measured by “sunspots.” And John Casey found multiple solar cycles that determine the temperatures of the Earth.



However, climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually happened in the past 18 years. If models have been unable to accurately project climate conditions ten years out, how can even longer-term projections be depended upon to make good policy decisions?  Models created by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan is less than 0.02 degrees Celsius in warming avoided over the next 85 years. Meanwhile, it will be extremely costly to American families and businesses, and particularly so for the poor Midwestern states, which rely more heavily on coal for electricity, and the manufacturing sector, which is on the threshold of renewed growth brought on by the oil and gas revolution.



Creationists founded modern science:  Francis Bacon (1561–1626), the classical scientific method; Gerardus Mercator (1512–1594), cartography, inventor of the Mercator map projection; Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), physics, astronomy; Johann Kepler (1571–1630), astronomy; Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), probability, hydrostatics, the barometer; Robert Boyle (1627–1691), chemistry, gas dynamics; John Ray (1627–1705), natural history; Nicolaus Steno, founder of stratigraphy (geology); Isaac Newton (1642–1727), dynamics, gravitation law, law of cooling, reflecting telescope, spectrum of light, co-inventor of calculus; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716), mathematics, co-inventor of calculus; John Flamsteed (1646–1719), Greenwich Observatory Founder; Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), taxonomy, biological classification system; John Dalton (1766–1844), atomic theory, gas law. There are many others.1





With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.  Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.  The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.  Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).  “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.  Those who want to see what a racist and pro-slavery Constitution would look like should turn to the Confederate Constitution of 1861. Though it largely mimics the Constitution, it is replete with references to “the institution of negro slavery,” “negroes of the African race,” and “negro slaves.” It specifically forbids the Confederate Congress from passing any “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.”   The slave-holding states would have never consented to a new Constitution that struck a blow at their peculiar institution. The Constitution did, however, empower Congress to prevent its spread and set it on a course of extinction, while leaving the states free to abolish it within their own territory at any time.  Before the Civil War, Frederick Douglass said that nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.  Early Congresses did, however, regulate the transatlantic slave trade, pursuant to their power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). In 1794, 1800, and 1803, statutes were passed that severely restricted American participation in it. No American shipyard could be used to build ships that would engage in the slave trade, nor could any ship sailing from an American port traffic in slaves abroad. Americans were also prohibited from investing in the slave trade.

Finally, on the very first day on which it was constitutionally permissible to do so—Jan. 1, 1808—the slave trade was abolished by law.  The law, which President Thomas Jefferson signed, stipulated stiff penalties for any American convicted of participating in the slave trade: up to $10,000 in fines and five to 10 years in prison. In 1823, a new law was passed that punished slave-trading with death.  But even before the 13th Amendment, it was a Constitution that, if placed in the right hands, could be made to serve the cause of freedom.



ask yourself why black civil rights leaders over the past two centuries (such as Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Benjamin Banneker, Francis Grimke, Henry Highland Garnett, and so many others) openly praised Jefferson as a racial civil rights pioneer and champion, v as did abolitionists such as John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and others. viThey recognized that Jefferson led a vocal lifelong campaign to emancipate all slaves in the United States, but that the laws of Virginia prevented him from freeing his own slaves. (All of this is covered in my new book, "The Jefferson Lies.")  The real reason that Democrats should discard Jefferson is that he held nearly no policy position similar to those Democrats hold today. Consider fifteen major categories where the policies of Presidents Jefferson and Obama are opposite.

1. RADICAL ISLAM AND THE WAR ON TERROR.  At that time, America had no military capable of traveling overseas to destroy the seedbed of the war-mongering Islamicists plaguing Americans, so America resorted to large payments of money and goods in attempts to purchase peace and end the attacks. This unhappy policy, adopted under the Confederation Congress, continued under President George Washington.  Washington expressed his open frustration with this approach, declaring:  Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence. xii  As he neared the close of his presidency, he requested that Congress appropriate money to build a navy capable of traveling to the Mediterranean to smash the Islamicists. xiii Congress did, and the navy was constructed under President John Adams, xiv who became known as "The Father of the Navy." xv But Adams refused to use the new navy, continuing the payments instead.  I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace through the medium of war. xix The power of making war often prevents it, and in our case would give efficacy to our desire of peace. xx  There were several reasons Jefferson believed this option was the best policy:  Justice is in favor of this opinion; honor favors it; it will procure us respect in Europe (and respect is a safeguard to interest) . . . [and] I think it least expensive [and] equally effectual. xxi  Understanding that it was time to end terrorist attacks against American persons and interests, he deployed an expeditionary force under General William Eaton and Commodore Edward Preble to exterminate the radical Islamicists. xxii The terrorists, after five years of being pounded by American military superiority, decided the price they were paying was too high and thus signed a treaty of peace. xxiii  Interestingly, Jefferson understood that in dealing with Islamicists, a drawdown of American forces was bad policy – that an insufficient application of American strength would cause the enemy to escalate their attacks. He therefore initiated a military surge, explaining to Congress:  There was reason . . . to apprehend that the warfare in which we were engaged with Tripoli [Libya] might be taken up by some others of the Barbary Powers [Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, Turkey, et. al]. A reinforcement therefore was immediately ordered. xxiv



Peterson said the reason suburban communities are seen as “nice” and with “decent schools” is because “you have fathers and mothers together” with positive values who built and sustain them. For his part, Peterson has founded a nonprofit called the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny focused on rebuilding the black family. He argues without moral and spiritual change, HUD is simply subsidizing and spreading dysfunction around the country rather than actually helping anyone.
“Children from Section 8 housing don’t just overload schools, they overload schools with children with less interest in learning,” Flaherty said. “Less interest in behaving in class rooms. Less interest in listening to teachers. And greater tendencies for violence, drugs and defiance.  “This is not theory. This is the experience of every neighborhood that has suffered Section 8 housing being inserted into their community.”  “These blacks aren’t separated from whites because of ‘segregation,’” said Peterson. “They’re separated from whites because they’re having children out of wedlock, they’re reliant on the government to pay their rent, food, medical, everything, and so they lock themselves into these government sponsored neighborhoods.”


Choosing the Right College 2014-15: The Inside Scoop on Elite Schools and Outstanding Lesser-Known Institutions       “By far the best college guide in America” —Thomas Sowell, “Easily the best of the college guides” —American Spectator, “Indispensable” —First Things, “An essential reference” —Homeschool Magazine


The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity.



In Austin, Texas the Acton Academy was first established as a primary school and has expanded to include all grades. Just seven years later, there are five campuses in Austin with others open or being opened in Houston, San Antonio, Chicago, Southern California, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C. and Central America. Each Acton school places students into “studios” with one each for elementary, middle and high schools. Each one-room studio covers four grade levels with 10-35 children. At Acton, children learn to take individual responsibility, a concept which is being actively discouraged in favor of collective thought in public education. Older students, in addition to their other studies, work at apprenticeships.



Learn more and Sign up here:   http://centerforselfgovernance.com/classes/




Groundbreaking imaging published in 2011 revealed many more of these nerve-to-nerve connections than ever imagined, prompting comparisons between the human brain and the number of switches in all the computers and internet connections on Earth.2 It turns out that the sizes of these connection points, called synapses, shifts with use or disuse—a process called synaptic plasticity. Synapses strengthen when learning occurs or weaken when unused.



Human DNA is programmed to produce about one million different heavy chains and about ten thousand different light chains, each with their own unique amino acid pattern. Each B-cell produces only one specific antibody, made up of two pairs of identical heavy and light chains. That means that the body is able of make, as an estimate, over ten billion (one million times ten thousand) different antibodies, each with its distinct combination of binding sites.



Henig forgot to mention that the “historical errors” were committed by evolutionists following Darwin and his half-cousin, Francis Galton, the father of eugenics. Forced sterilizations that followed were direct results of eugenics, as documented by John West in Darwin Day in America. A sequence at the end of Ben Stein’s 2008 documentary Expelled shows a museum curator at the infamous Hadamar prison stating that the ten thousands of murders of mentally retarded that occurred there, including of children, were based on Darwinism.


The chilling revelations of a recent [1993] television documentary1 expose the disturbing consequences of evolutionary ways of thinking. Beginning in the 1920s, many thousands of people in the United States were sterilised against their will and without their consent, to prevent ‘undesirable breeding’. Over 8,000 of these procedures took place at a major centre to which such ‘undesirables’ were sent, in Lynchburg, Virginia. The victims included some with various degrees of mental retardation; many were simply there because they had been abandoned as a result of broken homes or had suffered some other social misfortune. Some had been honours students at school. They were lied to routinely, being told that it was something ‘for their own good’ or ‘for their health’. Those older ones who discovered the purpose behind the operations realised that they would not be able to leave the institution unless they underwent the procedure.

What was needed was a test case, a ‘patsy’ to ensure that the law would not be declared unconstitutional.  Her lawyer challenged the Laughlin law all the way to the Supreme Court…the presiding judge of the Supreme Court hearing this case in 1924 was Oliver Wendell Holmes4, an influential Darwinist5 who laid the legislative foundation for many of the advances of secular humanism in the United States. Not surprisingly, Holmes declared the law constitutional. It was acceptable for the state to compel the sterilization of those who were deemed ‘socially inadequate’. The forced sterilization of this innocent victim went ahead; subsequent investigation has revealed that the entire story of the ‘feeble-minded generations’ in her family was a fabrication. After the Supreme Court decision, eugenics became a major plank of social policy in many American states. As soon as Hitler (who campaigned on a platform of naked evolutionism—the survival of the fittest race) came to power in 1933, eugenics laws became one of his first acts. Not only was the Nazi program of forced sterilisation for the ‘unfit’ lauded in the U.S.—it was actually modelled after the law framed by Laughlin, who was awarded an honorary doctorate by Hitler’s government. As the Nazis moved on to the euthanasia-murder of entire wards full of mental patients, ‘scientific’ admiration for their ‘racial hygiene’ policies was unabated. One U.S. evolutionist actually stated, ‘The Germans are beating us at our own game’.1 Once it was seen as ‘moral’ to take active steps to ‘purify the German race’, it was just a short, logical step from there to the even greater horrors of the Holocaust.6 


Nourse calls eugenics a “pseudoscience,” but is reticent to reveal that leading American scientists strongly promoted it, enshrining it with statues of Darwin and Galton in the American Museum of Natural History. It led to the infamous Supreme Court ruling Buck v. Bell (1927), wherein Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld a forced sterilization law with the infamous comment, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”  Before Buck v. Bell, eugenic sterilization had been advocated for decades by US reformers and scientists, including prominent biologist Charles Davenport, but it had been used only sporadically because of fears that it was illegal. Eugenics itself was born in Britain in the late nineteenth century, nurtured by polymath Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin.  By 1928, a total of 375 US universities and colleges were teaching eugenics, and 70% of high-school biology textbooks endorsed the pseudoscience in some form. Eugenics was also endorsed by presidents including Theodore Roosevelt, funded by philanthropic organizations including the Carnegie Institution, and touted by award-winning scientists such as biologist Edwin Grant Conklin and the Nobel laureate Hermann Muller, discoverer of X-ray mutagenesis, as well as prominent inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell. Eugenics came to be seen as the solution to everything from hearing loss to criminality. In Britain, advocates tended to focus on segregation and voluntary sterilization. Major British eugenicists included left-leaning scientists J. B. S. Haldane and Havelock Ellis, and supporters included the economist John Maynard Keynes, social reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and writer H. G. Wells.


Studies predominantly show that children raised in homosexual environments tend to struggle emotionally more than their peers, are highly more susceptible to drug and alcohol abuse, and often suffer severe depression as young adults.



A new study suggests that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth. It’s a revelation that’s both beautiful and terrifying at the same time.



These genes are unique sets of coding sequences specific to particular creatures. This is a big problem for evolutionary ideas to explain. In a recent research report, scientists describe a new set of 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees.1  Orphan genes, as the name implies, are found in no other type of creature and therefore have no evolutionary history. This finding is another key prediction of the creation model.   Common genetic code is a predicted feature of purposefully engineered systems in the genomes of creatures that share the same environment and have similar requirements. It’s just like a computer programmer who uses common pieces of code in different software programs.  In support of this creation prediction, scientists discovered that orphan genes are incredibly important for specific biological processes and traits that correspond with specialized adaptations.


a report in USA Today1 had this opening volley: “ Humans and chimpanzees share an almost identical genetic inheritance.” Given that the same report pointed out that there were 40 million differences in the genetic code, one is struck by the blurring of the line between fact and propaganda.









Natural selection, but not evolution:  This ‘supergerm’ problem1  is an increasingly serious concern in Western countries. It strikes precisely those hospitals which are more ‘high-tech’, and handle more serious illnesses. Applying more disinfectant is not the answer; some strains of germs have actually been found thriving in bottles of hospital disinfectant! The more antibacterial chemical ‘weapons’ are being used, the more bacteria are becoming resistant to them.



Census in Quirinius’ time?  Skeptics have argued that Luke got the timing wrong as well. They claim that Quirinius did not become governor until c. 7 AD according to Josephus. Yet according to Matthew’s Gospel, Christ was born before Herod the Great’s death, which occurred in 4 BC. Supposedly, Luke was misled by a great census performed under Quirinius that was very well known.  Some have questioned the account because they believe that it’s implausible that a heavily pregnant woman would be forced to travel so far. It is quite a bit longer, but still, the distance that Jesus’ mother and adoptive father travelled was about 70 miles.


A cursory comparison of the genealogies from David to Joseph show that Matthew has far fewer names than Luke in the genealogy.  The descendants of the house of David would have a particular important inherited title to ensure a succession for—the kingship.  In the first century, it may have still been a matter of public record, because for access to the Temple to worship, a Jew had to be able to prove his ancestry.  Luke on the other hand is a Gentile writing to Gentiles—so showing Jesus’ common ancestry from Adam would be an important part of emphasizing that He is the Savior for all humanity.



trilobite eye, far from being ‘primitive,’ was constructed on the basis of precise optical engineering principles which people only discovered a few centuries ago.  It is pointless to talk of ‘natural selection acting over millions of years’ as the cause of this brilliant design. There is no record of indifferently designed lower lenses. More importantly, there is no need for the trilobite to have had a perfect eye, or even any eye at all. Many had no sight, but there is no evidence that they coped any less well.



Arp’s evidence for galaxy formation by ejection of quasars from the centres of active galactic nuclei is extremely compelling. His photographs of galaxies may well be revealing direct visual evidence of the creative hand of God during Day 4 of Creation Week.  The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community. Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang. It also calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts.  galaxy M31 in Andromeda and a few others in the Virgo cluster have blueshifts and are interpreted as moving towards us.  see A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem


Cell survival depends on having a plentiful and balanced pool of the four chemical building blocks that make up DNA — the deoxyribonucleosides deoxyadenosine, deoxyguanosine, deoxycytidine, and thymidine, often abbreviated as A, G, C, and T. However, if too many of these components pile up, or if their usual ratio is disrupted, that can be deadly for the cell.

A new study from MIT chemists sheds light on a longstanding puzzle: how a single enzyme known as ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) generates all four of these building blocks and maintains the correct balance among them.

There’s no other enzyme that really can do that chemistry,” she says. “It’s the only one, and it’s very different than most enzymesand has a lot of really unusual features.“   “It’s exquisitely designed so that if you have the wrong substrate in there, you can’t close up the active site,” Drennan says. “It’s a really elegant set of movements that allows for this kind of molecular screening process.”  This four-in-one machine takes on four different shapes depending on whether the RNA nucleotide is A, G, C, or U. It sends out DNA’s four, A, G, C, and T with the appropriate sugar deoxyribose instead of ribose (replacing an OH radical with a hydrogen atom, a “reduction” reaction). But that’s not all this amazing machine does:

The effectors can also shut off production completely, by binding to a completely different site on the enzyme, if the pool of building blocks is getting too big.  RNR is a multi-tool if there ever was one. The effectors, the substrates and the active sites are all closely matched to the operation at hand, whether generating more DNA building blocks or regulating their supply in the cell. A paper from the Annual Review of Biochemistry (2007) puts it this way:  An intricate interplay between gene activation, enzyme inhibition, and protein degradation regulates, together with the allosteric effects, enzyme activity and provides the appropriate amount of deoxynucleotides for DNA replication and repair




Wounded Warrior Project says 80 percent of their money is spent on programs for veterans. That's because they include some promotional items, direct response advertising, and shipping and postage costs.  Take that out, and the figures look more like what charity watchdogs say -- that only 54 to 60 percent of donations go to help wounded service members.  The CEO has said that the fundraising should and can be included in the programs and services.  "I'd be curious to know how asking people for money equates to the assistance of wounded veterans," responded Owens.  But charity watchdog Daniel Borochoff says his biggest concern is that the group is sitting on a $248 million surplus -- and not enough of it is being spent on veterans.



Vaccines and other chemical cocktails reduce and inhibit natural immunity, making us more susceptible to a host of diseases. During the so-called “measles outbreak” connected to the Disney theme park in 2014 it was found that most of those who contracted the measles had been previously vaccinated with the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Studies are also showing that more flu shots make people more susceptible to the flu.  We are told and intimidated by medical propaganda over and over that we must be protected internally from diseases that originate in the external environment. What the establishment does not tell us is that when we are healthy, we have peak immunity and can walk and live among sick people and not get sick.



How could an expert anthropologist have mistaken a 56 year old Caucasian female skull, which was two years old, for a 17–20 year old Native American male skull supposedly having died, “At least 20 years ago”?2 Tyler, recognized nationally and internationally as an expert in the human evolution of Southeast Asia,3 when asked to comment further on how his analysis was so far out stated, “I don’t remember which traits lead me to the conclusion that it was Native American”.4 Had more sophisticated DNA extraction technology not been developed then the expert anthologist’s assessment may still be held up as the most valid today.  When such a large mistake can be made about bones that were less than two years old then surely people should question some of the all-knowing grandiose claims made by evolutionary paleoanthropologists? After all, they are examining bones which are thousands of years older in far less context!


ON GOOD MORNING AMERICA, AUGUST 4TH, 2008, QUESTIONED OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY by John Charlton (Jan. 11, 2010) — Let's not forget that the first "Birther" of note, was Bill Clinton.  "Birther" is the derogatory appellation used by Obama supporters to ridicule those who ask why Obama won't show his birth certificate. Late last night, The Post & Email published [...]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFZQNan3-M&feature=player_detailpage


The comment was mentioned by the Associated Press in an unsigned report filed the same day:   "I never was mad at Sen. Obama," the former president said. "I think everybody's got a right to run for president who qualifies under the Constitution. And I'd be the last person to begrudge anybody their ambition."

Evidently no one at the AP was willing to take the heat for even repeating the comment. But one political scientist explained what Clinton meant by his statement:

In response to Clinton's comment, the obvious conclusion was being drawn within hours of Clinton's comment: "Is Obama qualified under the constitution?" asked JohnF, a platinum member, at CommonGroundsPolitics.net, at 3 :00 that afternoon.

The qualifications required by a presidential candidate are stated in the original text of the U.S. Constitution in Article II, section i, clause 5:

Certainly Bill Clinton was not disputing that Obama was at least 35 years old!  And certainly he was not disputing that Obama had been a resident of the United States since 1994!  So the only thing left is the natural born citizenship issue.

For more information about the natural born citizenship requirement, see The Post & Email's article on the 4 Supreme Court Cases which have defined what this term means following what Emmerich de Vattel wrote in his treatise, The Law of Nations.

Few dispute that Obama's mother was not a U.S. citizen, although there is speculation about who she was, especially among Hillary supporters.  Few doubt that Obama's father was Barack Obama Sr., a British subject, and it has been conclusively shown that if Obama's birth story is true, that he is presently a British subject, still.  And many wonder if Obama was in fact born in Kenya, especially after an eyewitness says that is what Obama claimed in 1980.  The disclosure of Obama's original vital records will alone settle these doubts and clarify for all time, the issue of Obama's eligibility. The question is, "where are they being kept?" and that depends on where he was born.



Herman Cain: Obama Needs To Prove His Constitutional Eligibility - 3/30/2011http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=282117 


 http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html      Article II Section 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

*Compare Presidential requirements by law to requirements of being a Senator (Article I, Section 3) or Representative ( Article I, Section 2).  The President has a higher standard as the founders used specific and very carefully chosen words to craft this exceptional law of the land:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

In 2008, the New York Times led the "birther" craze. They were pushing the idea that there were serious questions of constitutional eligibility for a man running for president that year.  That man was Sen. John McCain. McCain had served in the House and Senate for 26 years. It was his second bid for the presidency. America knew the man inside out – including his birth in Panama when his father, an American citizen, was serving in the Navy. They also knew his mother was an American citizen. But, for the Times, this was the right "birther" moment. <http://alerts.worldnetdaily.com/HS?a=ENX7CqgvfC4i8SA9MKJFFHTnGHxKLCcSAPcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1Ne>The media concern over McCain's eligibility actually led to hearings in the U.S. Senate that concluded he was eligible for one reason – both of this parents were American citizens. McCain had to show the Senate his long-form birth certificate to prove he was eligible. The motion carried 99-0 with one abstention, John McCain. Barack Obama co-sponsored the affirmative resolution declaring McCain eligible.  The Times never once questioned Obama's eligibility during the campaign. It never reported on those who did. It never asked for proof of Obama's eligibility. The flimsiest evidence was accepted on faith.  Question: Were both of Obama's parents American citizens?  Answer: No, according to Obama. He says his father was a Kenyan visiting student, a subject of the United Kingdom, who would have transferred U.K. citizenship to his son, if indeed Barack Hussein Obama I were his father.   Furthermore, if Stanley Ann Dunham were actually his birth mother, she may have been too young to confer U.S. citizenship upon Obama, making him not a dual citizen but a U.K. citizen only. Obama has even more problems than where he was born. According to his life story <http://alerts.worldnetdaily.com/HS?a=ENX7CqgvfC4i8SA9MKJFFHTnGHxKLCcSAfcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1Nf> , he was adopted by his stepfather, an Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro. If that is the case, and we have no adoption papers to prove it, the original birth certificate would have been changed. Why wasn't it? If the certification of live birth is a legitimate reflection of his long-form birth certificate, why wasn't it updated with the adoption? Further, Obama moved to Indonesia with his stepfather, raising even more questions about his citizenship, not just his status as a "natural born citizen." The questions are complicated and deep. It's more than a matter of where he was born.  But it suits the Times to oversimplify the matter – now. It did not in 2008 when the Times was gunning for McCain.   If you want to see the results of the most serious investigation of this topic ever conducted, I strongly urge you to get a copy of the upcoming book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?," by Jerome Corsi. <http://alerts.worldnetdaily.com/HS?a=ENX7CqgvfC4i8SA9MKJFFHTnGHxKLCcSBvcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1Nc



Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath,” according to the complaint, which was delivered to Secretary of State Ken Detzner today.  The case earlier this year was dismissed by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged at that time because under Florida election law, technically, Obama hadn’t been nominated to the position.  As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.  The case notes that the complaint is being filed before the Florida electors meet to cast their vote in the Electoral College, a procedure that affirms the popular vote choice made Nov. 6.   The case asks the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission to decertify the Florida General Election upon a “judicial determination of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president … and to certify the electors for Mitt Romney as the winner.”  Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.  Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.




Supreme Court of CA to rule whether Obama should be declared illegitimate for the U.S. Presidency due to his use of forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number. Loss of 55 CA electoral votes will certainly mean new elections in the U.S.

After originally refusing to hear the case under the original jurisdiction, Supreme Court of California was persuaded by Attorney and Candidate for the U.S. Senate Dr. Orly Taitz to take on a case Noonan, Judd, MacLaren, Taitz v Bowen under the provisions of the California Constitution, which allow Supreme Court of California to hear special cases under the Original Jurisdiction. Docket excerpt is below. Case number is S 207078 Noonan v Bowen. Attorney Orly Taitz.

This case is brought on behalf of four plaintiffs, all of whom have perfect standing. Edward Noonan won the American Independent Party Presidential Primary   in CA and certificate of his win was submitted to the court. Keith Judd is a Democratic Party candidate for the U.s. Presidency, registered with the FEC, he was a runner up to Barack Obama in West Virginia Democratic Party Primary with 40% of the vote, Thomas Gregory Macleran was a Republican candidate for President, registered with the FEC. Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in CA.  This case has two premises.

First.  Plaintiffs provided the court with evidence of nearly One and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California. Such a large number of invalid votes justifies STAY of certification of the results.

Second.  Plaintiffs provided evidence of Candidate Barack Obama committing massive elections fraud by using  forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to Obama and using a name, which is not legally his, as he is listed under the last name Soebarkah in his mother’s U.S. Passport and there is no evidence of him ever legally changing his name from Barack Obama Soebarkah to Barack Obama. Additionally, in his school records in Indonesia his citizenship is listed as Indonesian, not American. There is no record of him relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship and gaining the U.S. citizenship. Even if one were to believe that he arguendo changed his citizenship from Indonesian to American later in life, he would be a naturalized citizen and not natural born. Additionally, plaintiffs provided the courts with a  sworn affidavits of Maricopa county, AZ investigator Mike Zullo, who is currently conducting a criminal investigation of forgeries in Obama’s IDs, and who attested that Obama’s birth certificate, Selective Service certificate and Social Security card represent forgeries.  Similarly, Plaintiffs provided affidavits of   Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Senior Deportation Officer John Sampson, experts Paul Irey, Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa and investigator Susan Daniels, all of whom are attesting that Obama’s IDs are forgeries. Affidavit of Assistant Clerk for the City of Honolulu Timothy Adams attests to the fact that there is no birth certificate for Barack Obama in any hospital in Hawaii.  Statement of the Minister of Health of Kenya, James Orenga attesting to Obama’s birth in Kenya and Obama’s own biography submitted by him to his literally agent in 1991, stating that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia.    Plaintiffs are stating that if this court does not STAY the certification of the election results, this court will commit treason against the United States of America by allowing a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still citizen of Kenya to get in the position of the U.S. President and Commander n Chief by virtue of fraud and use of forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number.

Attorney Orly Taitz is a civil rights attorney, who is conducting this and a number of other cases pro bono and donations are appreciated, pay-pal link and address to send a donation are available on her web site OrlyTaitzESQ.com  http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/                Currently Taitz is suing Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Registrar Alvin Onaka, commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue, “Obama for America”, Democratic Party and others in the state of MS in a RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) case, Taitz et al v Democratic Party et al 12-cv-280.

While Citizens cannot contact the court and influence the decision of the court one way or another, they can write to the court and ask to expedite this case, as this is the most important matter of National security and time is of the essence. If the Supreme Court of California does not grant a STAY, the case will go to Supreme Court of the United States Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is in charge of the 9th Circuit.

Two well known historical figures that have hidden their birth records and used falsified records, were Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. We all know how that ended. Public is asked to support the plaintiffs and attorney Taitz in helping to finally adjudicate ON THE MERITS the issue of Obama’s forged IDs. Over 30 high ranking officials, including Attorney General of the US and White House Counsel were indicted and went to prison in Watergate. More corrupt and treasonous officials and judges are expected to go to prison in ObamaForgeryGate




A longstanding eligibility case challenging Barack Obama’s presence in the White House soon could be headed to the state Supreme Court in Alabama, where one justice already in a court filing has questioned the authenticity of Obama’s documentation, and the incoming chief justice is a dyed-in-the-wool Constitution supporter with little tolerance for those who want to bypass the document.

The move is pending in an eligibility challenge brought by Hugh McInnish and others against the Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman.

“I get criticized for my professions that God is the basis of all rights or liberties,” he told WND, “and yet, the rule of law, being the Constitution, and its companion, the Declaration of Independence, organize the laws of our country on [the premise that] our rights come from God.”  Government’s job, he said, is to secure and protect those rights.  Further, the full Constitution needs to play an active role today, he said.

“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.

“You go back and you read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to William Giles, of 1825,” he said. “Read what he said about the usurpation of the rights of states. It sounds like he was speaking today.”  In that 1825 letter, which is online at Constitution.org, Jefferson writes that he is concerned that the federal government is becoming too powerful.


Did you know that the most significant of the dozen or so Obama eligibility hearings occurred on May 2,2011 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena,California?

Did you know that this particular lawsuit included 2008 presidential candidate Alan Keyes,twenty state representatives,and thirty members of the military?

Never heard about it? You’re not alone.  This is odd because ABC and CBS were in attendance,not to mention C-SPAN,who announced that they were going to broadcast the hearing live.  Perhaps we didn’t hear about it because America was too busy carrying Barack Hussein Obama on their shoulders for almost single-handedly killing Public Enemy Number One, Osama Bin Laden, the day before.  Or perhaps the media didn’t want to cover the hearing.

No,that would be a conspiracy theory.  It is sort of odd that the Osama Bin Laden raid occurred the day before the hearing.  Unless America demands that his phony birth certificate,Social Security application,and Selective Service form be forensically analyzed. That he release all of his college records. His passport files. Explains how he got into Pakistan in 1981 on an American passport,which was forbidden at the time by the Pakistani government. (Hint:he didn’t have an American passport).




Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire has secured a subpoena, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to obtain the following from the Records Custodian at Occidental College:

1) All records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

2) All records related to Barry Soetoro including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

Whether or not this is subpoena is upheld remains to be seen, but the stated deadline for the delivery of the documents to Dr. Ortiz’s office is December 14, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

View the Subpoena:  www.obamaballotchallenge.com  or www.orlytaitzesq.com




Carroll’s dismissal was immediately challenged by Klayman claiming that the judge prematurely dismissed the case without a proper hearing as described by state law.  Klayman explained:  “This act also flies in the face of this court’s own order of Dec. 13, 2012, which was law of the case.”  “This court had a statutory duty under the Florida Election laws, the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and 3 U.S.C. Section 5, to adjudicate defendant Obama’s eligibility and his alleged fraudulent acts expeditiously, timely, and before the electors met on Dec. 17, 2012, and before the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2013.  Thus, this court also violated these law is dismissing the complaint summarily.”  “This court seems to want to sidestep having to reach these serious and important matters before it.”

Klayman also noted that Judge Carroll made an inappropriate remark concerning a friend of his who had been appointed to a federal post by Obama and indicated that it may demonstrate bias on the part of the judge.  Carroll also ignored all of the evidence that Klayman had that strongly questions the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate and other documentation.  In plain words, Carroll succumbed to the pressures put upon him by the White House attorneys to ignore the US Constitution, federal and state law and dismiss the case.  This administration’s record is looking more and more like those of the German Gestapo or Stalin’s KGB, only without the obvious trail of dead bodies.




Chief Justice John Roberts Schedules A Case Regarding Obamas Forged IDs to be Heard in Conference Before the Full Supreme Court. 

The case titled Noonan, Judd, MacLeran, Taitz v Bowen provides a mountain of evidence of Barack Obama using a last name not legally his, forged Selective Service application, forged long form and short form birth certificate and a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 which was never assigned to him according to  E-Verify and SSNVS. Additionally, this case provides evidence of around one and a half million invalid voter registrations in the state of California alone.

More from Huffington Post: Taitz’s case argues that Obama is using false identification, a fake last name, a false Social Security number and forged birth certificates, and Selective Service applications to run for president. She originally filed the lawsuit against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) in her attempt to prevent California’s electoral votes from being counted and to prevent Vice President Joe Biden from counting the electoral votes earlier this month.  Read More:  http://redflagnews.com




John Brennan, the Obama counter-terrorism adviser nominated this week to head the CIA, played a controversial role in what many suspect was an effort to sanitize Obama’s passport records.
The Brennan connection  The New York Times noted the two offending State Department contract employees who were fired had worked for Stanley Inc., a company based in Arlington, Va., while the reprimanded worker continued to be employed by the Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va.

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

At that time, Stanley Inc. was a 3,500-person technology firm that had just won a $570-million contract to provide computer-related passport services to the State Department.

Analysis Corporation was headed by Brennan, a former CIA agent who was then serving as an adviser on intelligence and foreign policy to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.

After Obama’s inauguration, Brennan joined the White House as assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counter-terrorism.

By March 22, 2008, the Washington Times reported that the State Department investigation had focused on the contract worker for the Analysis Corporation, because he was the only one of the three involved in breaching the passport records of both Obama and McCain, the two presidential candidates whose eligibility as “natural born” citizens under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution were in question.
Two weeks after the report that Obama’s passport records had been breached,
candidate Obama made the surprising disclosure at a private fundraiser April 7, 2008, that he had traveled to Pakistan during his college years.

Jake Tapper, then senior White House correspondent for ABC News, commented that Obama’s disclosure that he had taken a college trip to Pakistan was “news to most of us.” Tapper said “it was odd we hadn’t heard about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign.”

Tapper reported that, according to the Obama campaign, Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, the year he transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University, and that he had visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia on the same trip.

Why was Obama disclosing now, for the first time, that he had traveled to Pakistan with his roommates from Occidental College?  Did Obama use an Indonesian passport to travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981, and was he concerned the breach of his passport records might end up disclosing such information, if true?  The attempt to preempt such a disclosure might explain the timing of Obama’s decision to suddenly reveal, at least to the friends assembled for the fundraiser, the previously undisclosed trip to Indonesia and Pakistan.  “I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college,” Obama is heard saying on the poor-quality audiotape that survives from the San Francisco fundraiser. “I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

Key witness murdered  The Washington Times reported April 19, 2008, that a “key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church” at close range, around 11 p.m., in the 2800 block of 12th Street NE, according to the Metropolitan Police Department.


 The case was filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”  As part of his responsibilities, the lawsuit explains, Voeltz took “an oath to ‘protect and defend’ the U.S. Constitution.”

The complaint cites widely reported suspicions that Obama might not have been born in the United States and the fact that his father never was a U.S. citizen. It contends that because of those circumstances, Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” as the Constitution demands of the president.

Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.

“The requirement for natural-born citizenship, which is found in the U.S. Constitution, was intended to prevent foreign influences from ‘influencing’ an American president,” Klayman said as the action was being filed. “These ‘influences’ have regrettably been witnessed by the American people during President Obama’s term in office. It is clear the Founding Fathers intended to avoid such a situation, where an American president seems to frequently sympathize with and take actions benefitting foreign interests.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Klayman explained that the U.S. Constitution mandates a president must be a “natural born citizen” – born to two U.S. citizens. Neither Obama nor the Democratic Party of Florida nor any other group has confirmed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” since his father was a British subject born in Kenya and not a citizen of the United States, Klayman said.

The Florida Election Code allows any voter or taxpayer to challenge any candidate who is ineligible for public office in the Leon County courts. If the secretary of state cannot confirm Obama’s eligibility, then Klayman is demanding the court grant an injunction preventing Obama’s name from appearing on the Florida General Election Ballot in 2012.

 “This is worse than anarchy. With total anarchy everyone knows that the powerful rule. With anarchy everyone understands that the only rules are the rules that the powerful want to enforce, when the powerful want to enforce them. What we have in Georgia is a system of laws and courts that appear to be fair and claim to be impartial, but in reality the purpose of the laws and courts is to deceive the people into thinking that justice is possible. The laws and courts are a sham. The courts serve to disguise the one-sided enforcement of the law.”





On July 25, 1787 John Jay was concerned enough about the security of his new nation to write George Washington who was presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. 

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”


http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/top-gop-choice-for-vp-faces-eligibility-questions/    Concerns over the loyalties of the commander-in-chief were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington.  Wrote Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

In fact, Congress in 1790 defined “natural born citizen” as a child born of two American citizens, but the law containing the definition was repealed several years later.

“The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father’s citizenship was a loyalty issue.  Explains Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Also, in 2008, when the U.S. Senate resolved that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, stated that McCain – born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, “is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”




through the work of the Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, that the world was informed just exactly what the odds are against all of those anomalies occurring naturally.  One in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000. (That’s 62.5 quintillion)

Or, if one prefers, the chances are 0.0000000000000000000016 that those curious developments happened by accident.

The question at hand is whether Obama is constitutionally qualified for the office, under the Constitution’s requirement that presidents be a “natural born citizen.”  If each error is a genuine accident, the errors are independent events, so the probabilities of each error are multiplied together to determine the probability that all occurred in one document.  “Thus the odds against all of these errors occurring in a single document except by design are 1 in 100 x 100 x 10 x 10 x 25 x 40 x 25 x 25 x 10 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100. Accordingly, the probability that Mr. Obama’s birth narrative is in substance true is no better than 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000, or 0.0000000000000000000016.”

“Here is what you can do about it. Write by Return Receipt Requested to the head of the Secret Service and demand an investigation into the forged ‘birth certificate.’ When you get no reply, write again by Return Receipt Requested giving the Secret Service two weeks to reply.  “When you still get no reply, apply to your federal district court for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Secret Service to refuse to do its job. It has a specific remit to investigate the authenticity of identification documents,” he explained.  “The courts cannot legitimately deny standing to any citizen seeking an order to tell the Secret Service to get on with its work



there's something delicious about the way the Zullo-Corsi e-book project has been devised. For those who purchase "A Law Enforcement Investigation into Barack Obama's Birth Certificate and His Eligibility to be President," they will not only get details of the first part of the investigation, but they will get electronic updates as it continues in the months ahead. To my knowledge, that makes this e-book a unique experiment in publishing history.  

 By the way, what's wrong with Zullo getting some remuneration for his six months of previously unpaid public service work?  Don't police investigators normally get paid to conduct their investigations?   Do those reporters writing their stories get paid? If so, does that impugn their work? Some of them are actually working for news agencies that have issued specific instructions not to take seriously any questions raised about Obama's eligibility. So who is in a more compromised position to present facts – them or Zullo?  As I've said before, I've been in the news business for more than 35 years. In that time, I have never seen the press go so totally in the tank on any big story the way they have in the case of Obama's eligibility.  They are no longer just protecting Obama. They are now protecting their own reputations.   Having not only missed one of the most important stories of our time, but having distorted it, misrepresented it, lied about it and attacked those trying to present the truth, they are as vulnerable as Obama himself.



Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”  “It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Irion told supporters, “While it is certainly dangerous to read too much into such an opinion, the statements from this federal court are encouraging. The court appears to understand the most critical issues presented by our complaint.”  The case is developing just as a new petition urges members of Congress to take the issue seriously by investigating it. The number of names on the document has surged past 40,000 and soon will be approaching 50,000.  WND reported just a day ago that members of Congress, regarding Obama’s eligibility, still are relying on statements from Hawaii officials, “vetting” by voters and his own word.  Where’s the proof??





Dr. Alan Keyes thinks there are many Americans who are aware of this Social Security number mystery and simply can’t understand why it’s not being addressed.   Keyes continued: “I know very few – I don’t care which party label they wear – who have had respect for the people, the respect for the Constitution, the respect for the requirements of real and true representation and choice in our elections to stand forward and deal with these matters forthrightly. They’ve allowed folks like myself and others who are outside the purview of government to kind of just twist in the wind. First they called us names and then they tried to tear us down, and as the facts and other things became evident and more and more people lined up, now they’re just silent and cowering in some dark corner, unable to voice their shame. And I think that’s where they belong, most of them.”



http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/                 Even if the original 1991 brochure’s listing of Kenya as Obama’s birthplace was in error, as the agency has since claimed, it apparently was an error Obama allowed his publicist to persist in for over a decade, right until after he was running for president.  In April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, Dystel was still touting the then-Democratic senator from Illinois as “born in Kenya.”


http://www.infowars.com/ap-declared-obama-kenyan-born/    What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services.  What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.

How so?  Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at


The AP reporter stated the following:

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office.  Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.

The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama:  because if you search for “Kenyan-born US Senate” you wont find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.



“But if it’s not necessary for the candidate [to prove eligibility to be on the New Jersey presidential primary ballot], then you could have Mickey Mouse, for say, as a candidate, and everybody could sign up. ….” Hill argued.

“And that’s happened before,” Masin interrupted.

The comment produced nervous laughter from some of the observers gathered in the hearing room.

Obama’s lawyer fired from the case





Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born. The law confers U.S. nationality on a child born outside the United States only under certain circumstances, including: “(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.” Thus, if Obama was born in Kenya he was not only not a natural born citizen, he was not even a citizen of the United States. [801, 2040, 2462]

In 1965, Obama’s father writes an article for the East Africa Journal called “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” in which he criticizes Kenya for not being socialist enough. He writes, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”





A former U.S. Justice Department attorney who founded the government watchdog Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch has warned a key Barack Obama attorney that Democratic Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could be charged with election fraud.  Larry Klayman explains in a letter that election officials can not be certain of Obama’s eligibility, and the law doesn’t allow them to make assumptions.  The letter to Robert Bauer, general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, points to evidence of Obama’s ineligibility that would make letters from the DNC to states regarding his candidacy problematic.  “There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.  “At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.” Such verifications, if created, would be “perjurious,” Klayman said.

A commentator at Canada Free Press first exposed the Democratic National Committee used two separate forms to affirm Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president and then said Democrats failed to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 of the 50 states.

“In most states,” Williams wrote, “it appears that the DNC never certified constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama, despite their many claims of proper vetting and certification, all of which we now know to be false.”  Williams posted copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Obama as their nominee for president, one that contains language affirming his constitutional eligibility and filed in Hawaii (where state law requires the specific language) and another omitting the language and filed in the remaining 49 states.






by John Charlton

(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.


In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

Read more:
Doubt also seems to be fueled by revelations such as the report that noted Congress tried eight times over the time frame from 2003-2008 to eliminate or change the constitutional requirement that a president is a "natural born Citizen." The report says Congress eventually gave up on eliminating the requirement, but then changed the focus of the argument to Sen. John McCain, in a resolution that addresses his eligibility. Obama's eligibility never was similarly evaluated. Some no longer even are considering the issue of eligibility: they are just calling for impeachment. Among those groups is the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. Spokesman William Gheen said Obama




http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/100613/                 Obama ( how smart is he?? ): Where have all his records gone?  While concerned citizens demand President Obama present his elusive “long-form” birth certificate, more than a dozen other documents remain unreleased or otherwise blocked from the public eye. Transparency anyone??  Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Harvard Law School records, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Passport, Medical records, Other documents:  According to additional records listed at the The Obama File, other documents that remain unreleased include: Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004, Obama’s client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard, Illinois State Bar Association records, Baptism records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records, Birth certificate



http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-wants-obamas-original-draft-card/          Since investigators could find no 1980 pica Post Office date stamps available, they had no choice but to cut a 2008 pica Post Office date stamp and invert the “08″ half, so that when it was placed in the date compartment, the stamp printed out “80.” Surprisingly, the result ended up looking identical to the date stamp on Obama’s Selective Service registration card, as demonstrated in Exhibit F.  Arpaio’s investigators concluded that Obama’s Selective Service registration card fit into what was becoming a common narrative for his life: The document was not only forged, it was poorly forged.




http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/                All states rely upon the truthfulness of representations by the political parties, that their candidates are qualified to hold the federal office for which they are nominated. By naming the National Democratic Party as the defendant we not only target the entity responsible for vetting their candidate, we also avoid taking on any state or federal government. The Democratic Party is a private entity, without any government immunities or government procedural advantages.

We also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot. That’s why two of our lead plaintiffs are FEC-registered Presidential Candidates.  Because we have lead plaintiffs that are Presidential Candidates, and because those plaintiffs are also Liberty Legal members, Liberty Legal has standing to sue as well. If one plaintiff has standing to sue, all plaintiffs have standing to sue.

You can join our lawsuit as a class member and be part of this challenge! We have a class for all people that object to having a Presidential candidate appear on the ballot who is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office. If you agree that the Constitution should be followed, please add your voice to ours. Please join our class action lawsuit to protect the legitimacy of the ballot.

On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation joined with Presidential candidate John Albert Dummett Jr. to file two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint)

Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to our argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen.

His place of birth is irrelevant because in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:  Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”



         For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.

The ruling came today from Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.

“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”  The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

Once again, the Georgia court HAS agreed to hear the case of Obama’s eligibility on the issue of Natural Born Citizen on January 26th at 9am!!!   Source: Liberty Legal Foundation








http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/lawmakers-dispute-obama-ballot-eligibility/   Several New Hampshire legislators declared at a press conference today that President Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that New Hampshire voters were defrauded by Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  Coos, District 1, state Rep. Larry Rappaport told the crowd he has filed a petition asking New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney to investigate whether the Ballot Law Commission acted illegally by allowing Obama’s name on the New Hampshire ballot. “The Ballot Law Committee says it doesn’t have jurisdiction over this issue, but it does. It disqualified two other candidates for office because those candidates weren’t ‘natural born citizens,’” he said.  Accornero was referring to the 2007 case of Sal Mohamed and the 2011 case of Abdul Hassan, who were denied ballot access by the commission after it ruled that the two men were not “natural born citizens.”  Mohamed filed to run for president in 2007 and was denied New Hampshire ballot access that same year.  Hassan is a New York attorney


, who, as a naturalized American citizen, attempted to gain ballot access in New Hampshire to run for president.  “So if it can make that ruling on those two men, it could have done the same for Obama,” Accornero noted.

He said the issue would be moot if the Democratic Party had properly examined Obama’s history.  “This whole thing never would have come up if the Democrats had vetted Obama properly,” he said, adding, “The spin on this is that this is a birther issue. The Democrats want to direct attention away from the issue to partisanship. This isn’t partisan. This is a constitutional issue, pure and simple.”  James Page, a member of the crowd, supports the petition. He said he was at the conference today to find out why the Ballot Law Commission evaded its responsibility.







                “Drake and Robinson request that this court resolve this current issue of who has the authority to verify that a presidential candidate meets the constitutionally required eligibility requirements, because there remains a question as to whether absurd results may occur unless and until this court so determines. For Example:  Arnold Schwarzenegger is well known as having been born in Austria. If there are no means of compelling verification of a presidential candidate’s birth status, Mr. Schwarzenegger could run for, and be elected, president of the United States.”

 “If Mr. Obama is, in fact, ineligible for the office of president of the United States, it is insufficient that he received a majority of the Electoral College votes and has served for some time in the office, because ineligibility is not vacated by votes, else the Constitution could be amended contrary to the Constitution’s own dictates,” it said.

While Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” was released by the White House, other documentation for “Mr. Transparency” remains sealed (why? Isn’t he supposed to be so smart, so wouldn’t you be open, transparent and with audacity proud? ), including kindergarten records, high school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGnWUjR0icg&feature=player_detailpage     Chris Matthews: Apparently Obama Does Not Have Long-Form Birth Certificate - 1/31/11


 Attorney Orly Taitz, at the National Press Club on Dec 8th, stated that no hospital in Hawaii has any record of Obama or his mother ever being a patient. Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, was reported to have died in Hawaii from cancer in 1992, yet her social security number is still active and in use.


Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:  The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: As
Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this:

Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.
Jerome R. Corsi a Harvard Ph.D:The problem since the short-form certificate was released during the 2008 presidential campaign has always been this: , the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.



Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961. Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes. Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.In 1961, the birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospitals.  Instead, the numbers were stamped to the birth record by the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu.   This is the only place birth certificate numbers were assigned.   At the last step of the process, the documents were accepted by the registrar general, with the date of registration inserted in box No. 22 on the lower right hand corner of the long-form birth certificate. Be the first to get an autographed copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate?" and help get TV commercials on the air!

The date the birth document was accepted by the registrar general was the date the birth certificate number was stamped on the birth record.   The birth certificate number was stamped on the form by a rubber stamp that automatically increased by one each time a birth certificate was stamped.

The question, therefore, is how was it possible that the Nordyke twins had their birth certificates accepted by the registrar general in Hawaii three days later than the registrar general accepted Obama's birth certificate, when the twins' numbers are lower than Obama's number?  Now that President Obama has personally vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate the White House released today, he can reasonably be asked to authorize Kapi'olani Medical Center to release any and all medical records the hospital may hold for his mother and Barack Obama Sr., his listed father.

The debate over Obama's eligibility to be president has truly only just begun, with Obama's status having changed overnight from a bemused observer to a full-contact participant.    http://visiontoamerica.org/262/is-obamas-just-released-birth-certificate-a-fake/                  The certificate says “African” for Obama’s father’s race when the term used in the 1960’s was “Negro”.• Why are there smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81 making him unavailable to comment. How convenient.• When the White House PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator you can find layers that point to tampering.

 Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro's second husband, an Indonesia, either adopted Barack Obama or considered him adopted, as documentation obtained by the Associated Press reveals that Obama-Soetoro was registered as a Muslim Indonesian at school when he lived in the Far East with his mother and Lolo Soetoro.   During the 1960s Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, so if the school record is correct, and Obama attended classes as an Indonesian citizen, the apparent requirement would have been for him to give up an American citizenship. On his later return to the U.S., in regaining citizenship, he likely would have had to have been listed as a "naturalized" citizen, not a "natural-born Citizen," as demanded by the U.S. Constitution for the office of president. That remains the focal point of challenges to his ascendancy to the Oval Office, because many interpret that phrase to mean the citizen offspring of two citizen parents. With Kenyan-born Barack Obama Sr. listed as his father, Obama Jr. would not have met those requirements under any circumstances. Any adoption records that might exist have been kept from public review, however. WND previously has reported that the dateline for Obama's move to Indonesia, and his later return to Hawaii, remains unclear.   Two newspaper articles from 1990 – apparently based on interviews with Barack Obama – reported that the future president left Hawaii for Indonesia when he was 2 years old, not 6 years old, as he relates in his autobiography. On May 3, 1990, the Associated Press widely published a feature story on Obama highlighting him as the first African-American named as president of the Harvard Law review. "Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2 when his parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian," the Associated Press reported. "Until the fifth grade, Obama attended Indonesian schools, where most of his friends were the sons of servants, street peddlers and farmers." Here is the screen capture of the AP report as published by the Chicago Daily Herald on May 3, 1990:
Read more: Obama's half-sister raises birth-certificate doubts http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292649#ixzz1KvNEnMtC

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292901     Perhaps it's a good thing that the U.S. Senate didn't take up a resolution on Barack Obama's status as a "natural born Citizen" in 2008 – as members did for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain while both were seeking the U.S. presidency. The Democrat might not have qualified under the requirements the Senate, including Obama, a co-sponsor and then-senator, put in the resolution, including the demand that the candidate have "American citizen" parents. The candidates' circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain's eligibility under the Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen," because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas. That's also what Obama, as a cosponsor, included in his Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 regarding McCain.   The statement includes two references to "Americans" as parents or "American citizens" as parents.  
Why has Barack Hussein Obama has reportedly spent over $2,000,000.00, to date, to shield all information about his past---including his elementary school records in Indonesia. Mr. Obama's attempt to circumvent the transparency in his administration that he campaigned on has done little to quiet those who demand that Mr. Obama produce the birth records to affirm his eligibility to initially run for, and to serve as, the President of the United States. This is especially of those of us who fight for the U. S. Constitution at the United States Justice Foundation (USJF)!   Our legal research has shown how serious the criminal charges can be against Mr. Obama. YES---if he is found ineligible to serve as President because he is not a "natural born" citizen, he could be facing numerous felony charges, just under federal law alone! AND, every piece of legislation that Mr. Obama has signed will become null and void. AND, every political appointment made by Mr. Obama will be vacated... as will every program implemented by those officials, or action taken by them during their term in the Obama government.

If Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to serve as President, he could be charged not only with the federal crimes listed below, but, potentially, with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run for President---as could those people who helped him perpetrate this fraud. There could also be numerous challenges to everything that he ever did as "President".

As we approach the 2012 presidential campaign, we are still seeking the records which may confirm that Mr. Obama had a constitutional right to seek the office of President in 2008---the position that he now holds. We cannot let any candidate for the office of President be on the ballot in any State in the future if that person cannot verify that he or she is a U. S. Constitution, Article II eligible, candidate for the office. That is easily done by producing his or her long-form birth certificate. PLEASE CLICK HERE to make an URGENT DONATION to support our efforts to obtain the truth. Your gift to the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) will enable our legal staff to continue our current lawsuits, as well as to file new litigation, over the "eligibility" question! Those potential federal criminal charges are as follows:

1. FALSE PERSONALTION OF OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES (18 United States Code {U.S.C.} 912). The U. S. Code says: "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
The U. S. Code reads: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
The U. S. Code says: "(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or a Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so---Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

We have done exhaustive research into these potential, future, proceedings; that's why I need you to stand with USJF right now, today!

Here are additional criminal charges that Mr. Obama could face:

The U. S. Code says: "Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement---Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both."
Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
6. PERJURY (18 U.S.C. 1621)
The U. S. Code says: Whoever---
  1. Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
  2. In any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

All of these above listed crimes require a specific
Mens Rea, or intent that the acts be so accomplished. Mr. Obama knows, or at least should know, his place of birth and the status of his citizenship, as all, or nearly all, adults in the world do.

The case was filed by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought many of the major court challenges to Obama's eligibility based on a lack of evidence that he meets the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

Jerome Corsi's New York Times best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", which addresses Obama's Social Security Number, is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore



The case at hand was filed against the Social Security Administration because Obama's number indicates a Connecticut residency, yet there is no evidence he ever lived in the state. He claims he grew up in Hawaii and apparently had a Social Security Number there, as he reported he worked in a Honolulu ice-cream shop. The judge, Royce Lamberth, credited Taitz for her dedication to her cause but said that "today is not her lucky day."








He concluded that there's no real interest in determining whether the Obama Social Security Number is genuine or fraudulent, arguing that the need for privacy for the president trumps all else.

"The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 ... protects the personal information of social security number holders," he wrote. "The SSA determined ... the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure.

"Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number," the judge wrote.

He said he would "disregard" documents from the Selective Service and the Social Security Number Verification System suggesting there are problems with Obama's number, because he "concludes" they were obtained "under false pretenses."

Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn't match his name.

She said it is important to the public, because it could provide evidence of fraudulent IRS returns, fake election documents and Social Security fraud, should the allegations prove accurate.

Taitz also has filed a state court action on similar grounds in Hawaii, where there had been a hearing scheduled in September on orders from a federal judge to address the state's refusal to comply with a subpoena for Obama's original birth documentation.

Her Petition for Writ of Mandamus, if granted, would require the state Department of Health to turn over to her the original 1961 Obama birth records the agency has kept from the American public.

A mandamus action compels an official or government officer to perform a duty demanded by the petitioner.   Taitz filed 48 pages of pleadings and exhibits before Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Nishimura.

It is separate from the Astrue case, which she said would be appealed.

Taitz has maintained that by releasing his long-form birth certificate to the American public on April 27, Obama has waived all privacy restrictions that would prevent the Hawaii DOH from making public the original 1961 birth records the agency has on file.

Taitz charged that if the long-form birth certificate the White House released on April 27 is not on file in a 1961 original copy in the Hawaii DOH, then a criminal felony has been committed.

Read more: Judge rules on Obama's Social Security Number http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=339629#ixzz1WiU4wks8








5.  On August 27, 2008, the Hawaiian Democratic Party created a customized Nomination Certification document for Obama containing the following words:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.”

In comparison, unlike the 2008 Hawaiian OCON for Obama, in every other previous Presidential election, the Hawaiian Democratic Party has certified the nomination of their state’s Democratic candidate with the following words:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution…”

Notice that the wording of HDP’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination omits the words “…under the provision of the United States Constitution…”


13. The Million Dollar Birth Cerificate

On August 21, 2008, Philadelphia based attorney, Philip Berg, filed the first of several high profile cases attempting to force Obama to show authentic, legal, original documentation proving that he is eligible to be president of the U.S. Berg is a lifelong, registered Democrat with a history of running for Democratic office in Philadelphia. Following Berg’s case, other plaintiffs have filed similar suits including Alan Keyes and several military officers, all of which have been dismissed by irresponsible judges refusing to weigh the merits of evidence in the cases.

Some judges have even gone on record as saying the reason they dismissed their case was because “Questions about Obama’s eligibility had already been answered on Twitter.”

Since then, Obama has paid more than 1.6 million dollars to the Washington law firm, Perkins Coie to prevent the release of his original birth certificate, which costs about 20 dollars to order from the State of Hawaii.


23. Obama’s Own Words On page 26 of his 1995 Autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama admits to possessing a copy of his original birth certificate in the late 1970’s. This document was an official copy of an original vital record assumed to still be filed with the office of Vital Statistics in the city where Obama was born, wherever that is. Why does Obama not still possess this copy and where is the original used to produce it? Where is the official, original birth record used to produce the document which Obama himself admits to having more than thirty years before being issued a fake document from Hawaii? Why is Obama lying about this document? What information does this document contain?

29. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers

In 2010, Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John Sampson revealed that President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, not 1961 at the time of Obama’s birth. Moreover, Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was around 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii. The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his SSN are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses and start with 040 through 049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains, “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

In April, 2011, further investigation by ex-CIA personnel confirmed that Obama’s social security number was fraudulently issued after the original owner of the number, who had once resided in Connecticut, died in Hawaii in 1977. As a result, it is now supported by evidence that Barack Obama is committing social security fraud and that his number was issued through channels possibly provided by his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who worked in the financial and banking industry and who had ties to communist support organizations and international interests.

It is highly likely that Obama, when issued his current social security number, was not a legal citizen of the U.S. and, having access to records through his grandmother, was allowed to use the number after its original owner had died. It has been shown that the original owner of Obama’s social security number had opened at least one account at the bank where Madelyn Dunham was employed in Hawaii in 1965.

45. Obama’s Radicalism Obama has lived a life wrought with radicalism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, Obama writes, “…I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”





Two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi, a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard and a senior staff writer at WND, has written a new book that promises to be a game-changer on the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility.

It's called
"Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not Eligible to Be President."

The result of more than two years of solid investigative research by Corsi and a team of WND reporters and editors, this book is destined to be a huge bestseller and change the dynamics of the debate over eligibility – IF, of course, the book is not spiked by the hostile establishment media when it is officially released in May.

Advance orders for this book from retailers across the U.S. already suggest it will be Corsi's third No. 1 New York Times bestseller – probably bigger than the previous two.



Trump: Obama Must Release Birth Certificate   March 24, 2011

BORN IN THE USA?  “I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate,” Trump said on ABC’s “The View.” “There’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like.” Trump is not alone in suggesting that Obama should release his full birth certificate.

In December, MSNBC’s pro-Obama host Chris Matthews called on the president to release his long-form birth certificate to settle the controversy surrounding his birthplace once and for all, saying, “If it exists, why not put it out?” 
“I am not a birther,” Matthews declared. “I am an enemy of the birthers.”But he held up the long-form birth certificate of someone who was born the day before Obama, and compared it with the shorter version Obama has released, which to the birthers, he said, “is evidence that he really ain’t one of us.  “Why has the president himself not demanded that they put out the official document?” Matthews said.Mad magazine dishes on Obama's birthplace

Lampoons eligibility, Teleprompters, middle name, busted lip, Jeremiah Wright

Posted: March 22, 2011
9:33 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily Lawsuits have claimed Barack Obama fails the Constitution's eligibility test for presidents because his father was a Kenyan, because he was born overseas and because his original long-form birth certificate has been withheld. Mad magazine, now, has released its solution: His birthplace is "wherever it was he was born." The magazine, in an article "How Barack Obama stacks up to the other 42 presidents," also takes jabs at Obama's dependence on Teleprompters, his middle name (Hussein), his busted lip and his onetime pastor, Jeremiah Wright.



Barack Obama's birthplace?

While George Washington's "head was carved into Mt. Rushmore, Obama's head was sculpted into a Chia Pet," the article starts. Then, John Adams "got lost on his way to go live in the White House. Obama successfully reached the White House, but has been lost ever since." It's when the list gets to Andrew Jackson the magazine explains, "Before Jackson, there had never been a president born west of the Appalachian Mountains. Before Obama, there had never been a president born … wherever it was he was born."

Read more:
Mad magazine dishes on Obama's birthplace http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=278437#ixzz1HciSn3u1





 10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

107 Electoral College votes controlled by Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, others

Posted: January 26, 2011
7:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Obama on the campaign trail

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.

And they aren't all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met.

In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.
Read more:
10 states now developing eligibility proof-demands http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255965#ixzz1G369q7TX



Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number

3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation

Posted: May 11, 2010
9:57 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

"Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office," the Social Security website explains. "The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number."

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president's history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

"I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don't live, but there's usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state," Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

"Yes," he replied. "In the case of President Obama, I really don't know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii."

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Read more:
Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=152773#ixzz1FxZq9R4W



Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama's eligibility, in "Where's The Birth Certificate?" by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.


He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan

"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
Docketing information from Supreme Court

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA&feature=player_embedded

Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.


Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.

"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"

The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'

"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor"  -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Sponsored Link: Viewer Discretion is Advised: Have you seen this controversial video making the rounds on the internet? It will permanently change the way you think about America and your money...

Related Offers:

Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama's eligibility, in "Where's The Birth Certificate?" by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate

Read more:
Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1FxE5fER5



Supreme Court schedules ‘conference’ on Obama’s eligibility

February 18, 2011

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legalchallengeto Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing inthe casebrought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of aconferenceon March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment,a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “motion for recusal” but it changed it on official docketing pages to a “request.” And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of theU.S. Supreme Court.

He also argued that if court members continue to “avoid” the dispute they effectively will “destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.”

“We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

“Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility underthe Constitutionto ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said.

“Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?” he wrote.

California election officials shirked their duty to examine Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for the office of President during the 2008 Presidential election campaign.  And Ambassador Alan Keyes is teaming with the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) to undo the damage and to make sure that it doesn't happen again!

In a damning brief recently filed by USJF with the California 3rd District Court of Appeal, Dr. Keyes rightly argues that state elections officials -- not the U.S. Congress -- had the duty to verify Mr. Obama's eligibility for the 2008 presidential ballot.

And friends, please note that this brief, before the California Third District Court of Appeal, is in addition to the brief that we just filed with the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal!

Mr. Keyes, a 2008 Presidential candidate, who knows well our nation's history and heritage, stands firm by insisting that an earlier dismissal of the California case ignored significant legal precedents:

The USJF brief cites how California election officials previously removed from the ballot a nominee for President because he did not meet the U.S. Constitution's eligibility requirements.

And get this: in another legal precedent, a court actually removed a state's sitting Governor from office for not being eligible, after he was elected!

This may well be the telling argument that finally leads to a court order forcing Mr. Obama to provide proof positive of his claimed Constitutional eligibility to serve as President!

But, at this most crucial juncture, the United States Justice Foundation absolutely must have your help to see this watershed case through to a successful conclusion!

USJF - your conservative voice in the courts since 1979 - has been involved in financing, and handling, a number of lawsuits over Mr. Obama's eligibility the past two years.  Each of our cases essentially demands that the man now sitting in the Oval Office provide proof positive that he, indeed, is a natural born citizen, as required by the U. S. Constitution.

It's an expensive fight, having to ante up for each level of each lawsuit against Mr. Obama's high-priced array of private attorneys, plus the government attorneys assisting him, paid for with YOUR tax dollars.  And, according to published reports, he has spent more than $1.9  million, on just his private attorneys, to keep his birth records, and other tell-tale documents, secret.

Last year, Mr. Obama declared war on the United States Justice Foundation, and his attorneys have pledged to spend us out of existence.  That's his plan to keep his citizenship-related documents hidden from the public.  Each round of legal crossfire costs USJF money that we honestly don't have.  So, we must keep asking our faithful followers to reach deep in order for us to stay in the battle.

Now I'm pleased to tell you that the most compelling arguments yet are now before the court.  And I'm pleading with you to keep us fighting for what's right -- for the truth!

Our brief -- filed on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes and Vice-Presidential candidate Wiley Drake, as well as California elector Markham Robinson -- refutes the claim by Mr. Obama's attorneys that "jurisdiction over presidential qualifications lies with the United States Congress."

Dr. Keyes points out that "this case concerns itself primarily with California state election law and the compliance or non-compliance by the Secretary of State in fulfilling her ministerial duties as chief elections officer of California.  This is not a political question, but is, rather, a question well within the jurisdiction of this court to determine, as it is a duty that may be compelled by this court's equitable power."

Dr. Keyes reasons that a verdict is proper at the state level where a duty is imposed on a state officer - in this case, Respondent Debra Bowen, California's Secretary of State.  It was Bowen's specific duty to verify that a candidate meets the eligibility requirements for whatever office he or she is seeking on the California ballot.

Our brief alleges that Mr. Obama was not eligible for the office, and that Bowen failed to investigate his qualifications before allowing his name on the 2008 presidential election ballot.

Our brief backs that assertion by pointing out: "In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States.  The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for President.

"Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot.  Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions," it states.

Our brief also calls the court's attention to the fact that the Governor of North Dakota was removed from office after that state's Supreme Court determined that he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.

This case promises to have great impact, because, in many of the eligibility cases, Mr. Obama's lawyers have said, and so far judges have agreed, that the courts don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility, because of the Constitution's provision that Presidents must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.

But, as we cite in our brief, that contention already has been adjudicated, and the resolution is that courts do have the authority to review eligibility and even remove an ineligible chief executive!

After Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of Governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that he was not eligible for the position because he had not resided in the state a required five years before running for office.  Because of that ineligibility, a court ruled that he be removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor, as our brief explains.

Even if the same can't be achieved with Mr. Obama, who steadfastly refuses to prove if he is constitutionally-qualified, we are seeking to bar anyone from going on the Presidential ballot in 2012 unless they can prove that they're constitutionally eligible to serve as President!

If we are successful with this lawsuit, to run for a second term, Mr. Obama would have to prove that he is a natural born citizen.

PLEASE, SELECT HERE to assist the United States Justice Foundation in this watershed legal battle to force Barack Obama to prove his eligibility to serve as President.  Our legal team is  finalizing this court case to expose this hoax.  PLEASE, GIVE GENEROUSLY TODAY to USJF in this extremely costly fight.  We simply cannot match, dollar for dollar, Mr. Obama's legal "dream team" who reportedly has been paid  more than $1.9  million.  PLEASE HELP US NOW!

In our brief, we contend that Secretary of State Bowen has a duty to ensure that all candidates in the state of California, for both federal and for state offices, meet the eligibility requirements for the offices sought, that she did not fulfill it, and that a court determination is needed to ensure that Ms. Bowen comply with this duty in the future.

Our brief cites how court precedent gives a candidate, such as Dr. Keyes or Dr. Drake, legal standing to challenge the inclusion of an ineligible rival due to the damage to their candidacies.

Please help USJF drive this all-important legal point home!  Because, until he provides  proof positive that he was born in the United States, Mr. Obama does not meet the U. S. Constitution's eligibility requirement to serve as President.  As a result, he and all of his actions are invalid!

Read more: Now popular Republicans 'not natural-born citizens' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485#ixzz1XCXYhjzp    
The fact that Rubio and Jindal were both born in America undoubtedly makes them "native-born" citizens, but does it mean they're "natural-born" citizens?

Some would say no – including legal sources relied upon by America's Founders – based on the foreign births of their parents, an issue many claim disqualifies Obama from holding the presidency, since Obama's father held British citizenship due to his birth in Kenya, which was under British rule at the time.

The Founders' chief concern, as demonstrated in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, was that the commander-in-chief not have dual loyalties.

Jay, who later became president of the Continental Congress and the first Supreme Court chief justice, wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

The definition of natural-born citizen approved by the first U.S. Congress can be seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which regarded it as a child born of two American parents. The law, specifying that a natural-born citizen need not be born on U.S. soil, stated: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

The first U.S. Congress included 20 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Among the 20 were eight members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the Constitution's natural-born citizen clause.

While the act was repealed five years later, it, nevertheless, represented the will of the Congress that the U.S. not be led by someone with dual loyalties.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmed in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866, that a natural-born citizen is "born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."

"The Law of Nations," a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.

Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father's citizenship was a loyalty issue.

Vattel writes: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

Significantly, when the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens.

The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, stated that McCain – born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, "is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."









Website Builder