Saturday, June 30, 2012

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: 'Put it on record!'

by: Drew Zahn
The attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”

Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”
As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
A video recording of the hearing is available for viewing online at WND.
But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”
Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue –Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether nominated or not.”

“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”
“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.
Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.”
A fund has been set up for donations to cover legal expenses for the case.

Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.
For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.
Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.
The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.
Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.
The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.
Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.
The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.
Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.
The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.
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.
WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.

The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.
The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”

When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.
Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.
“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.
But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.
“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.
Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”
“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”
Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.
“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.
“It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.”

Justice Won’t Prosecute Holder for Contempt

The Justice Department declared Friday that Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.
The House voted Thursday afternoon to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt for refusing to turn over the documents. President Barack Obama invoked his executive privilege authority and ordered Holder not to turn over materials about executive branch deliberations and internal recommendations.
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the department said that it will not bring the congressional contempt citation against Holder to a federal grand jury and that it will take no other action to prosecute the attorney general.
Dated Thursday, the letter was released Friday.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties.

OPED: Then Congress has no option but to appoint a Special Counsel to prosecute USAG Holder as well as his Justice department for Obstruction of one or agency is above the law!

Issa reveals wiretap docs from DOJ mole

by: Jordy Yager 
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has revealed portions of sealed wiretap applications related to the botched gun-tracking operation “Fast and Furious.”
Issa entered the sensitive, and previously undisclosed, information into the Congressional Record on Thursday during the floor debate leading up to the passage of his resolution placing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. 
The powerful Republican might be protected from what otherwise would be a criminal offense under Congress’s speech and debate clause because the remarks were written into the public record during chamber proceedings.
During his probe of Fast and Furious as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa has focused on a series of six wiretap applications that federal officials implemented in an attempt to dismantle gun-trafficking rings in the Southwest.

The applications, which are under a federal court’s seal, were given to Issa by a mole with access to the documents. Issa has claimed they reveal that top-level Justice Department officials signed off on the documents and knew about the controversial “gun-walking” tactics used in Fast and Furious. Issa has called his source a “whistleblower” and refused to disclose his or her identity.   
“The enclosed wiretap affidavit contains clear information that agents were willfully allowing known straw buyers to acquire firearms for drug cartels and failing to interdict them — in some cases even allowing them to walk to Mexico,” stated a letter Issa sent to his panel’s ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), which was put into the record on Thursday.

“In particular, the affidavit explicitly describes the most controversial tactic of all: abandoning surveillance of known straw purchasers, resulting in the failure to interdict firearms.” 
Gun “walking” occurs when a federal official allows a gun to be transferred illegally into a suspected criminals’ possession and they make no attempt to retake possession of the firearm. The tactic is at the heart of why administration and congressional officials have criticized Fast and Furious so vehemently.
Issa argued the information in the wiretap applications raises questions about whether Holder told Congress the truth. Holder has previously testified that he has reviewed the documents and concluded that nothing in them suggested senior DOJ officials should have known about the controversial tactics being employed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran the operation. 
“The detailed information about the operational tactics contained in the applications raises new questions about statements of senior Justice Department officials, including the Attorney General himself,” said Issa in his May letter to Cummings. 
“The affidavit reveals that the Justice Department has been misrepresenting important facts to Congress and withholding critical details about Fast and Furious from the Committee for months on end.”

Issa has been investigating Fast and Furious for 16 months, with specific emphasis on the role the DOJ played in approving the flawed operation. President Obama and Holder have repeatedly said they didn’t know about the “gun walking” tactics until after an ATF agent made news of them public.
In testimony before the House Rules Committee this week, Issa told lawmakers that he had no evidence that Holder was responsible for Fast and Furious. But on Thursday, the California Republican successfully passed civil and criminal resolutions placing Holder in contempt for not responding to a congressional subpoena for documents.
Issa has demanded the DOJ to turn over internal communications over a 10-month period that detailed how the department realized that the ATF had let guns “walk” after stating in a letter to Congress that it made every attempt to stop them. 
According to one of the wiretap applications, which included lengthy transcriptions of conversations between alleged straw buyers for Mexican drug cartels, a suspect told an associate over the phone: “Can you hold them [firearms] for me there for a little while there?” 
The associate responded, “Well it's that I do not want to have them at home, dude, because there is a lot of … uh, it's too much heat at my house.” 
The news about Issa's entry into the Congressional Record was first reported by Roll Call.

Iran: There will be war – and we'll win

by: Reza Kahlili
Just days after the breakdown of talks with the West over Iran’s nuclear program, the deputy chief commander of the Revolutionary Guards announced that there soon will be war – and that Allah will ensure his forces are victorious.
The last round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany) ended in Moscow last week without any agreement on Iran’s illicit nuclear program.
Gen. Hossein Salami, in a televised interview, boasted that, “Iran has complete control of all the enemy’s interests around the world and is on a path to reach equivalency with world powers.” The commander emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program is irreversible, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Salami said war is inevitable, and the Iranian forces are ready.
“The current sanctions will only help Iran with its progress, and the Iranian ballistic missiles can target the enemy’s moving carriers with 100 percent accuracy,” he warned the West. “The Guards’ operational plan includes a radius of deterrence in the region in which all interests of the enemy have been identified, and in case of war, those interests will be attacked.”
Guards’ commanders have stated previously that all U.S. bases in the region are targeted with missiles and will be attacked should America strike Iran.
Salami said Iranian ballistic missiles can travel at several times the speed of sound and cannot easily be tracked and destroyed. “Our defense inventory is so great that at times our brothers in the Guards face limitations with space.”
The Revolutionary Guards have more than 1,000 ballistic missiles capable of reaching all U.S. bases in the region, all of Israel and some capitals in Europe. In collaboration with China and North Korea, they are also working on intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Salami said the Guards are on high alert, adding, “Our forces in relation to our internal security will complete their mission with all of their capability.”

In 2009, millions of Iranians took to the street demanding regime change, but ultimately the uprising was cruelly suppressed and many Iranians were tortured and executed. According to statistics from the Islamic regime’s Justice Department, all Iranian prisons are overflowing and there is a need for more prisons. As reported by Iranian officials, last year alone more than 600 people were executed, including women.
Salami repeated that the Guards are ready for war, which is close, and though it will be very difficult, “We have faith in Allah.”
In another sign that the Iranian officials expect war, Iran’s supreme leader Wednesday urged all factions of the regime, political and military, to unite and remain steadfast in defense of Islam in confronting the “arrogant powers.”
According to Sepah News, the official media outlet of the Guards, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a meeting with regime officials, stated, “Today the arrogant powers of the world have focused all their power to hurt the Islamic republic and stop its progress (nuclear program), which motivates the Islamic world.”
Referring to sanctions on Iran, Khamenei said, “America itself is surrounded by serious problems, which cannot be solved. … Their main goal is to separate the Islamic republic from the support of its people. … Allah willing, this conspiracy will also be defeated.”

 Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award-winning book, “A Time to Betray.” He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

Friday, June 29, 2012

Congressman Allen West Joins Troopathon


We are overjoyed to announce that Representative Allen West (R-FL) has graciously agreed to participate in this year's Troopathon effort to raise money to send care packages to our troops fighting overseas.

This has been the toughest year ever for pro-troop organizations like MAF. Many other groups that used to support the troops have had to shut their doors because in this slumping economy and lack of attention on the war, people seem to have lost the fire in their hearts to go out there and show support for our troops.

Most support nowadays comes from the select few - people like you - who continue to read our e-mails and stay up-to-date with what's going on around the world and with our troops deployed overseas. In many ways we are in more danger than ever before, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over in Egypt, there is civil unrest all over the middle east, Iran is growing increasingly bold, and President Obama is trying to retreat from Afghanistan when the locals there are in no position to deal with the continuing Taliban threat.

Despite all this danger, the mass media continues to ignore our troops and the danger we face as a nation. Instead we're talking about Supreme Court decisions, the NBA draft, and the latest movie star couple getting a divorce - these things just distract us from the very important job of supporting our brave military men and women!

The time has come to be honest. Those of you reading this, you are the last hope for our troops overseas. If we do not put these issues back in the public light, and re-energize support for our troops - they'll just be forgotten. But we can't allow that to happen! Please make a donation NOW for this year's Troopathon and get America back on the right track!


Congressman West has built his entire life on his sense of duty and honor. He has served in the armed forces for decades, and is seen by some as the strongest advocate for our troops and their missions overseas in Congress today.
He served in the Iraq War before being elected to Congress and now he's using his considerable experience in the military and public service and lending his voice to support Troopathon.

As a former soldier himself, Colonel West knows what it means to receive support from home in the form of care packages like these.

Each care package comes with coffee, cookies, Gatorade, beef jerky, Jelly Belly jelly beans, and tons of personal care items like wet wipes, deodorant, bug repellent, sun screen, and more!


Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obama panic: 'I will be outspent'

by: Jack Minor
President Obama’s campaign is pleading for funds, marking a sharp contrast to his fundraising during the 2008 election.
In an urgent appeal sent out to supporters Tuesday, Obama said in an e-mail, “I will be outspent.” He went on to say he was not referring to the so-called Super PACs, but the Romney campaign itself.
“The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn’t hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney’s campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more,” he said. “We can be outspent and still win – but we can’t be outspent 10 to 1 and still win.”

By contrast, the 2008 campaign rejected federal matching funds and shattered fundraising records raising nearly $750 million. John McCain was limited to a mere $84 million as a condition of his acceptance of the matching funds.
This time around, things appear to be vastly different, with the president having to resort to new and creative methods in an attempt to solicit much-needed cash.
Obama became the first sitting president to raffle off meetings with himself and Michelle for those who donate $3 or more to the campaign. The campaign has changed up the specifics of the raffle, and recently it even gave donors a chance to choose a celebrity to join them with the president if they won.
As WND reported, the campaign has even begun soliciting wedding, birthday and anniversary gifts.
The campaign started an “Obama event registry” asking people to forgo birthday, wedding and anniversary gifts and instead ask family and friends to give the money spent on presents to him instead.
“Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?” the site asks. “Let your friends know how important this election is to you – register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift.”

“It’s a great way to support the president on your big day,” it continues. “Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate – and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.”
The Democratic National Committee also appears to be having fundraising woes of its own. In May, the DNC raised $60 million, compared to $76.8 million by the RNC.
The AP reported that several Democratic strategists have expressed alarm over the lack of fundraising by the campaign and party.
Debbie Dingell, a DNC committee member and wife of Michigan Rep. John Dingell, said, “We’ve all got to get in the same boat and start paddling in the same direction, or we’re going to have some problems.”

The campaign has sent other signals that it having difficulties with its finances. Recently Obama made a campaign stop in Durham, N.H. However, the campaign refused to pay the town for the costs associated with the visit, expecting the town to pay its expenses.
Local officials said they had no problem paying for official presidential visits, but they felt Obama’s campaign should reimburse them for the estimated $20,000 to $30,000 in expenses for police and fire services. Officials said the city simply didn’t have the money for the president’s campaign stop budgeted for the cost of the services.
Town Administrator Todd Selig said, “Community leaders have taken the position that the campaign, regardless of party affiliation, should absorb the added local public safety costs rather than local taxpayers.”

The campaign initially said it would pay for the cost of the stop, saying it was the responsibility of local governments to pick up the tab for security, traffic control and other expenses whenever the president made a campaign visit.
However, Ann Marie Habershaw, chief operating officer for Obama for America, wrote in a letter sent to Selig: “As a private organization, OFA does not participate in security or traffic control planning. All such decisions, including their impact on costs incurred by federal, state or local governments, are exclusively within the control of the appropriate government officials.”

Would Congress send sergeant-at-arms for Holder?

Several questions about how the White House will respond should the U.S. House, as many expect, hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress weren’t answered at today’s White House news briefing.
Press Secretary Jay Carney allowed CBS and Fox News to ask seven questions each, NBC to ask five and CNN and Bloomberg to ask four each, but he did not recognize Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House.

Kinsolving had wanted to ask about an assertion by Cornell law professor Josh Cafetz that “if the House holds Holder in contempt, it can send its sergeant-at-arms to arrest him, and hold him until his contempt is purged.”
Kinsolving also wanted to ask whether Obama would enlist the FBI or the armed forces “to protect the attorney general.” In addition, he wanted to know whether Obama would expect Congress to impeach Holder or cut funding for the Department of Justice should the standoff continue.

The White House and the House of Representatives have been in a conflict over documents pertaining to the DOJ’s involvement in the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal in which the federal government sold guns to carriers who took them to Mexican drug cartels. A Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, was murdered, and one of the weapons was found at the crime scene.
Congress wants to investigate the path of authorization for the program and determine who had oversight. Holder has refused to provide tens of thousands of documents sought by Congress.
At the 11th hour as the fight heated up, Holder obtained from Obama a decision to invoke executive privilege and withhold the documents.
Chafetz’ recent commentary in the Washington Post raised all sorts of issues about Holder. He addressed what ultimately could develop in such a standoff.

The associate professor of law at Cornell said after the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Holder in contempt of Congress that it would be relatively pointless for Congress to go to the courts — presided over by judges who report to Holder — to seek a contempt action.
“Fortunately, the House has other options. A better way of dealing with such controversies, a way that is truer to our constitutional traditions and history, requires recognizing that, in such high-level separation-of-powers fights, the line between law and politics breaks down almost entirely. It is precisely in such cases that our constitutional order seeks to harness ‘ambition … to counteract ambition,’ to borrow James Madison’s words,” he wrote.
Once it is recognized as a political war, the tools for Congress become apparent.

“There are some big guns: If the House holds Holder in contempt, it can send its sergeant-at-arms to arrest him and hold him until his contempt is purged. The House has arrested and held executive-branch officials twice in U.S. history, although the last time was nearly a century ago.
“And traditionally, courts will inquire into the House’s jurisdiction to arrest – which undoubtedly exists here – but not its reasons for doing so.”
He raised the possibility that Kinsolving wanted to explore: a standoff between the sergeant-at-arms and executive branch police.
He said the House also could impeach Holder, but that likely would not be confirmed by the Senate.
“The Democratic Senate may refuse to convict Holder, but simply facing impeachment proceedings is quite punishing – just ask Bill Clinton,” he wrote.

Or the House could “threaten to cut funding” for the DOJ, or Holder specifically, to persuade cooperation.
“The House would risk looking petty in doing any of this, just as the Obama administration risks looking petty by withholding information from Congress,” he said.
A vote in the House on Holder’s contempt citation is expected tomorrow.

SCOTUS has Spoken...Obamacare is just another Tax!

Well folks the decision is in...this is what happens when Congress fails to read all the fine print on a Bill before voting on it...yeppers the Obama Administration pulled another fast one...they lied about it not  being a Tax! Congress needs to put a Bill forward stating no new Bill can be voted on until the entire Bill is read cover to cover and understood on the laymans level so we the people understand what it will do to us!

Congress also needs to start Impeachment hearings on President Obama he has lied consistently from the start on who he really is and what his true agenda is...Obama is a fraud and a pathological liar that needs to be removed from office for crimes he has and continues to commit against we the people!

We the people also need to replace any and all Congressional  members as well as Senator's who voted for this latest attack on our freedoms and taxation without representation... we separated from England over these same issues...
Tax his land, tax his bed,
Tax the table at which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes are the rule.
Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirt,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, tax his drink.
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars, tax his beers,
If he cries, then tax his tears
Tax his car, tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his ass.
Tax all he has, then let him know That you won’t be done ’til he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Tax him some more.
Tax him ’till he’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, tax his grave.
Tax the sod in which he’s laid.
Put these words upon his tomb,
“Taxes drove me to my doom.”
When he’s gone, do not relax.
It’s time to apply the inheritance tax

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Issa Challenges Obama’s Executive Privilege

by: Tim Brown
As the House is set to vote on holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is challenging the claim of Barack Obama to executive privilege regarding the documents the committee has requested for months concerning the Fast and Furious investigation. There is no question in regards to the reason behind the asserting of executive privilege. It was to keep the documents secret and to protect that guilty.
There is no national security issue at stake. The Washington Examiner even points out,
Ironically, the documents at the heart of the current argument are not directly related to the workings of Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed guns to “walk” from Arizona to Mexico in hopes they could be tracked.
Rather, Issa wants internal communications from February 2011, when the administration denied knowledge of gun-walking, to the end of the year, when officials acknowledged the denial was in error. Those documents covered a period after Fast and Furious was shut down.

While some “experts” have agreed with Obama’s view that all executive branch documents are protected from disclosure, in a letter from Representative Issa to Obama he wrote, “Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege … is only applicable … to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the president’s decision-making process.”
Issa quoted from a 1997 case in which the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said that the privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies. Rather the court said the privilege should only apply to “communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff.” This also only applied to staff charged with formulating advice for the president.

However, Issa continually distinguished between the “presidential communications privilege” and the “deliberative process privilege.” While both are executive privileges, the court only dealt with the communications privilege concerning executive branch decision making. Barack Obama invoked the latter, the deliberative process privilege in the matter regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

Border Patrol Being Taught To Run, Hide & Throw Things, Not Shoot

by: Tim Brown
It appears that the Obama administration is not only getting in the face of the American people with their immigration policies, but they are also running a little private campaign of their own when it comes to the border patrol. Instead of the border patrol doing their job in an aggressive case in public, they are now being taught to run away and hide and only as a last resort are they to open fire. Wait! No! They can’t do that. They are supposed to become “aggressive” and “throw things.
You heard that right. Local 2544 posted a brief statement in regards to the new “training tactics” they are being taught. Welcome to the new world of Barack “The Golfer” Obama and Janet “Can I have another doughnut” Napolitano.

You heard that right. Local 2544 posted a brief statement in regards to the new “training tactics” they are being taught. Welcome to the new world of Barack “The Golfer” Obama and Janet “Can I have another doughnut” Napolitano.
In another nauseating series of “Virtual Learning Center” brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an “Active Shooter” course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to “run away” and “hide”. If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become “aggressive” and “throw things” at him or her. We are then advised to “call law enforcement” and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. 

The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to “hide” from some deranged shooter. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place. 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3.

Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of “if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out”. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm. This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.
Welcome to the New Patrol.

This is the kind of thing that makes you want to pull your hair out. We are in the middle of an investigation where this administration used an operation, which was called Fast and Furious but should have been called Dumb and Dangerous, that put thousands of weapons into the hands of some of Mexico’s most dangerous drug cartels. Some of these weapons were used to kill American and Mexican citizens, including border patrol agent Brian Terry. They want their people to be weak and cut off at the knees while the real criminals face no handicaps. This is a demonstration of absolute stupidity on the part of the Obama administration who provide such non-sensical training.
It’s not bad enough that the federal government, under this administration want our guns, but now they don’t seem to want border patrol to use theirs either. What kind of fantasy world do these lunatics, who are running the asylum, live in?

Cloud looms over Obamacare decision

by: Bob Unruh
A huge cloud looms over the coming U.S. Supreme Court decision on Barack Obama’s health-care law, dubbed Obamacare, that could undermine any portions of the law that are upheld, according to a key Washington watchdog organization.
The issue, which has been raised several times by Judicial Watch, is that Elena Kagan served in the Obama administration when the law advanced through Congress and now is on the Supreme Court bench sitting in judgment of it.
“Justice Kagan should provide the American people a full explanation about her refusal to recuse herself in light of the new information about her potential involvement with Obamacare when she served as solicitor general,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told WND.
“And the Department of Justice’s stonewall of our information requests shows that [Attorney General] Eric Holder is, once again, in full cover up mode,” he said today.

Judicial Watch confirmed it still is waiting for an answer from Kagan and the DOJ to questions about her involvement in and support for the law during its construction phase.
“It is a real scandal that she and DOJ refuse to provide more information,” the organization reported.
Email exchanges previously made public reveal that during Kagan’s time as solicitor general, her office helped develop a strategy to defend Obamacare legally.
Ordinary judicial ethics would mandate that if she participated in such discussions, she should not later sit in judgment of the law, Judicial Watch has argued.
Judicial Watch noted that records that have been released “included an email showing what appeared to be then-Solicitor General Kagan’s excitement and support for the passage of PPACA,” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Fitton several months ago wrote in a letter to Kagan challenging her participation in the case:
“The failure of the Justice Department to produce requested records in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time, the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to respond to requests for records and information from several members of Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA are being withheld from the American people.
“Judicial Watch is not calling on you to recuse yourself from the PPACA litigation at this time, just as Judicial Watch did not call on Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the litigation involving the National Energy Policy

Development Group (‘NEPDG’) – to which Judicial Watch was a party – in 2004. When a controversy arose during the course of the NEPDG litigation over whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from that matter, Justice Scalia issued an opinion stating: ‘The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.’ Justice Scalia then provided a comprehensive recitation of the facts ‘as they existed,’ not as they were ‘surmised or reported,’ and an articulation of the reasoning behind his decision not to recuse himself.
“During your confirmation process, you wrote that you would ‘consider carefully the recusal practices of current and past justices’ as well as consult with your colleagues if questions about recusal in particular cases arose. Judicial Watch believes that it would be of substantial benefit to the court’s consideration of the legal challenges to the PPACA if, like Justice Scalia in the NEPDG matter, you were to address the facts surrounding your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA as they ‘existed,’ not as they are being ‘surmised or reported,’ as well as provide an articulation of your reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal.”

The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has declined to affirm that Kagan was excluded from Obamacare defense discussions during that time period.
Judicial Watch has been trying for a considerable time to obtain records that would explain Kagan’s participation in the discussions. Those efforts include a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice for not releasing the information.
The group also sought access to calendars, schedules and phone logs for Kagan and others.
Another concerned group, Freedom Watch USA, led by attorney Larry Klayman, also has been trying to raise the issue of Kagan’s possible bias.
Klayman requested twice that the Supreme Court address the issue of Kagan’s expressed support for Obamacare but was rejected.

“The integrity of the court is even more important than the issue of the constitutionality of Obamacare,” said Klayman. “Without a court that represents ‘We the People,’ Americans are left without any recourse to combat the tyranny of the other two branches of government. When the colonies saw that they had no recourse against the British crown, they declared their independence and waged a revolution to change their form of government and their rulers. Let us hope that this does not happen again, given the arrogance of establishment institutions like the Supreme Court, which seemingly think they are ‘above the law.’”

Klayman has pointed out the importance of stopping even the appearance of untoward influence on the court.
Among the evidence that has been released is an email exchange from March 21, 2010, in which Kagan, then senior counselor for access to Justice Laurence Tribe, wrote: “I hear they have votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
Tribe then responded, “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”
Additionally, on March 16, 2010, there was an email from Kagan to David Barron, asking if he had seen a Wall Street Journal article on the issue.
And Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Kagan in a 2009 email, “We just got [Olympia] Snowe on health care.”
Klayman wrote at the time: “Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the act will be seen as illegitimate.”
Fitton told WND that if Judicial Watch doesn’t “get full disclosure from either Justice Kagan or the DOJ, Americans will have fair reason to question whether the Supreme Court impartially handled the Obamacare constitutional charges.”

Top Soviet-bloc defector: Marxism infecting U.S.

by: Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa 
Editor’s note: Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc official ever to defect to the West. In December 1989, Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu was executed at the end of a trial whose accusations came almost word-for-word out of Pacepa’s book, “Red Horizons,” subsequently republished in 27 countries.
After President Carter approved his request for political asylum, Pacepa became an American citizen and worked with U.S. intelligence agencies against the former Eastern Bloc. The CIA has praised Pacepa’s cooperation for providing “an important and unique contribution to the United States.”

A few weeks ago I read “America’s Marxist Picnic,” a touching story by WND’s David Kupelian, which illustrates how much the U.S. government hated Marxism a generation ago.
David’s father was one of America’s top rocket scientists, and he became deputy undersecretary of defense for strategic and theater nuclear forces under Ronald Reagan. During the 1970s, however, the U.S. government considered withdrawing his top secret security clearance because some informer had reported that, during his teen years, his mother had attended an Armenian church picnic where a pro-Soviet speaker gave a talk.
That story moved me. My father also worked for America – not as a top rocket scientist, but as service manager of the General Motors affiliate in Romania. Working for America became a crime when the communists took over Romania at the end of WWII and my father was soon killed by the Red Army.
Today the Communist Party is abolished in Romania, which re-became a trustworthy ally of the U.S.. Meanwhile, the formerly cursed Communist Party USA is throwing its full support to the current president of the United States.
I wrote to David. That’s how this interview was born.
Editor’s note: Ion Mihai Pacepa was interviewed by WND Managing Editor David Kupelian.
WND: Gen. Pacepa, it’s an honor to talk with you. Please tell me, did America win the Cold War? If so, why are we fighting Marxism in our own country today? And if not, what really happened? 

Pacepa: Yes, we won the Cold War, but unlike other wars the Cold War did not end with an act of surrender and with the defeated enemy throwing down his weapons. But no, we are not fighting Marxism in our country, because the American people have not yet been warned that their country is being contaminated by Marxism. A few conservative luminaries like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have warned that Marxism is infecting the United States, but neither the Republicans’ “Pledge to America” nor the Tea Party’s “Contract from America” has mentioned the word Marxism.
So far, to the best of my knowledge, only your “Marxism, American-Style” (June 2012 Whistleblower magazine) and PJ Media’s “Say No To Socialism” have called attention to the looming dangers of Marxism, a heresy that killed some 94 million people and transformed a third of the world into feudal societies in the middle of the 20th century.

There is still a widely popular belief in the U.S. and Western Europe that the nefarious Marxist legacy was uprooted in 1991 when the Soviet Union was abolished, just as the Nazi legacy was extirpated in 1945 when World War II ended. That is simply wishful thinking. There is a considerable difference between these two historical events.
In the 1950s, when I headed Romania’s foreign intelligence station in West Germany, I witnessed how Hitler’s Third Reich had been demolished, its war criminals put on trial, its military and police forces disbanded and the Nazis removed from public office. I also saw how West Germany’s economy was being rebuilt with the help of Marshall Plan money and how the country had become a multi-party democracy and a close friend of the United States. In 1959, when I returned to Romania, West Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) made it the leading industrial power in Europe.


Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Obama, Why Don’t You Just Resign?


Obama Official Portrait SC 752x1024 Obama, Why Dont You Just Resign?
Barack Hussein Obama has decided that in order to punish Arizona for having dared enforce American immigration laws, he has ordered his federal agencies to basically stop working with Arizona’s law enforcement agencies concerning illegal immigrants. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr has also made it known as the nations chief law enforcement officer that he too is only going to selectively enforce immigration laws that he personally likes. More to the point, Holder will only enforce what is beneficial to his boss’s re-election campaign. If I’m not mistaken, this attitude by both men is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL and falls under the heading of “high crimes and misdemeanors’, an IMPEACHABLE offense!

Mr. Obama, how in the world can you look at the people of Arizona and tell them that YOU are not willing to give them EQUAL PROTECTION under the laws of the United States? Brian Terry, an American Border Patrol Agent, was shot in the back 18 miles INSIDE the border of the United States! Jaime Zapata, an ICE agent, was also killed because of an illegally run and botched program known as Fast & Furious. Being an accomplice to murder, Mr. Obama, is a crime punishable by prison time. Maybe you and Mr Holder could share a cell? Anyway, I digress…..again!

My feelings are, Mr. Obama, that you should be impeached before any more American and Mexican bodies pile up because of your insanity. Mr. Holder should be found guilty of contempt of Congress and charged with negligent homicide in the cases of the two dead federal agents. You and Holder should also have to face justice in the death of the Arizona rancher and others who were killed by your illegal compadres coming across our borders and onto American’s rightfully-owned land. I have an idea for a reverse gun walking program that I would like to run called “Slow & Deliberate”! It’s a program whereby I legally get to use federal funds to LEGALLY buy guns from LEGAL gun shop owners and arm American citizens to help guard the American border from the intrusion of illegals from everywhere. No problems, no paperwork, no questions! All neat, tidy, and LEGAL!

I realize that my program would severly curtail a large number of illegal votes, but those citizens along our Southern borders would sleep better! Mr. Obama: you and Holder took an oath to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Consdtitution of the United States”, not your Communist manifesto or Saul Alinsky’s Bible of social justice. If it is beyond your will to do so, then please step aside and let someone who loves this country and ALL of its laws sit in the seat that rightfully belongs to them.
Your willingness to sell out the majority of Americans to curry favor with radical minority groups is not only shameful, but dangerous to our country. Our Constitution was designed to protect this country from despots like yourself, and it is time that our so called “representatives in Washington D.C.” realized that and grew a spine to deal with you. Not one more American should have to suffer intimidation, injury, or death because you are more interested in getting re-elected than enforcing our laws and doing what’s right for the American people.

I sincerely hope and pray that the American people wake up to what you and SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVISM has done and is doing to our country. You don’t deserve to be where you are, let alone get re-elcted to continue your destruction. Retire quietly, Mr. Obama, for the sake of us all. P.S.: take Janet Napolitano with you.

Video: Michael Savage: Dictator Obama Will Put Us Through Hell

A must watch...calls it as it is..:)

No One Talks About How Mexico Treats All At Road Stops

Mexico SC No one Talks About How Mexico Treats all at Road Stops
With the Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona Immigration Law, it brings back what happens if one travels down the interior of Mexico or Baja. We have been to Cabo by car three times and once in an RV, which is about 1,000 miles. Each trip, we were stopped four times by the Mexican military, who boarded our RV and searched every cupboard and closet while asking questions and asking to see our passports and paperwork.  You have to get out of the car, and they look in the trunk and at all goods you have with you. They have huge sub-machine guns trained on you so you don’t argue. They search all vehicles, not just travelers.
They ask for all papers, which are required if you travel more than 70 miles from the border. You have to pay about $200 and have your birth certificate and/or passport to get visa papers to travel in Mexico. When crossing back to the U.S. border, you must have a passport and show proof of citizenship.

If you live in Mexico there, and if you are not a legal Mexican citizen, you are constantly stopped and asked for your papers by the police at any time, even without cause.
Yet, Mexican Pres. Calderon has the nerve to object to illegal immigrants from his country being stopped in the U.S, even once, or asked for identity or papers.  Why is no one reporting this?   Imagine the military here stopping everyone  and boarding and inspecting all vehicles while guns are trained on us, and we have to produce papers and passports!

Monday, June 25, 2012

Sheriff Joe: 'Obama waging war on Arizona'

Oped by Jack:
IMO the DHS needs to be ablolished and all agencies be returned to their original status as independent investigative bodies..the DHS is out of control and acting against the best interests of individual states rights and citizens of such states including all 50 which makes up the United States of America...all adhere to the US Constitution which DHS obviously fails to do! President Obama,Harry Reid,Nancy Pelosi ,Eric Holder,Hillary Clinton,Janet Napolitano et al Obamas administration officials should be Impeached and brought up on charges of sedition and Treason! for UnAmerican Activities... we need to reinstate the UnAmerican Activities panel within the US Congress immediately!
by Jerome R. Corsi 

“Obama is waging war on Arizona over illegal immigration.”
That terse assessment is from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has tangled with the White House over his investigation of Obama’s birth records, as well as the Department of Justice’s allegations that the sheriff’s department profiles suspects.
Both of those major issues remain unresolved, with Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse review of Obama’s eligibility for the White House continuing. The investigators earlier confirmed there is probable cause to believe Obama’s birth records were forged and presenting them as an official government document is a fraud.

Arpaio also has challenged Attorney General Eric Holder to prove in court his claims that the sheriff’s office profiles suspects.
His comment today was in response to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s decision to suspend for Arizona what is known as “the 287(g) program,” named for a provision of federal law used by DHS to deputize local, county, and state law enforcement officers to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
“Evidently Obama didn’t get everything they wanted from the Supreme Court, so they decided to retaliate against Arizona,” Arpaio said.
The administration decision was announced following the Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s State Bill 1070. ICE officials in Washington notified Arizona that ICE agents no longer will respond to calls for assistance from Arizona state or local law enforcement officers regarding illegal immigrants unless the person in question is a convicted criminal, was caught in the act of crossing the border illegally, or is known to be a repeat illegal border crosser.
Join with Sheriff Arpaio is his work to uncover the truth by donating to the Cold Case Posse expenses, or contribute to a fund that supports investigations by both WND and the sheriff.

The high court’s decision on SB1070 was that the state has the right to ask whether suspects are in the United States legally, but cannot provide a punishment for having an illegal status.
“What the Obama administration wants is amnesty,” Arpaio said. “DHS has made it clear the goal is to allow people here illegally to hit the streets.”
Arpaio said his plans of action won’t be changing any time soon, however.
“I don’t plan to bend to federal government pressure,” he told WND, “not as long as there are Arizona state statutes regarding illegal immigration on the books to enforce.”

Arpaio said he predicted a week ago that DHS would rescind Arizona’s participation in the 287(g) program if the Obama administration could figure out an excuse for doing so.
“The Justice Department is going to do everything possible to get rid of me,” he said. “They know I’m going to enforce the immigration laws to the full extent of state law and the Obama administration can’t stand it.”
He said Washington’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision in rescinding Arizona’s participation in the enforcement program was “pure politics” calculated to appeal to Hispanic voters.
“The Obama administration cannot prove my office is engaged in racial profiling,” Arpaio insisted.
“The Justice Department allegations are false that the Maricopa County sheriff’s office has participated in a systematic pattern of discriminating against the rights of Hispanics. Let Eric Holder prove it in federal district court,’ he said.
“All the Obama administration has done in the wake of the Supreme Court decision is to give immigration radicals in Arizona more ammunition to protest against any attempt my office makes to legitimately enforce state immigration laws still on the books.”

NAGR needs your Help...!

Dear Fellow Patriot,

If the gun-grabbers get their way, this could very well be the LAST email I write you.

Anti-gun lawyers and their pals in the federal bureaucracy have targeted the National Association for Gun Rights for ELIMINATION.

Of course, I've had radical anti-gun groups and their pet lawyers, judges and politicians come after me before.

I've even been threatened with jail time in the past for my uncompromising defense of your Second Amendment rights.

But unless you act to TODAY, I'm afraid the gun-grabbers could finally succeed in shutting us up -- and shutting the National Association for Gun Rights down.

That's why it's vital you fill out the National Association for Gun Rights' MEMBER BALLOT I've created for you IMMEDIATELY.

At the request of my attorney, David Warrington -- a close friend, former Marine and Chairman of NAGR's Board of Directors -- I've just finished a series of meetings with several lawyers who are all experts on grassroots organizations.

These lawyers specialize in defending pro-freedom groups like NAGR against spurious attacks from left-wing organizations and their allies in the federal bureaucracy.

Going into it, I thought it was just a formality. After all, NAGR doesn't do anything wrong.

Liberal groups like are renowned for their underhanded tactics, yet they seemingly get away with murder!

We follow the law. Isn't that enough?

These attorneys told me not to be naive.

They said President Obama has stacked EVERY last bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. with radical left-wing extremists -- all of whom HATE the National Association for Gun Rights and everyone else who stands for freedom.

And if they believe they have the opportunity for a “quick kill,” they won't hesitate to drag NAGR into court.

That's why it's vital you fill out this MEMBER BALLOT IMMEDIATELY.

You see, those attorneys told me my defense will be strongest only if as many folks as possible certify each year they do consider themselves to be members of NAGR.

As absurd as it seems, the gun-grabbers, their lawyers and anti-gun federal bureaucrats say you're not a “real” member.

So you shouldn't be entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as liberal gun control groups who are “fighting to make our communities safer!”

I don't know about you, but that infuriates me. But I also know that with everything at stake this year, the last thing we need is a new legal fight.

So please fill out this MEMBER BALLOT I’ve created for you certifying that you do consider yourself a member of NAGR -- and if you would, please give me your advice too.

With everything on our plate right now, I need to make sure that NAGR's priorities line up with yours.

There's not a moment to waste because the fight in Congress and in critical races throughout the country are really heating up.

The truth is, the gun-grabbers are FURIOUS with the White House for failing to deliver on their radical agenda.

Some are even whispering they'll sit out the upcoming election if they don't see IMMEDIATE action from the White House on their radical anti-gun agenda!

With November rapidly approaching, they think this could be the last chance to take advantage of the Obama White House victory.

Worse, they think the have the perfect “excuse” after the recent Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida!

Already, the gun-grabbers have tried to use Congress' power of the purse to FORCE states to gut or repeal Stand Your Ground laws.

Now, Sarah Brady and her anti-gun pals are gearing up to ram through every item on their agenda, including:

*** The Disarming American Citizens Act -- H.R. 1506 the so-called “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011” -- allowing anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke the Second Amendment rights of ANY American he chooses based on pure “suspicion;”
*** A new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- which, unlike the Clinton ban, will NEVER expire;
*** H.R. 308, banning normal-capacity magazines, which has been at the top of the gun-grabbers' list since the Arizona tragedy in early 2011;
*** The U.N.'s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” which would confiscate and destroy ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms and set the stage for INTERNATIONAL gun confiscation. Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust [small-arms] treaty.”
So if you think NAGR should focus on the gun-grabbers' assaults in Congress, mark “Federal Legislation” on your MEMBER BALLOT.

Hillary tied to new Muslim Brotherhood president

by: AAron Klein

Saleha Mahmood Abedin, the mother of Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, reportedly served in the women’s division of the Muslim Brotherhood alongside the wife of Egypt’s new president, the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi.
WND previously exposed Abedin represented a Muslim charity known to have spawned terror groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.
WND also reported Clinton spoke at Abedin’s Saudi women’s college, where she was introduced by Abedin alongside the Islamic activist’s daughter, Huma, who serves as Clinton’s chief of staff. At the speech, Clinton praised Saleha’s “pioneering work.”
Huma Abedin is also the mother-in-law of disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.

Now, author Walid Shoebat is reporting that while she acted as one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de facto female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Mursi. Both were members of the Sisterhood’s Guidance Bureau, found Shoebat.
Get a FREE copy of Aaron Klein’s “Manchurian President” with every purchase of “Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America.”
Saleha Mahmood Abedin is an associate professor of sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which she helped to create. She formerly directed the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in the U.K. and served as a delegate for the Muslim World League, an Islamic fundamentalist group Osama bin Laden reportedly told an associate was one of his most important charity fronts.
In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Abedin’s college, where she was first introduced by Abedin and then praised the work of the terror-tied professor:
“I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha Abedin,” Clinton said. “You heard her present the very exciting partnerships that have been pioneered between colleges and universities in the United States and this college. And it is pioneering work to create these kinds of relationships.

“But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin did not,” Clinton continued, “and that is that I have almost a familial bond with this college. Dr. Abedin’s daughter, one of her three daughters, is my deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, who started to work for me when she was a student at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.”
As WND was first to report, Abedin once reportedly represented the Muslim World League, or MWL, a Saudi-financed charity that has spawned Islamic groups accused of terror ties. One of the groups was declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.

Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts as both representing the MWL and serving as a delegate for the charity.
In 1995, for example, the Washington Times reported on a United Nations-arranged women’s conference in Beijing that called on governments throughout the world to give women statistical equality with men in the workplace.
The report quoted Abedin, who attended the conference as a delegate, as “also representing the Muslim World League based in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim NGO Caucus.”
The U.N.’s website references a report in the run-up to the Beijing conference also listing Abedin as representing the MWL at the event.

The website posted an article from the now defunct United States Information Agency quoting Abedin and reporting she attended the Beijing conference as “a delegate of the Muslim World League and member of the Muslim Women’s NGO caucus.”
In the article, Abedin was listed under a shorter name, “Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.”
WND has confirmed the individual listed is Huma Abedin’s mother. The reports misspelled part of Abedin’s name. Her full professional name is at times listed as Saleha Mahmood Abedin S.

Al-Qaida links
The MWL, meanwhile, was founded in Mecca in 1962 and bills itself one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations.
But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity’s own officials, it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.
The MWL has been accused of terror ties, as have its various offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the U.S. and U.N. a terror financing front.
Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had “direct links” with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.

There long have been reports citing accusations the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.
An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities and affiliated organizations.”
“Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam,” the profile states, “and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity.”
In 2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL’s donations, invariably, are “a blizzard of Wahhabist literature.”

“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world,” the report continued.
An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990 on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the same time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani branch of the MWL.
The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50 countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terror organization.

In the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain’s offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it “was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings.”
The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.
In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.
In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization worldwide

Bin Laden’s brother-in-law
In August, 2006, the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities “for facilitating fundraising for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”
The Treasury Department added: “Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the Middle East who support extremist causes.”
In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, ran the Philippines offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S. airlines.
The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya.
The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO and other Muslim organizations for having “played key roles in laundering of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings,” and for having been involved in the “financing and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

‘Saudi government front’
In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.
Stated El-Asahi: “The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the Government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.
“Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are controlled in all our activities and plans by the Government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind, please,” he said.
Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott

1958 vs 2012

by: Giacomo
A couple days ago, I posted a news item on Patriot Update – Obama Wants Your Birthday Presents.  The article was a report of how the Obama campaign is asking you to register with the Obama campaign like a bride registers with a store, so that your friends and family can give to the campaign instead of giving you birthday, anniversary and even wedding gifts.  The news item helps portray just how self-centered and narcissistic Barack Obama really is. 
I was reviewing some of the comments we received and found this one by Raymond1 to be an excellent comparison between our society today and fifty-four years ago in 1958.  Raymond1 gives us eight different scenarios and then accurately describes how they would have been handled in 1958 and how they are handled today.  The difference between the two time periods is striking and clearly demonstrates how far our society has degenerated.  In today’s culture, society trusts no one and treats everyone as if they are a psychotic deranged pervert just waiting to take advantage of anyone else.
Reading Raymond1’s scenarios made me remember so many things about the late 1950s and early 1960s and how life was so different.  Our teachers were not hesitant to use a paddle if it was needed.  My sixth grade teacher stood over six foot tall and had pitched for the New York Yankees.  I can tell you first hand that he still had a heck of a pitching arm as his swats physically lifted you off the ground.  Yet, no one accused him of abuse, rather he was well respected by both students and parents.

In 1958, my brothers and I were taught to respect other people and their property.  It wasn’t uncommon for a friend’s parent to discipline us if we behaved badly at their house.  Our parents thanked them instead of accusing them of abusing us.  I recall one instance when my brothers and I were at a friend’s house and my brother swore.  We were all still in grade school at the time and our friend’s mother slapped my brother and then washed his mouth out with soap.  When our parents found out, he got a spanking from my dad and then mom actually made him keep a bar of soap in his mouth for a couple minutes.  No one accused any of the adults of abuse as they believed the punishment fit the offense.

I remember when I was in high school, it was common for most pickup trucks to have gun racks in the back window and many of those racks held hunting rifles, especially during deer hunting season.  No one thought anything about the guns in the trucks whether they were parked at a school, grocery store or outside a bank.  I also never heard of anyone breaking into the trucks to steal the guns.
Not only did we not wear safety helmets and knee pads when riding our bikes, but we often rode with no hands on the handlebars.  We climbed trees and fences, ran on railroad tracks and played chicken with trains.  We played baseball and football in the street and it wasn’t uncommon to end up with scrapes and cuts.  Whose ever parent was near at the time, would come to our aid, clean the wound and if need be, carry us back to our own house.  They were thanked for helping out and never accused of molesting us.

In fifth grade, I swatted a girl on the butt and ran like crazy to keep her from catching me.  It was one of those dare things that boys did back then.  The teacher gave me swats and that was the end of it.  Reading Raymond1’s scenarios below, I believe if that had happened today, I would have been accused of sexual molestation and carried the label of being a sexual predator for the rest of my life.
As a kid in school, I had chronic bronchitis twice a year.  I would carry my medicine and cough syrup with me to school and the teachers often helped me with the cough medicine.  Today, a student almost has to get an act of Congress in order to take their medicine to school with them.
If a kid was fair skinned and needed suntan lotion, he would take a bottle of Coppertone with him to school. 
Teachers would help apply it to their faces and back of the neck and shoulders (and there weren’t any sex charges filed against the teacher).  Today, I just read about the case of two sisters in Tacoma, Washington who went on a field trip to the local zoo.  They were not allowed to take sun screen or apply it and they came home so sun burned that their mother rushed them to the emergency room.  One of the girls has a form of albinism which makes her extra sensitive to sun light.  In the report, I found that California is the only state that allows students to take sun screen to school.  All other states have banned sunscreen because some kids are allergic to the contents in the sun screen.  So protect those with allergies, they endanger others that are sensitive to sunlight.  It’s a proven fact that sunburns in youth makes one more prone to developing skin cancer later on in life.

read more: