Friday, June 21, 2013

It's over folks...Bill O'Reilly takes a wide left turn

The following from:
After Phone Call with Rubio, O'Reilly Offers Full-Scale Support of Immigration Bill

Thursday night on Fox News’s "The O’Reilly Factor," host Bill O’Reilly came out in full-scale support for the immigration reform bill currently making its way through the Senate.

Despite its border security shortcomings, O’Reilly said, “it looks like the secure border is in reach – at least somewhat.” He continued, “Talking Points supports immigration reform, even though I well understand the new law will be somewhat chaotic…will be a magnet for more people to come here illegally, which is why we need stepped up security around the border.” He concluded, “I hope this bill does become law.”
Multiple Republican senators have stridently fought the notion that the immigration reform bill currently under consideration is sufficient to guarantee any true border security. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, “We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-AZ) stated that his amendment, which was rejected, would have guaranteed border security, while the current version does not: “The difference between my amendment and their bill is that their bill promises the sun and the moon when it comes to border security but it has no trigger mechanism.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) explained, “I don’t think it will stop the reform waiting on border security. It allows the reforms to go ahead and tries to get border security, but I think they should be dependent upon each other. So, unless that happens, I’m not sure I can support it.”
O’Reilly explained that some Republican senators – he cited Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) – were trying to strengthen border security measures. The new proposal, O’Reilly stated, would come down to doubling the border patrol from 20,000 to 40,000, building 700 miles of new fence, and installing new technology to track illegal border crossers. What of the pathway to citizenship? O’Reilly said that he spoke with Rubio on the phone, and Rubio assured him that the pathway would be 13 years long: “Sen. Rubio told me on the phone today," O'Reilly said, "that it would be at least 13 years – thirteen – before people in the country illegally right now could gain full legal working status and even longer to achieve citizenship.” Breitbart News has previously reported that the current proposed Senate legislation would immediately grant illegal immigrants legal working status. Illegal immigrants could become full citizens in as few as 13 years under the "Gang of Eight" bill.
Mirroring Rubio’s talking points, O’Reilly stated that the feds have been too easy on illegal immigration, and so have businesses. He also said that if the GOP does not embrace immigration reform, it would “doom the party” in the future. “That’s reality,” he stated, though he offered no data or new information to support these claims. "There were never, ever any deals made here."
O’Reilly denied a New Yorker report that he had private conversations with Republican senators and agreed to support the immigration reform bill. “This is a no collusion zone,” he scoffed. “There are never, ever any deals made here.”
After his monologue on immigration, O’Reilly debated radio talk show host and bestselling author Laura Ingraham on the issue. She told O’Reilly not to follow Democrats’ “phony, fraudulent narrative,” and said that she was “uproariously laughing” at Republican senators who supported the bill. She also pointed out that support for the bill from lax border security advocates like Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and President Obama should show that the bill does not do enough for border security. O’Reilly said, “I don’t think McCain is a liar.”  (Note from Storm'n Norm'n: "Whether you know it or not Mr. O'Reilly, former POW's can lie just like the rest of the politicians. So wake the hell up!")

Also from Breitbart
Corker Amendment Permanently Offers Citizenship to Those Overstaying Their Visas
by Mike Flynn
Buried within the text of the Amendment is a seemingly innocuous provision:
(f) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY.—In determining an alien’s inadmissibility under this section, section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)) shall not apply.
What does that mean?

Current law states that those applying for green cards are ineligible if they are either "illegally present" at any point or overstay the terms of their work visa. Such an immigrant, in current law, would have to return to their home country and restart the immigration process. The Corker Amendment wipes away that enforcement mechanism.

In the current draft of the Corker Amendment, any worker in the country on a legal work visa for 10 years can get a green card, even if they overstay their visa. The Corker Amendment allows immigrants to break the law in the future and still be eligible for citizenship. It absolves prospective behavior, not simply past mistakes.

Prior to the Corker Amendment, the 4.5 million immigrants outside the country on a visa waiting-list were subject to laws restricting their presence in the US. The Gang Senate bill would offer them immediate green cards, as long as they hadn't violated current US Law.

The language in the new Corker Amendment referenced above, however, would remove this restriction. They would become immediately eligible for a green card, even if they lived illegally in this country. The Corker Amendment wipes away any immigration enforcement. It is designed to maximize the number of individuals who qualify for citizenship.

The Corker Amendment is an obvious attempt by the DC GOP establishment to find a path to vote for the Senate bill. It throws a lot more money at the border, but it also weakens internal enforcement and controls. The Corker Amendment actually stipulates that, in perpetuity, you can break the law, overstay your visa, and still be eligible for citizenship.  Full text here:

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Boston Bomber a victim?

Can you believe this?
Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Name Read Among List of Victims of Gun Violence
Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s name was included in a list of victims killed by a human wielding a gun. The Boston bomber’s name was actually read aloud, classifying him as a victim – in this case a victim of Massachusetts police, who hunted him down and thankfully put an end to his merciless life. The occasion was an anti-gun rally in Concord, New Hampshire, sponsored by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization. “Illegal” guns means the legal guns you own that these anti-Second Amendment city leaders want to be illegal.
Throughout the rally, organizers read a list of names of people who had been killed with guns since the Dec. 14 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
When they read Tsarnaev’s name, pro-gun supporters who were at the rally to counter Bloomberg’s group began shouting, “He’s a terrorist,” according to a report by Tim Buckland of the New Hampshire Union-Leader.
Tsarnaev was killed by police in a gun fight days after detonating bombs at the Boston Marathon.
Pro-gun attendees said the buses of the rally organizers had Texas license plates, and rally organizers refused to talk to talk to the media. Gun rights supporter Tony Mayfield was in attendance and said: “This is joke. We have, for all intents and purposes, a corporation from out of town doing this little publicity stunt here.” Source: Breitbart
Is it possible anyone could forget the names of Tamerlan and Dzhoktar Tamerlan and what they did in Boston? If you need a refresher, find it here – warning – graphic.
Thanks to An American Democrat for the photo of Bloomberg and cronies

We all know that the ultimate goal of those on the left is total control over every man, woman, and child but also the unspoken goal of the total population...something every control regime in history has accomplished and that is slaughter as many as you can to save the world from over population.  And you know what's more amazing?  The idiots who vote for these control freaks are unknowingly placing their own lives in the same destructive path.  You know something is definitely wrong when they classify one of the worst terrorists in American history, the Boston Bomber, as a victim.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Congressman Pompeo, you're spinning your wheels !

 "We have to call evil by its name in order to stamp it out." It's historically accurate and visually obvious that the evil you speak of goes by the name of why should they speak out against the very thing they preach, "Death to infidels!"  And you want Imans to disavow this sacred're spinning your wheels Congressman Pompeo!  You don't become an Iman for allowing other religions to dictate Islamic policy.  The hatred and killing of non-Muslims will continue as long as Islam is permitted to exist under the guise of religion.

Obama's Immigration disntergrate the United States of America

"It will destroy our two-party system. It is inconceivable that people can be stupid enough to let this happen – twice." ~ Maggie's Notebook

Definition of DISINTEGRATE
transitive verb
1: to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles
2: to destroy the unity or integrity of
intransitive verb
1: to break or separate into constituent elements or parts
2: to lose unity or integrity by or as if by breaking into parts
3: to undergo a change in composition
"This was done once before by Lenin. When Lenin wanted to control that enormous country of Russia, with so many ethnic groups, so many different little communities, how did he do it? Instead of sending out Government officials, he provided funding streams to favored community organizations in each place, and then gave them a lot of favors and powers so they would control each community. That’s what Obama is doing. He’s using Community Health Councils of Los Angeles, and all these different groups and they will have the power now to mete out the Government benefits – health care, amnesty and when you read the websites of these various groups – housing, food stamps – they’re going to be doing it all. They’re going to be enrolling people, indoctrinating people. They will be governed by none of the standards of Government employees."  Read more here:
The intent of the immigration bill is to do away
with the Constitution of the United States of America...
nothing more, nothing less.

Take a stand...this man did!

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

A Country That Prays Together Will Stay Together ~ Americans have drifted apart from one another...we could all come together if we join in this one prayer...Let's do it !!! Pass it on !

Don't forget the bonus video below the Declaration of Independence.

I believe in th power of prayer...just look what happens when you pray for a Democrat.  ↓

Now if we pray a little harder we will all become independents.  Isn't that what made America great; independence!  Party politics has destroyed this once great country and one way to restore her is by prayer and declaring our independence...all over again:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Bonus Video
Take a stand...this man did!

Oath Keepers...curing the dumbing down Americans have gotten from their schools and the SPLC !

If only our law makers* could understand this concept (upholding their oath) we wouldn't be in near the trouble we are currently in...and we are in a fast moving current to destruction.
*aka politicians

Source: Police Patrol ...the law enforcement magazine
Who Are the Oath Keepers?
Painted as radicals and racists by some, this organization of law enforcement officers and military vets says its only purpose is to uphold the Constitution.
by Dean Scoville

It started with Katrina. The sight of U.S. military troops, law enforcement officers, and armed government contractors seizing firearms from citizens in the aftermath of that terrible storm shocked the conscience of Yale constitutional law scholar Stewart Rhodes. That these actions were later recognized as wrong by the U.S. Supreme Court did little to assuage Rhodes' concerns. The fact remained that an illegal precedent had taken place, and could well occur again; indeed, it appeared that that the seeds sown in Louisiana might not only take root, but germinate elsewhere, as well.
After witnessing what he saw as an unconstitutional outrage in the wake of Katrina, Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers, an organization for peace officers and soldiers who adhere strictly to the letter of the Constitution and swear not to obey any orders that they believe to be unconstitutional.
The Oath Keepers are essentially a reflection of American political thought in the 21st century. How they are perceived is determined by the ideological bent of the beholder. Lionized by some leading conservatives and libertarians, they have been attacked from the left as radical patriots, tea partyers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, nativists, and racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center has even mentioned them in the same reports that analyze hate groups and white supremacy movements.
Defending History
Oath Keeper founder and president Rhodes says his organization merely stands for a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, which service members and law enforcement officers swear to uphold. He also believes one of the primary purposes for his organization is to educate officers and military personnel about the laws they've promised to defend.
Rhodes' perspective is that the officers' actions after Katrina and other unconstitutional excesses by officers are a matter of ignorance at work. Whether it is institutionalized or willed ignorance is immaterial, he says.
"An honorable man who is doing his very best necessarily becomes knowledgeable," Rhodes observes. "Because if you don't know what's right or wrong, you can be an honest person with great integrity and courage and still do the wrong thing."
According to Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' mission is simply to get back to basics—to ensure that at least part of the country's constituency knows and understands the Constitution and its ideological underpinnings to a sufficient degree that they refrain from violating its tenets out of ignorance, apathy, or fear of political reprisal.
"It's not about finding like-minded officers," says the former Yale history instructor and public defender. "It's about creating people who are knowledgeable about the Constitution. What we're trying to do is cure the dumbing down Americans have gotten from the schools. They're not taught history and they're not taught the Constitution. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to rank and file military officers who haven't read the Constitution. Police officers, too. Have they read the Federalist Papers? The writings of the Founders? It's very rare. That's what we're trying to do: Simply show the intentional ignorance of the American population."
Rhodes—whose 2004 Yale Law School paper, "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status," won the school's award for best paper on the Bill of Rights—says the root of the problem lies within our country's basic curricula. But he also believes there is a silver lining to be found in addressing this deficiency: It's easier when the person reading the Bill of Rights isn't approaching it with notions instilled in them by revisionists.
Tip of the Spear
Rhodes, a disabled Army paratrooper, determined very quickly that he wanted his grassroots organization to work with the men and women serving in the trenches of law enforcement and the military. "We focus on the guys at the tip of the spear, the ones who will be giving the orders," Rhodes says. "The big concern we have is if we have a legion of oath breakers and traitors in Washington, D.C., who have utter contempt for the Constitution then all they care about is power. They just do whatever they think they can get away with."
Rhodes quickly gained the attention of like-minded officers. "In late 2008 I heard on the Internet about the group forming, so I e-mailed Stewart to get more information," says Oath Keeper board member and law enforcement officer John Shirley. "Shortly after that, I had a conference call with him and some other founding members and discovered the group was exactly the kind of organization I had felt was needed for several years."
Shirley got involved and was soon asked to serve as the Texas Chapter's vice president. Less than a year after joining the organization, Shirley addressed a 5,000-member strong Tea Party rally in San Antonio with a speech that was to become a model for future Oath Keepers calls to arms. By July 2010, Shirley was appointed Texas Chapter President and later National Peace Officer Liaison, and he now serves on the organization's board of directors.
Patriot Movement
Since the birth of the organization, Oath Keepers' members have found themselves subject to all manner of suspicion and labeling, and repeated criticism by the anti-Klan Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which cites the Oath Keepers as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Responding to the SPLC report on the Lou Dobbs radio show, Rhodes said, "They think the word 'patriot' is a smear."
The intent of the SPLC and other critics like the Anti-Defamation League is to characterize the Oath Keepers as a bunch of Timothy McVeigh wannabes. And unfortunately for those who defend the group, there are some fringe elements that are not so much pro-Bill of Rights as anti-government. One Oath Keeper, a former naval officer, actually participated in a plot to take over a Tennessee courthouse to free a man who was arrested for trying to enforce a citizen's arrest on a judicial official who refused to investigate President Barack Obama's citizenship. There are also elements in the group's "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey" that smack to some of black helicopter globalist paranoia. Rhodes says the list doesn't mean the Oath Keepers believe all of these actions are imminent, merely that they will refuse to participate in them should they happen.
Perhaps the criticism that makes Rhodes bristle most is any insinuation that Oath Keepers promote white supremacy. Opining on the Oath Keepers, a visitor to the SPLC Website asserted that its members are "nothing but the Ku Klux Klan with a new name and without the silly robes and pointed caps." Oath Keepers refutes such charges formally as evidenced by its bylaws and informally by the demographic of its membership. Rhodes himself says he is one-quarter Mexican and part Apache.
Freedom of Speech
Rhodes also laments that Oath Keepers has borne the brunt of attacks from Democrats simply because that party currently occupies the White House. "That is the unfortunate reality of our political system," he notes. "When your party is in political power and anybody criticizes them, you attack." The mission of Oath Keepers crosses political boundaries, he says. "I support the Constitution. I don't like oath breakers, whether they're Republicans or Democrats."
While the organization's stance on the Second Amendment has garnered the lion's share of media-related attention revolving around the Oath Keepers, it is another amendment that looms ever larger as a barrier against the organization communicating its message.
Many active law enforcement officers find their First Amendment rights cramped by their employing agencies. In some cases, such suppression is due to strict departmental regulations barring officers from voicing personal opinions about law enforcement in public forums, whether printed in newspapers and magazines or posted online in social media. In other cases, the lack of a clear policy may lead officers to err on the side of self-suppression. In either instance, many officers are fearful to stand up and openly voice their opinions.
Because of the restrictive policies of many law enforcement agencies, Shirley finds it difficult to believe that "there are officers out there who are working the streets, fighting crime, protecting the public who, when they hang up the uniform at night, can't exercise their basic rights under the First Amendment."
As an active duty police officer with the Houston Police Department, Shirley clearly and repeatedly states that when he advocates for Oath Keepers, he does so as a private citizen and not as a representative of his department. In doing so, he is careful to act within the department's policy.
In Shirley's estimation, "Just because you wear a badge doesn't mean you surrender your First Amendment rights. I look at it like departments should not try to squash the First Amendment rights of their officers and step all over the fact that because they happen to carry a badge doesn't mean you hang up your constitutional rights so you retire. That's a very unethical and a very dangerous place to go for an agency."
Eroding Rights
In recent months, the Oath Keepers have argued against what they say are new and alarming overtures by the Obama administration. While the need for greater intelligence sharing between law enforcement and military parties is a legitimate one, the melding of their responsibilities through interventionary operations relating to homeland security and narcotic investigations further elevates Rhodes' concerns.
High on the Oath Keepers' list of concerns is Eric Holder's stumping for the usage of drones on domestic targets and the drumbeat for gun confiscation among some liberal political camps.
"They don't understand that they are putting police officers on a collision course with veterans and gun owners in their communities," notes Shirley. "The Oath Keepers' message for both sides is to not to bleed for corrupt politicians. That means that police officers have to refuse to use force."
The Oath Keepers believe that what they see as the transgressions against the Constitution committed under both Bush's and Obama's watch will encourage Americans to educate themselves as to the true breadth of their rights and to re-examine their society.
"Educate yourself," advises Shirley. "The main impetus of the education you got in whatever police academy you've been through has been liability control for whatever agency you work for. Educate yourself on the Constitution. Educate yourself on the founders. Educate yourself on what is expected of you on the street vs. what the Constitution says. If you apply what the Constitution says, you're not going to get crossways with the people or in most cases your department. It's errant policies and errant oath breakers and politicians who are going to push you to do things that you've never done before. Trust your gut and educate yourself on what you really swore to that day you held your hand up and swore an oath. Be prepared to stand up for what you believe in and what you swore an oath to."
Rhodes and Shirley are reaching out to active law enforcement officers to help spread the word and renew their oaths to uphold the ideals within the Constitution.
"One guy at the right place at the right time can make all the difference for an entire unit," says Rhodes. "It's nice to have police officers use their quiet discretion and make it known within their communities that they are on your side. But it's also critically important for the tip of the iceberg to be there too. There are very vocal and very public peace officers who step up and risk their careers like John [Shirley] is doing to say there are people among us who understand the Constitution and will not do this."
In the meantime, Rhodes sees the organization as a means of preventing confrontations and de-escalating situations both through finding common ground with less predictable sources and mitigating the prospects for needlessly precipitous actions by law enforcement administrators.
"It helps the people feel more secure," explains Rhodes. "Because what other securities do they have? If they can't rely on the politicians to not trample on their rights in the first place, and they can't rely on the judges to fix it, they have to have some reliance that the police officers are not going to do it."
10 Orders Oath Keepers Swear to Disobey
  1. We will not obey any order to disarm the American people.
  2. We will not obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects—such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons.
  3. We will not obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunals.
  4. We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor.
  5. We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
  6. We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
  7. We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
  8. We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
  9. We will not obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext.
  10. We will not obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey read the immigration bill...see what she has to say!

 The intent of the immigration bill is to do away with the Constitution of the United States of America...nothing more, nothing less.

Bonus video...If I wanted America to fail.

If you can't trust the general, who can you trust?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)
Admission: Special Forces were only hours from Benghazi

Joint chiefs chairman confirms whistle blower account (See also: General Dempsey's fuzzy answers to Congress hinting that his allegiance is not to the United States or the United States Army but to an international ruling body with further proof of the same by Leon Panetta, the Communist Secretary of Defense [video is at bottom of this page])
by Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – In a bombshell admission that has until now gone unreported, Martin Dempsey, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that highly trained Special Forces were stationed just a few hours away from Benghazi on the night of the attacks but were not told to deploy to Libya.
In comments that may warrant further investigation, Dempsey stated at a Senate hearing Wednesday that on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, command of the Special Forces – known as C-110, or the EUCOM CIF – was transferred from the military’s European command to AFRICOM, or the United States Africa Command.
Dempsey did not state any reason for the strange transfer of command nor could he provide a timeline for the transfer the night of the attack.
Also, Dempsey’s comments on the travel time between Croatia and Benghazi were incorrect.
His remarks for the first time confirm an exclusive Fox News interview aired April 30 in which a special government operator, speaking on condition of anonymity, contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that there wasn’t enough time for military forces to deploy the night of the attack.
“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the special operator told Fox News’ Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”
The operator told Fox News the C-110 forces were training in Croatia. The distance between Croatia’s capital, Zagreb, and Benghazi is about 925 miles. Fox News reported the forces were stationed just three and a half hours away.
“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours … four to six hours.”
The C-110 is a 40-man Special Ops force maintained for rapid response to emergencies – in other words they are trained for deployment for events like the Benghazi attack.
Dempsey was asked about Housley’s report by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis, at a senatorial hearing Wednesday over Defense Department Budget requests.
Dempsey confirmed the C-110 was indeed at a training exercise. At first he claimed the Special Forces were training in Bosnia and then later stated they were training in Croatia. But he did not explain the discrepancies in his statements about their location nor did he note the discrepancies.
“It (the C-110) was on a training mission in Bosnia, that is correct,” stated Dempsey.
Dempsey had been asked whether they were training in Croatia, not Bosnia.
In further remarks, he stated the forces were in Croatia.
Dempsey was asked whether he agreed with the Fox News timeline that the C-100 could deploy in four to six hours.
“No, I would not agree to that timeline,” he stated. “The travel time alone would have been more than that, and that is if they were sitting on the tarmac.”
Dempsey’s remarks are inaccurate. Even a large passenger jet can travel from the furthest point of Croatia to Benghazi in about two and a half hours or less.
Dempsey further stated the command of the C-100, or the EUCOM CIF, was transferred the night of the attack, but he didn’t explain why.
“There was a point at which the CIF was transitioned over into Africom” from European command, he said.
He could not give a timeline of when the command was transferred, telling Johnson he would take the question for the record.
Asked whether the C-100 left Croatia that night, Dempsey stated, “They were told to begin preparations to leave Croatia and to return to their normal operating base” in Germany.
Dempsey’s statements confirmed the forces were not asked to deploy to Libya.
The whistleblower operator told Fox News the C-100 could have made a difference.
“They would have been there before the second attack,” he said. “They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfil out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisers say hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation.”
Also, in his testimony, former deputy Libyan ambassador and whistleblower Gregory Hicks said he contacted Africom the night of the attack but received no support.
Stated Hicks: “At about 10:45 or 11 we confer, and I asked the defense attache who had been talking about AFRICOM and with the joint staff, ‘Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?’ And he answered that, the nearest help was in Aviano, the nearest – where there were fighter planes. He said that it would take two to three hours for them to get onsite, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and we went on with our work.”
Aviano, Italy, is 1,044 miles from Benghazi, about 100 miles further than the Croatian capital.
With additional research by Joshua Klein.
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved.

Stubby The First War WW I

Source: Pittsburg Post Gazette
A dog of war: Sgt. Stubby even helped capture WWI German
By Tanya Irwin / Block News Alliance
See video below commentary

After returning home from World War I, Sgt. Stubby became
a celebrity and marched in, and normally led, many parades
across the country. He met Presidents Woodrow Wilson,
Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding

Their canine counterparts are often equally brave, said Kathleen Golden, associate curator in the Division of Armed Forces History at the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.
"These dogs are fearless and they are saving a lot of soldiers' lives," she said. "They are four-legged soldiers and they should receive as many accolades as the two-legged ones."
Ms. Golden helped put together the exhibition "The Price of Freedom: Americans at War," which has a World War I section. It features the original U.S. dog of war, Sgt. Stubby, who was the mascot of the 102 Infantry 26th Yankee Division in World War I. Stubby predated the formal K-9 program, which started during World War II, she said.
"When the exhibit was installed in 2004, we made sure Stubby was front and center, where he is today," she said. "He is incredibly popular. He even has his own Facebook page."
After Stubby died, he was stuffed and mounted (actually, his skin was placed over a plaster cast, and the rest of him was cremated and placed inside the cast), and was lent to the Red Cross Museum, where he was on display for many years. He is 22 inches high by 26 inches wide and 11 inches deep.
On May 22, 1956, Army Cpl. J. Robert Conroy donated Stubby to the Smithsonian Institution, and he was put on display for several years in the National Museum (now the Arts and Industries Building, next to the Smithsonian Castle).
After that, Stubby went into a crate and stayed there for many years, in one of the storage rooms of the Division of Armed Forces History in the American History building. That is where Ms. Golden met him, when she began working with that division in the late 1980s.
Ms. Golden, a self-described dog lover, said he is one of her favorite artifacts in the Armed Forces history collections.
The dog showed up at training camp one day on the grounds of Yale University, and was such a hit with the soldiers that he was allowed to stay (he would drill with them, and even learned to salute), she said.
The soldiers didn't think twice about what breed of dog he was, but his square head, cropped ears and short legs clearly would have placed him into the pit bull category.
When it was time to ship off for Europe, Stubby went along for the ride to Newport News, Va., and was smuggled by Conroy aboard the SS Minnesota. Upon discovery by Conroy's commanding officer, the story goes, Stubby saluted him, and the commanding officer was so impressed that he allowed Stubby to remain with the troops, where he stayed for 18 months. Stubby entered combat on Feb. 5, 1918, at Chemin des Dames and went on to participate in four offensives and 17 battles.
Stubby took to soldiering quite well, joining the men in the trenches. He was gassed once, and wounded in the leg with shrapnel by retreating Germans, and once he disappeared for a while, only to resurface with the French forces who returned him to his unit. Stubby even captured a German soldier, Ms. Golden said.
As the story goes, the soldier called to Stubby, but he put his ears back and began to bark. As the German ran, Stubby bit him on the legs, causing the soldier to trip and fall. He continued to attack the man until the U.S. soldiers arrived. For capturing an enemy spy, Stubby was put in for a promotion to the rank of sergeant by the commander of the 102nd Infantry. He became the first dog to be given rank in the U.S. armed forces.
When the war ended, Stubby returned to the states with Conroy and to a certain amount of celebrity. Conroy enrolled at Georgetown University to study law, and Stubby became the mascot for the Hoyas. There were visits to the White House, a meeting with Gen. John J. Pershing, parades galore, and even a vaudeville appearance, Ms. Golden said.
"Stubby touched the hearts of many, the hero dog who followed his buddies to war," she said.
When he died in 1926, his obituary ran in several newspapers, including The New York Times. Now, Stubby is again enjoying a certain amount of popularity.
"In the past few years, I have received numerous inquiries about Stubby from children's book authors, aspiring screenwriters, and even pit bull advocates who see Stubby as a role model," she said.
More pictures here
Block News Alliance consists of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. Tanya Irwin is a reporter for The Blade.
First Published May 27, 2013 12:00 am

The Miracle Of Music...not covered by Obamacare