Saturday, March 30, 2013

Plant a Pig ? The Spaniards' Brilliant Idea !!
In Seville Spain, local people found a way to...stop the construction of another mosque in their town.
They buried a pig on the site, and made sure this would be known by the local press.

The Islamic rules forbid the erecting of a Mosque on "pig soiled ground.
The Muslims had to cancel the project.
This land was sold to them by government officials.

No protests were needed by the local people, worked!

Plant a pig
In Texas they have an over abundance of feral pigs. They could send them all over the country, and...just plant them everywhere!
Americans, put on your thinking caps, and lets find a solution to this problem of a spreading menace to the American way of life! If pigs are the answer, lets do it!

Lets keep this going! Send it on!
Maybe we could get
Plant a pig at the White House !
Just thinking !!

Speaker Boehner,JohnMcCain,Lindsey Graham blowing hot air up my Skirt!

Well folks this just about sums up how all those who served and are serving feel about Obama and our useless Congress...without further ado tell em' Jeannette:

Jeannette Ellis 2 months ago
I just wish that people would actually put their actions where their mouth is ... if they are not going to IMPEACH OBAMA then why talk like a lion? We are tired of the lip service we get when they sit back and do nothing. I'm tired of wind being blown up my skirt and the hot air balloon rides. Please do something to gain my trust back!!!!! I spent 11 1/2 years in the military .... for what??? So I can have my rights infringed upon by Obama and his cronies??? Why the hell did I waste my time being in the military defending this wonderful country that I live in ... in the belief that I have rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, just so Obama and his cronies can take them away with Executive Orders and OUR representatives sit back and let Obama steamroll over them and they sit back and do NOTHING!!!! I hang my head in shame that OUR representatives that we "HIRE" to actually represent us do entirely the opposite. The representatives in our House and Senate swore an oath to UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES .... SO DID THE POTUS, I do not see much UPHOLDING OR PROTECTING FROM ANY OF YOU!!!! YOU WORK FOR US ... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!!

Crying Waiting Hoping for Sherry 'Little Wolf' @STXherry Twitter
We N' de ya ho...may the Father guide you 'Little Wolf'

FEMA Camp Exposed? Louisiana – Gun Towers, Crematorium, Perimeter Fences

Is this a FEMA Camp that has been exposed in Livingston, Louisiana? It definitely has gun towers placed strategically all around it as well as a fence. Also pointed out by the videographer is a building that could very well be a crematorium. Check it out yourself at the link provided below. What do you think? FEMA Camp? If so, what are they going to be using it for? Civil unrest? Economic collapse? Sinkhole explosion? It is close to the Assumption Parrish sinkhole.

Nevada Politician Uncovers Sinister FEMA Plans

FEMA7643 Nevada Politician Uncovers Sinister FEMA Plans
by:Breaking News
This is where all that money that gets stolen from your paycheck goes to, a Zombie UFO Crash Drill, brought to you by FEMA and the US taxpayers.

Opposing Views Broke the story of David Lory VanDerBeek, who is running for Governor in Nevada in 2014. He recently posted a screenshot from the FEMA website of a supposed Zombie UFO Crash Disaster full-scale exercise drill planned for April 27th, 2013, from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
According to his website, the exercise was planned in Moscow, Idaho involving 100 participants. However, after VanDerBeek posted his article about the bizarre exercise, he claims that FEMA pulled the page down and replaced it with a statement that the information is now “only available to coalition members.”
He then contacted Sandy Rollins, who was listed as the contact person for the drill event, with the following message: 

Because this drill is supported by federal funds paid by the taxes of the US people including the citizens of Nevada, you are required to provide the public with precise information about your activities in this drill. I expect you to respond within the week with an email with the detailed information regarding the two scenarios mentioned. I also expect the email and phone number of your immediate supervisor. Whether or not you cooperate, I will be reporting your response or lack thereof to the nation on my television show and youtube channel.
Why is this important? Because it raises serious questions about what our government believes about the fundamentals of our human reality. Do the leaders of our nation believe in UFOs and zombies really? If so, what is their proof? They must have proof in order to spend money on drills? If they have proof, they must provide it to the general public? What is the threat? How imminent is it?

Carson Willing to Step Down as Commencement Speaker After Protests

By Greg Richter
A pediatric neurosurgeon who has become the darling of conservatives since speaking against nationalized healthcare is now under fire for comments he made about same-sex marriage.

Dr. Benjamin Carson told MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on Friday that he would be willing to step down as commencement speaker at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine after faculty and students signed petitions asking that he not speak.

“I would say this is their day, and the last thing I would want to do is rain on their parade,” Carson told Mitchell.

Carson said in the interview that he has not notified the university he won’t be speaking. “I am waiting for appropriate channels,” he said. “I don’t think television is the appropriate channel.”

The petitions began after Carson told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, “My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.” 

One of the petitions, quoted by The Hill newspaper, reads: “We retain the highest respect for Dr. Carson’s achievements and value his right to publicly voice political views. Nevertheless, we feel that these expressed values are incongruous with the values of Johns Hopkins and deeply offensive to a large proportion of our student body.”

MSNBC’s web report on the story says Carson equating same-sex marriage with pedophilia and bestiality has caused him to lose some of his star power within the GOP. Carson has said he would consider a run for president if the public was still interested in him a year-and-a-half from now.

Carson apologized for his choice of words in a Baltimore Sun story on Friday, but not for his position.

“First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has,” Carson told the Sun. “What I was basically saying is that as far as marriage is concerned, that has traditionally been between a man and a woman and nobody should be able to change that.”

Carson came into the national spotlight in February after criticizing healthcare and other policies of President Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast while Obama was sitting just a few feet away on the same dais. He also drew applause when he spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this month.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Friday, March 29, 2013

White House Scrubs First Daughters Ski Trip Report

 oped: So much for transparency in the Obama administration.. they know spending excessive amounts of money from the treasury is outright wrong!

local news affiliate in Idaho reported that the First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama, are on a Spring Break ski trip in Sun Valley, Idaho. The story quickly spread across the Internet when picked up by the highly trafficked Drudge Report website.

But hours later, the story disappeared from the KMVT website without an update or correction.  Breitbart News confirmed that the White House requested that the post be removed. 

In March of last year, the White House requested media outlets remove accurate reports that Malia Obama was on a trip in Mexico with over two dozen Secret Service agents.
The First Family has been criticized in recent days for taking frequent vacations. Earlier this week, Breitbart News broke the story that the Obama daughters spent part of Spring Break at the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas.  Michelle Obama and the First Daughters took a separate ski trip last month to Aspen, Colorado.
While each of these trips require a significant Secret Service presence, the White House canceled public tours this month citing Secret Service staffing costs.

UPDATE: The White House has confirmed the report was removed on their request. From Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady:
From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls. 

Obama Uses Executive Power to Move Unconstitutional Gun Control Agenda Forward

By Jordy Yager 

President Obama is quietly moving forward on gun control.
The president has used his executive powers to bolster the national background check system, jumpstart government research on the causes of gun violence and create a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership.

The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.

It is unclear whether the National Rifle Association (NRA) will challenge any of  the executive actions in court. A spokesman for the NRA did not return a request for comment.
The moves, which have not been widely touted by the administration, come as Obama ups his pressure on Congress to take action on gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. The Senate is expected to begin floor consideration of legislation when it returns in April.
Efforts to renew a ban in semi-automatic weapons with military-style features and high-capacity magazines have stalled in Congress. Democratic senators still hope to move gun control legislation that includes tougher background checks, but conservative Republican senators have threatened to filibuster it.
If approved by the Senate, any bill would then face tough sledding in the GOP-controlled House.

Gun control groups say Obama’s piecemeal approach falls short of what could be accomplished by legislation overhauling the nation’s gun laws. Still, they argue the actions remain important and will reduce gun violence.
“They’ve taken direct aim at some of the bigger problems in the regulatory part of the issue and they’re doing it in the right way and that’s going to be very helpful,” said Mark Glaze, the director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group.

“Ultimately you need to close the loopholes in the law that will continue to undermine enforcement, but what they’re doing is precisely right.”

They also illustrate the administration’s power to change gun laws despite inaction on Capitol Hill, a practice the president may need to duplicate in other policy areas amid congressional gridlock.
Obama’s steps began the same day he unveiled his 23 gun control proposals in January, when he issued a memorandum requiring all nine federal law enforcement agencies to submit guns they confiscate to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing.
According to a notice sent by Attorney General Eric Holder last month, the agencies will have to submit a report to the Justice Department (DOJ) within the next month showing they are compliant.

The move, and several more like it, is aimed at strengthening the quality and quantity of records contained within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to a DOJ spokeswoman.
For years, federal law enforcement officials and gun control advocates have complained that the NICS gun records are not complete, making it easier for people with criminal records and mental illnesses to buy guns. 
A key factor in strengthening the NICS database, they say, is getting states to report more information on mental health and criminal history records.
Earlier this month, the DOJ announced a $20 million grant program aimed at incentivizing states to submit more mental health and criminal history information into the NICS database.
Also this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said it would consider changing rules to make it easier for states to share mental health records with the NICS.
Through these moves, Glaze said the administration has addressed two of the main reasons for incomplete trace data: a lack of money and privacy concerns.

“By taking direct aim at the two biggest problems inhibiting the database, they are taking a significant chunk out of 50 percent of the system’s weaknesses,” said Glaze.

In January, Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to begin studying the causes of gun violence for the first time since Congress, at the behest of the NRA, began blocking funding for such research in 1996.
The CDC has since awarded a contract to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which this spring will soon begin looking at the role video games and social media play in gun violence, as well as whether gun technologies and access to guns can be used to reduce violence.
The aim is to affect future legislation by giving lawmakers empirical data on an area that has been largely bereft for nearly two decades. Without government research, gun control advocates say they are forced to rely on private studies, which do not hold the same clout on Capitol Hill.

“You can’t make good policy without good data, and for a generation the NRA has been throwing dirt in the eyes of Congress so they can’t actually see what’s going on around them," said Glaze.
As part of the agency’s preliminary research, the CDC and IOM will host an all-day conference on April 23 in Washington, D.C., to hear from firearm and gun violence experts; researchers; and advocates on both sides of the issue, according to Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist who now leads the Independent Firearm Owners Association. 

Feldman said he questions whether the CDC can lawfully spend money on studies that Congress has barred, but he plans to attend and noted that the NRA’s former research director, Paul Blackman, has been invited to the event as well.
In another administrative move, Obama directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to examine the efficacy of existing gun trigger locks and firearm safe standards to determine if they need to be improved. The CPSC has partnered with the American Society for Testing and Materials International, but does not have a firm timeline for when its examination will be finished, according to a spokesman.
Separately, the administration has given $1 million to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to create, produce and distribute a nationwide multimedia ad campaign on safe gun ownership and storage. The campaign is heading into the research phase and is expected to air by the early fall, according to a NCPC spokeswoman.
And regional offices with the General Services Administration have begun to reach out to local schools, advising them about the agency’s “Cooperative Purchasing” program, which gives discounted rates to schools on security equipment including: surveillance cameras, emergency communication systems, security design and support, and employee background check systems.

State grants Secret Service vast new powers

by Jack Minor 

A bill is heading to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk that Republican lawmakers say would give members of the Secret Service broad arrest powers in the state and could provide a framework for federal agents eventually to enforce gun restrictions.
“This is absolutely insane,” Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. “In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken.”

The idea actually aligns with an Obama agenda to create vast new restrictions and regulations on guns. WND has reported that hundreds of sheriffs nationwide, including many in Colorado, have said they cannot enforce federal restrictions that would violate the Second Amendment.
In Colorado, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs “won’t bother” with several laws poised to go into effect in Colorado because they would be impossible to enforce.
One of the laws would require private sellers to do a background check on purchasers in private gun transaction, but the sheriffs wonder how to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.
Cooke said many new gun laws are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.”
Cooke said he and other sheriffs are considering filing a lawsuit to block the laws. And sheriffs in other parts of the nation agree, with more than 340 already banding together to promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The Colorado Legislature also passed a bill putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

What’s really RIGHT about America these days? Find out in “America the Beautiful” by Dr. Ben Carson.
The new bill regarding the Secret Service, SB-13-013, passed on a nearly party line vote in the Democrat-controlled House and is now awaiting the governor’s signature. The bill grants members of the Secret Service arrest powers by considering them to be a peace officer, putting them on a par with state law-enforcement officials with respect to arrest authority.
The legislation does not only apply to agents guarding the president or other government officials but also to special agents, uniformed division officers, physical security technicians, physical security specialists and special officers of the United States Secret Service.
Republican lawmakers say that when they asked why the bill was needed they were given a series of conflicting answers.

 Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said he was told the purpose of the bill was to make it easier to hold a person for mental health reasons.
“When I asked in committee why they need this I was told it was so we can exercise 72-hour mental holds on our own citizens,” Lundberg said.
“I found it curious that this was the big reason they thought they needed it. Currently a police officer, doctor, psychiatrists, registered nurses and other professionals just on the strength of their word can say they want a person taken against their will and put in a mental institution for up to three business days, meaning it could be even longer if it was over the weekend, for an evaluation as to whether they are mentally sane or a danger to themselves or others.”
Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said despite the bill being sponsored by a fellow Republican, the 72-hour mental hold caught the attention of several Republicans in the Senate.
“This was one of the big flags for us in the bill,” Marble said. “It’s very suspicious because we have the separation of federal, state and even the local police services. Everyone has their own jurisdiction, and there is a special reason for keeping federal agents away.

“No federal authority should have the ability to detain somebody for 72 hours,” she said. “If there is a legitimate reason for doing so for someone who is mentally ill, that should come at the local level where people in the community know one another.”
Marble said the mental hold was the reason the bill slipped under the radar.
“The mental health hold was what they testified to in committee, and that was the big thing they didn’t want to get out, but it does give them the authority to put that hold on people.”
Lundberg said the big concern is that the bill essentially places members of the Secret Service on an equal footing with law-enforcement, without being constrained by jurisdictional issues.
“If you look at the bill, it says they can operate alongside of local police authorities and function as equals you might say,” he said. “However, when you read it carefully it basically gives them state police power so whatever power a regular policeman such as the state patrol, sheriff’s office or local police has they will have also.”
However, in debate on the House side, Saine said she was given a different reason for why legislators needed to pass the bill.
“Rep. Jared Wright was talking about how when he was in committee he asked several times why they needed it, and the reason given was if there was a motorcade and something happened during the procession the Secret Service needed the authority to arrest the perpetrators,” Saine said.
“Then we were told by the sponsor that’s not it, it’s because they were going to help our local law enforcement and sheriffs with check and wire fraud. However, check and wire fraud are not mentioned anywhere in the bill,” she said.

The bill states that the agents are automatically granted peace officer status when several conditions apply. For instance, if the agent is responding to a non-federal felony or misdemeanor being committed in their presence, he has the full authority to arrest any Colorado citizen.
The bill also gives the Secret Service agents wide discretion to arrest citizens based merely on probable cause that a non-federal felony or misdemeanor involving injury or threat of injury to a person or property has been or is being committed.
Lundberg said one of the problems with bills like this is they start out by giving broad authority to a government agency or entity, then they place language later in the bill that appears to restrict that authority in an attempt to provide cover for those expressing alarm about the language.
“Often in laws like this they will give broad authority in one section, then later in another section they will have wording which appears to restrict the authority,” he explained. “Unlike the state’s law enforcement, the Secret Service would not have any jurisdictional concerns. Under this bill they can go anywhere in the state of Colorado regardless of jurisdiction.”
But Wright, a former law-enforcement official, told Marble the Secret Service told him their current policies would prohibit them from arresting Colorado citizens under the bill’s provisions.
“They told Jared that making an arrest of a Colorado citizen for a misdemeanor crime unrelated to their own duties would actually violate their own guidelines,” Marble said. “So his question was why are we passing a law that violates their own internal policies.”
In Texas, a Democrat in the state legislature has proposed a bill that would allow the state to remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law. The bill defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision.

After the passage of a several gun control laws, which would among other things restrict magazine size and prohibit private sales between individuals without a background check, several sheriffs have said the laws are unenforceable and they will not enforce what they call unconstitutional laws.
Under Colorado law, the only individual with the authority to arrest a sheriff is the coroner.
Saine said she believes the bill is intended to be used as a foundation for later legislation that will surrender still greater control to federal officials.
“There’ve been so many explanations for the reasons they really need this bill passed. So what is it really?” Saine asked. “I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. They would justify it by saying that since we’ve already given the Secret Service this ability, why not give them just one more?”
Lundberg said he agrees with Saine’s assessment that the bill could be used to expand federal power beyond what is stated in its language.
“It does give Secret Service powers in a broad sense, but I’m not sure the changes as stated will automatically change things significantly. It’s not a broad overreach, but it is an overreach. It’s one more step in the wrong direction.”
Lundberg said rather than expanding the ability of federal officials, state and local officials should be looking for opportunities to stand up against federal intervention in local affairs.
“I believe sheriffs can enforce their authority,” Lundberg said. “I also think we need to draw the line as clearly as we can and at every opportunity to say the states are in charge, not the federal government.”

WND has reported that sheriffs across the country are expressing concern that they cannot enforce a Washington mandate that clearly violates the Second Amendment.
A growing list of now more than 340 sheriffs who have reportedly vowed to uphold the Constitution against efforts to undermine Americans’ gun rights is being accumulated by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
As WND also reported, Cooke said he is getting political pressure to support the laws. He said he received an email chain pointing out that Senate Majority Leader John Morse, a Democrat, said if a salary bill were introduced, it would not be until late in the session, after the gun-control bills had been voted on.
Cooke said while he’s not willing to conclude the emails meet the legal definition of extortion, it was apparent that was the intent.
“When you look at the email, I don’t see how you could look at it any other way,” Cooke said. “It definitely implied the reason a pay raise bill was being held up was to punish us for our stance against these gun bills. Then they had another email suggesting if we were to support this bill, it would look better for us and maybe we can get a bill introduced for a raise.
“To me, that didn’t sit well at all. I’m not willing to say its extortion yet, but it just looked bad. We were not willing to compromise on our principles. We felt the bill was bad, and we were not going to support it.”
The sheriff’s pushback against the gun measures is significant because Democratic lawmakers are crafting similar bills in other states.

“The bills are a model for what they’ll try to push in Congress,” said Independence Institute research director and Denver University law professor Dave Kopel.
“Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” he added.
In fact, Vice-President Joe Biden called undecided Democrats and pushed for passage of the bills. Obama is scheduled to visit the state in just a few days.
While some see the measures as models for other states, laws that preserve gun rights are gaining momentum.
The first of these was the Firearms Freedom Act passed in Montana, which says any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
Lawmakers in other states are now following suit.
Two senators in Ohio have introduced a bill which would prohibit firearms seizures, registration and bans in their state.
A bill in Kentucky would prohibit the state from enforcing new federal gun-control laws, if enacted.
Idaho’s House passed a bill that would criminalize enforcing any new federal laws that ban, restrict, confiscate or require registration of firearms or ammunition in violation of the state’s constitution.
A bill in Louisiana would prohibit the enforcement of federal restrictions regarding the ownership or possession of semi-automatic firearms.
A bill that would prohibit the enforcement of federal gun laws passed in the House Public Safety Committee in Oklahoma.

The Texas House is considering a measure to prevent state and local police from enforcing new federal gun-control measures.
A bill in Arizona would make it a felony for the federal government to enforce new laws or regulations on guns, accessories and ammunition owned or manufactured in the state.
And a bill in Michigan would exempt firearms and firearms accessories made and sold exclusively in Michigan from federal gun restrictions.
Some of the strongest language to that effect has come from Utah, where 28 of the state’s 29 elected sheriffs signed a letter to President Obama warning him not to send federal agents to start confiscating guns.
Similarly, in New Mexico in January, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs paid a visit to the state house, reminding the governor and state congressmen that a sheriff’s job is to defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

Seriously considering unfollowing Talking Heads Fox News and Celeb's on twitter
Out of all the talking Heads <(zero) /Politicians <(only 3 have) I follow on Twitter so far have taken the time to pray in Twitter  for our Twitter Star Sherry in her time of need...out of all the Celebs I follow only two have taken the time to pray for Sherry even thou I have tweeted them and asked for prayers...the two that did are adorable and they know who they are..! This is my last request to all the remainder who should be holding their collective heads in is Easter Sunday week and coming to a close... now is your chance to receive blessings from our Lord and Savior...failure to pray in a time of need may come back to haunt you...enough said

Please view and decide if Sherry is worth your time and effort to take a moment and join the rest of us "Normal Folks' in faith based prayer #TeamSTXherry @STXherry on Twitter:

Click on the following Links to learn of Sherry and her need of prayer:

Wishing Everyone a Happy Easter Week-End

Good Friday and Easter Sunday Dedication To Sherry

Easter Week is coming to a end...Our Father will decide if Sherry should follow him to Heaven or Stay with her Family to inspire others to follow the path his Son Jesus walked:)

Thursday, March 28, 2013

MrColionNoir Responds to Jim Carrey’s Cry for Attention

Remember Jim Carrey’s ‘Cold Dead Hand‘ video? MrColionNoir responds.

Gay Activist Shockingly Denounces Same-Sex Marriage

Doug Mainwaring of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, who is openly gay, attacks gay marriage at NOM’s rally on the Mall as well as in an op-ed piece which you may read here.

Texas Democrat Proposes Legislation That Would Remove Sheriffs Who Refuse to Enforce Gun Control Laws From Office

oped: Texas, state Rep.Yvonne Davis is 'not' color blind...however she blindly follows The illegal POTUS in his attack on our 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights/Constitution of the United States of America...hello Yvonne for your information the elected Sheriffs/Appointed Polce have every right to refuse unlawful orders or Law imposed by the fraudulent POTUS/CIC
Rep Davis you are committing sedition along with your boss Barack Hussein Soetero Obama !


Hundreds of sheriffs across the country have banded together and vowed not to enforce any new state or federal gun control legislation because they feel such laws would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution — the document they took an oath to uphold.
Glenn Beck recently hosted a number of these sheriffs on TheBlaze TV to discuss proposed gun legislation and why they are taking a stand.
Now, at least one lawmaker in Texas, state Rep. Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas), is proposing legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law. Keep in mind, sheriffs are elected by the people, not appointed by bureaucrats. In other words, the proposed bill would remove elected officials from office unless they enforce laws they feel violate the Constitution.
If found “guilty,” a court shall remove the person from office and disqualify them from public office for a period of 10 years.

Sec. 66.004.  FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person:
(1)  wilfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties;
(2)  directs others subject to the person’s supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal law; or
(3)  states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties.
(b)  For purposes of this section, “law” includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision.
(c)  This section does not apply to a law:
(1)  that has been held to be invalid by a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer; or
(2)  the validity of which is currently being challenged in a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer. 
(d)  The attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney shall file a petition under Section 66.002 against an officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a statement by the officer, establishing probable cause that the officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101, Government Code.
(e)  If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office and disqualifying the person from public office for a period of 10 years. 

“Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states,” unnamed gun lobbyist told Washington Secrets.
Now, perhaps Yvonne Davis is just really passionate about all laws being enforced, however, the timing of the proposed bill is suspicious. The bill does not specifically mention gun control laws. 

One interesting point to remember: If such a law were passed in Texas or in other states, it would also apply to members law enforcement who don’t enforce federal immigration law as well as any other federal laws.
TheBlaze will continue investigating to see if similar laws have been proposed in other states.

The God Father will Decide soon 'Little Wolf'

Prepare yourself for his decision...Wings of a Archangel...or New Paws to carry you thru the wilderness of of life..let your family rejoice the decision of the Father..

Voices of the Wind:



God Father is deciding at this time which path he will set for Sherry

Will she join him in heaven as a Archangel...or stay on this earth to continue to inspire others in the way of the Father...time will tell and we shall accept the God Fathers decision..

Dedication to Sherry and her family in this time of anxiety
I shall now name you 'Little Wolf'
We N' de ya ho...may the Father guide you 'Little Wolf'

Nevada Assembly ousts embattled lawmaker Steven Brooks in first-ever expulsion

via: AP
The Nevada Assembly has voted to oust embattled Democratic Assemblyman Steven Brooks in the first-ever legislative expulsion in the state's history.
A voice vote came Thursday morning, after Assembly Majority Leader William Horne called him "potentially dangerous" and said lawmakers didn't feel safe with him in the building.
The North Las Vegas Democrat has been arrested twice since January and is accused of making threats toward his colleagues, including Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick.
Brooks also was denied the purchase of a gun in Sparks last month after he was banished from the chambers. His lawyer, Mitchell Posin, says there's been a misunderstanding and Brooks doesn't pose any real threat to anyone. 

Thursday's vote came after an independent investigation, and after a bipartisan select committee recommended his ouster.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

San Francisco~NewYork City the New Sodom & Gomorrah

While SCOTUS contemplates a decision on Prop 8 and DOMA...Y'all had better hope and pray the Justices see the error of their ways and decide to uphold both Prop 8 and DOMA...Lest both cities may very well experience a repeat of Biblical History...whoa unto those who continue to push their perversion on the righteous... They may just evoke Gods wrath !... Let me give y'all a refresher course on Biblical History 101

"What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" 
 Answer: The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..."

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.





They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" Luke 8:53-54
Matthew 9:18-38, 10:1-42 ; Mark 5:22-43 ; Luke 8:41-56, 9:1-5 

What is a miracle? Well, there seems to be different kinds of miracles. Many people look at a newborn baby and think of it as a miracle. Some people refer to life itself as a miracle. Some people use the term very loosely and say things like, There was so much traffic this morning, it's a miracle I got to work on time. These aren't the kind of miracles that we're gonna talk about today. The kind we'll learn about today, is an intervention by God to make something happen that wouldn't normally happen. So without further ado, let's get on with our story. 

There was a man named Jairus who was the ruler of a synagogue. He had only one daughter who was 12 years old, and she was at the point of death. There was a crowd of people around Jesus when Jairus came up and fell at His feet begging Him, My daughter is dying, but if you come and lay your hand on her, she'll live.

Jesus and His disciples followed Jairus as the crowds of people thronged Him. There was a woman in the crowd that had a bleeding disease for 12 years and had spent all the money she earned on doctors, but she only grew worse. When she heard of Jesus, she said to herself, If I only touch His clothes, I'll be healed. So she came up behind Him in the crowd and touched the hem of His garment. Immediately her bleeding stopped and she could feel that her plague was gone.

Jesus knew right away that virtue (power) had left Him when the woman was healed. He turned around in the crowd and said, Who touched me? When everyone denied it, Peter and the other disciples said, Master, the people crowd you and press you and you ask, Who touched me? Jesus said, Someone has touched me, I feel strength is gone out of me. 

This is a fascinating thing about the power of faith. Throngs of people pushing and shoving, trying to get close to Jesus. Undoubtedly, some are accidentally bumping into Him, some reaching out to greet Him with a friendly pat on His arm, etc. But notice, the faith of the woman allowed the miracle of healing to flow from Jesus to her, even though Jesus didn't plan it. Of all the people touching Him, only the one with faith allowed the miracle to be released from Him.
When the woman realized that Jesus knew what had happened, she was afraid. Trembling, she fell down at Jesus feet and told Him in front of all the people why she touched Him and how she was instantly healed. Jesus said to her, Daughter, be glad, your faith has healed you, go in peace.

Just then, a person from Jairus' house came and told him, Your daughter is dead, there's no reason to trouble the Master any more. Jesus overheard and said to Jairus, Don't be afraid, only believe. At Jairus' house, many people were there crying and mourning for her, and Jesus said, Why are you making such a fuss? The damsel isn't dead, she's just asleep. They laughed with contempt at Jesus, knowing she was dead.
When Jesus put everyone outside, He took the father and mother of the girl and Peter, James and John into the house where the girl was lying. Jesus took the damsel by the hand and said, Little girl, arise. The girl's spirit returned to her and she got up immediately. Her parents were astonished. Jesus told them to get her some food and that they shouldn't tell anyone what was done, but news of it spread all through that land. 

What's the difference between hope and faith? Uncertainty. When you hope for something, you aren't certain that you'll get what you hope for, but you wish you do. Of course, it's the attitude you have that we're really talking about, not the word hope. You've probably had faith many times before and called it hope, but it's what's in your heart that counts. When you have faith, you believe with all your heart that your prayer will be answered. Another cool thing about faith is that you leave the door open for God to adjust your desires to His will. In other words, if you want something and you ask in faith, you are really asking God to give you what He knows is best for you. If what you wanted isn't God's will, His blessing will be so much better than what you wanted in the first place, that you will understand what He chose to do! Knowing that could release more miracles in your life than you've been allowing, so ask in faith and watch them increase! 

'V' NWO Obama...FBI Memo UFOs or No?

 Well after careful analysis of the direction Barack Obama is taking this country I have come to the conclusion that he is building a Army within the DHS to round up and offer Christians as a new food source to the inevitable invasion by the extraterrestrial invasion force called 'V' Obviously a deal was brokered by the Obama administration to trade a new food source for new technology.

This being the case Obama has brokered a further deal to exempt all Marxist [Putin] as well as those from the Islam faith known as Muslims to become the Overseers of all other religious groups  Christian,Jewish,Hindu,Buddhist,any and all other non compliant groups to become slave labor and a new food source for the Obama/Putin/Morsi administrations to use as barter to save their sorry collective asses! 
This will be now known as the NWO...well this is as good as any other potential explanation as to why the Obama administration is so hell bent on taking away our rights under the 2nd Amendment to bear arms and defend against all enemies foreign,domestic or extraterrestrial 

Ok you are now asking why and how did I come to this conclusion...well straight from a old FBI memo dated from the 1950's 
Guy Hottel memo, 1950 
 A single-page March 22, 1950 memo by Guy Hottel, special agent in charge of the Washington Field Office, regarding UFOs is the most viewed document in the FBI Vault, our online repository of public records. 

It’s the most popular file in the FBI Vault—our high-tech electronic reading room housing various Bureau records released under the Freedom of Information Act. Over the past two years, this file has been viewed nearly a million times. Yet, it is only a single page, relaying an unconfirmed report that the FBI never even followed up on.

The file in question is a memo dated March 22, 1950—63 years ago last week. It was authored by Guy Hottel, then head of our field office in Washington, D.C. (see sidebar below for a brief biography). Like all memos to FBI Headquarters at that time, it was addressed to Director J. Edgar Hoover and recorded and indexed in FBI records.

The subject of the memo was anything but ordinary. It related a story told to one of our agents by a third party who said an Air Force investigator had reported that three “flying saucers” were recovered in New Mexico. The memo provided the following detail:
“They [the saucers] were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only three feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed fliers and test pilots.” 

After relaying an informant’s claim that the saucers had been found because the government’s “high-powered radar” in the area had interfered with “the controlling mechanism of the saucers,” the memo ends simply by saying that “[n]o further evaluation was attempted” concerning the matter by the FBI agent.

Guy Hottel

 Guy Hottel Biography
Guy L. Hottel was born around 1902. He was a graduate of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., where he was a star football player. He was later inducted into the university’s athletic hall of fame. He entered the FBI as a special agent in 1934. In December 1936, he was named acting head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; he was appointed special agent in charge the following May and served until March 1941. Hottel was re-appointed special agent in charge in February 1943 and served until 1951, when he took a position in the Identification Division. He retired in 1955. Hottel was married three times and had two sons. Following his FBI career, Hottel served as executive secretary of the Horseman’s Benevolent Association. He died in June 1990.

That might have been the end of this particular story, just another informational dead end in the FBI files. But when we launched the Vault in April 2011, some media outlets noticed the Hottel memo and erroneously reported that the FBI had posted proof of a UFO crash at Roswell, New Mexico and the recovery of wreckage and alien corpses. The resulting stories went viral, and traffic to the new Vault soared.

So what’s the real story? A few facts to keep in mind:

First, the Hottel memo isn’t new. It was first released publicly in the late 1970s and had been posted on the FBI website for several years prior to the launch of the Vault.

Second, the Hottel memo is dated nearly three years after the infamous events in Roswell in July 1947. There is no reason to believe the two are connected. The FBI file on Roswell (another popular page) is posted elsewhere on the Vault.

Third, as noted in an earlier story, the FBI has only occasionally been involved in investigating reports of UFOs and extraterrestrials. For a few years after the Roswell incident, Director Hoover did order his agents—at the request of the Air Force—to verify any UFO sightings. That practice ended in July 1950, four months after the Hottel memo, suggesting that our Washington Field Office didn’t think enough of that flying saucer story to look into it.
Finally, the Hottel memo does not prove the existence of UFOs; it is simply a second- or third-hand claim that we never investigated. Some people believe the memo repeats a hoax that was circulating at that time, but the Bureau’s files have no information to verify that theory.

Sorry, no smoking gun on UFOs. The mystery remains…

- The Guy Hottel memo
- Records on other unexplained phenomenon   

#NowPlaying...Du Hast...#SCOTUS

Yes I am bored and feel like Head Banging...gonna be a lot of Head Banging after SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 and DOMA and fails to uphold states rights and the Constitution...could start the 2nd Revolution....dunno fer sure but sure looks like it viewing the people on the street in front of the Supreme Court Building!

Hit it Boys:

Limbaugh: High Court’s ‘Exalted’ Lawyers Should Not Decide Gay Marriage

By Todd Beamon
Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s “nine exalted lawyers” should not validate gay marriage because it is against the will of the American people.

“The court could issue a narrow ruling that would create a right to gay marriage in California only, maybe a few other states, or it could announce a constitutional right to gay marriage everywhere,” Limbaugh said on his afternoon radio show. “Do you realize what the problem is with all of this? The problem is that, once again, nine exalted lawyers are determining something that has been a tradition since beginning of time. Nine exalted lawyers.

Gun Control: Was Harry Reid right to Reject It?

“What really is going on here is the left is forcing their agenda on us,” Limbaugh added. “They don't care whether there are popular votes to support it or not. That doesn't matter. It's gonna be forced on us — however, whichever, whenever. It doesn't matter.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage.

California voters approved the measure in 2008, by a 52-to-47 percent vote, but it was overturned as unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in 2010 — and that ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012.

In oral arguments on Tuesday, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy — whom legal scholars say is the likely swing vote on the divided court — asked whether the justices should be hearing the case at all.

Limbaugh cited Twitter dispatches from courtroom observers indicating that Kennedy wanted the case dismissed.

If so, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would stand, effectively legalizing gay marriage in California.

“Anthony Kennedy made it very plain that he doesn't want to rule on this at all and wants to dismiss the case,” Limbaugh said. “He twice asked whether the most prudent course for the court would be not to rule at all.

“He wants to dismiss the case. If he dismisses the case, he's essentially invalidating Prop 8, because that lets the [Ninth Circuit] ruling stand. Then same-sex marriage is the law of the land in California.

“There are not five votes to give the same-sex marriage crowd what they want right now,” Limbaugh added. “There are not five votes to uphold the Ninth Circuit. But if Kennedy succeeds in getting case dismissed, the [Ninth Circuit] is upheld.”

More broadly, Limbaugh said the entire issue flies in the face of American opinion.

“The will of the people doesn't mean anything,” he said. “In California, there was a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, on which the people of the whole state voted, and by a large majority, despite a lot of money being spent on ads to the contrary, a large majority, the concept of same-sex marriage was defeated, in the whole state of California.

“The will of the people was expressed in a perfectly legal and valid election.

“Well, the will of the people never would go the way of the left if the way of the left were clearly on every ballot,” he added. “The left knows this. The will of the people: We are a constitutional Republic.

“There is a ballot-initiative system in California, where the people can engage in direct democracy. And they did, in a perfectly legal and above-board election, the people of California in a wide margin said ‘no’ to same-sex marriage.

“The opponents, not recognizing defeat, went to the [Ninth Circuit], where Proposition 8 was overturned on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

“What the Supreme Court ought to do is reverse or overturn the Ninth Circuit and say it's a state constitutional matter or statutory matter. It's not a federal matter,” Limbaugh added. “This case ought not to be at the U.S. Supreme Court, and Kennedy instinctively knows this, by asking twice if the most prudent thing to do here would be not to rule on this at all, just dismiss it.

“But that's the lazy way out,” Limbaugh declared. “Dismissing the case results in Prop 8 being overturned.

“What they ought to do is say: ‘We're sending this back. We're overturning the Ninth yet again. They had a totally legal election. The will of the people has spoken, and it is what it is.’”

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Army Captain: Obama’s DHS Intends to Kill “You and Me!”

Screen Shot 2013-03-26 at 9.22.40 AM 
On Thursday, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired Army officer with nearly 30 years of service under his belt, as well as combat experience in both Vietnam and Afghanistan issued a dire warning to all Americans.
With the massive purchases of almost 3,000 new armored vehicles (MRAPs) and 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition, with associated weapons, who in the U.S. do they intend to kill? Short answer: You and me! Anyone they think is standing in their way to impose a new Marxist government! Anyone who stands for the U.S. Constitution!
We must demand that our representatives (Senators and U.S. Representatives) stand firm and immediately force, by law if necessary, the DHS turn over their arsenal of war making equipment to the Department of Defense. Nothing justifies this massive arms build up of an agency whose jurisdiction is internal within the United States of America! They are preparing to go to war against American citizens!

Read More:

MAN STUFF: Green Beret Bad Ass Bryan Sikes on War, Family, Freedom and American Wussies

Doug Giles of interviews Green Beret and Purple Heart recipient, Bryan Sikes about killing terrorists, what he lives and will die for and what distinguishes him and his special forces bros from the lame ass males that litter America. This interview was filmed at the Cinco C Ranch in Freer, Texas during’s Purple Heart Adventure.
Click here to read more.


KGB agent explains current events in USA

Obama is a communist.. just like his grandmother, grandfather, mother, father, real father, and friends. We the People and Congress need to wake the hell up...Impeach,arrest and prosecute Barack Hussein Soetero Obama and his entire administration for Sedition and Treason!

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

America, Are You Prepared To Die For A Communist Dictator?

Obama Communist SC America, Are You Prepared To Die For A Communist Dictator?

As history is about to repeat itself for those who are paying attention, a major storm is coming. We have our Communist/Muslim Brotherhood plant, Barack Hussein Obama, running around now stating that he isn’t a dictator. Anyone who has paid attention over the past five years knows that whatever he says is always the exact opposite of what he does.
He promised us back in 2008 that he would build a civilian army that was to be as well equipped and as well funded as the US military. Have you happened to notice the amount of ammunition, guns, and military equipment that the Department of Homeland Security has purchased lately? At the same time, our military is being cut back due to the sequester that Obama himself ordered! Our top Generals are being weeded out at an alarming rate. Does this bother you at all?

Even with sequester cuts, Obama and his minions are still giving US Taxpayer dollars to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Does this not bother you? According to the talking heads in the media, Obama was re-elected by just over fifty percent of this country. My question is this: are those who elected him willing to die for him? Just as they did for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?
Our founders went to war for much less than We the People are enduring now; and with only three percent of the population standing for Freedom, THEY WON! The time is coming soon where we MUST once again stand for Freedom and Liberty. Unfortunately, fellow Americans on both sides of Obama will lose their lives. Our founders left us the blueprints in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for what to do when our government is no longer “by the people and for the people”. This one will not be for those who sit on the fence. The red lines are being drawn as we speak. Whom are you willing to die for? Our Founding Fathers or the Muslim Brotherhood and Russia? As always, fellow Patriots, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings. Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)

Conservatives Promise 'DEFCON 6' If The Supreme Court Overturns California's Gay Marriage Ban

As the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, advocates on both sides of the issue are looking to the justices' ruling to determine whether the issue remains at the forefront of political and cultural debate — particularly within the Republican Party.
If the court rules to overturn Proposition 8, conservative opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the issue will move to the center of Republican political discourse, in much the same way that Roe vs. Wade and abortion became the party's defining wedge issue in the 1980s and '90s.
"It strikes me that what we have right now is exactly what the genius of our federal system was designed to provide — a broad range of local solutions and arrangements to what is a contentious issue," said evangelical operative Ralph Reed, who leads the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
"If the court were to go to the most extreme case and strike down 41 state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman by an act of judicial fiat, I think it will further polarize our politics, it will undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and it will likely spark a marriage equivalent of the pro-life movement that will spend decades trying to reverse the decision," Reed said. 

A national debate about gay marriage would be the worst-case scenario for the Republican Party as it moves to sideline social issues in an attempt to broaden its appeal to a wider swath of voters.
The problem for the GOP is borne out in recent polling. A Pew poll released last week found that while support for gay marriage is growing among the general public — 48 percent of Americans now approve of gay marriage, up from 38 percent in 2003 — white evangelicals remain staunchly opposed, with only 19 percent expressing support for gay marriage. The divide is also apparent among younger evangelicals, with 65 percent of those under 25 opposed to gay marriage and 30 percent supporting it.
Nowhere is this issue more salient for the GOP than in Iowa, a key early voting state where conservative white evangelicals play a major role in determining the Republican presidential nominee.
"If you're running for president in 2016 and you don't want to have to talk about these issues, you're certainly going to hope that the Supreme Court doesn't overextend its jurisdiction," said Steve Deace, an influential conservative Iowa talk radio host. "Because if it does, you're going to see an entire presidential primary defined by this issue."

"This idea that some people have that the court is going to settle the issue in the Republican Party — it's going to do the exact opposite," Deace added. "It's going to raise the issue to Orange Threat Level, it'll be DEFCON 6…It will become the defining litmus test."
"All these pro-family groups, all of these people have invested decades in this fight, they've invested lots of human resources and human capital, they are not all going to throw up their hands," Deace said. "They're going to double down, it's going to be even nastier, it will be an even more defined issue."
Regardless of how the court decides on Proposition 8, however, conservatives say that the issue is likely to continue to divide the GOP, pitting social conservatives against the party's more moderate Establishment leaders.
"On a national level if the issue fades away for the Republican Party, they are going to lose tons of conservatives," said Matt Floyd, an Iowa pastor who leads the lobbying group Conservative Christians for America. "I think it will galvanize conservatives and you'll see them link up."
Iowa Republican Party Chair A.J. Spiker highlighted these concerns in a recent letter to Republican National Committee leaders obtained by Business Insider.

"While inclusion is important, elected Republicans (we all know the most recent example) and National/State Party leaders who embrace so-called same sex marriage are doing grave harm to our Party and the whole of society," Spiker wrote, apparently referencing Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who recently came out in support of gay marriage.
"Lets not forget, so-called same sex marriage is an irreconcilable difference with the Republican Party's largest constituency... Committed Christians."

Why Texas wants its gold back from the Federal Reserve

Gov. Rick Perry tells Glenn Beck he wants the state's $1 billion in gold bars on Texas soil
Texas wants its gold back — all $1 billion of it. That's what Gov. Rick Perry told Glenn Beck on his radio show last week, according to the Texas Tribune.
The Federal Reserve holds the gold bars, which are owned by the University of Texas Investment Management Company. Perry wants to bring them all back to Texas to store the gold in what would be called the Texas Bullion Depository.

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a stalwart gold standard proponent, supports Perry's proposal. But Texas state representative Giovanni Capriglione, who wrote legislation to fulfill Perry's wishes, wants to distance the move from that kind of rhetoric, telling the Texas Tribune that the measure is "not about putting Texas on its own gold standard." He says, instead, that it looks to "give the state a reputation as being more financially secure in the event of a national or international financial crisis."
But what's so bad about keeping the gold in the Federal Reserve's vault in New York City? If there were a serious spike in inflation (a big worry of gold standard supporters), there would be nothing to stop Texas from accessing its store of gold in Manhattan. And taking the gold to Texas would likely be more problematic than helpful. As Neil Irwin of the The Washington Post notes, building, staffing, and securing the proposed Texas Bullion Depository would be incredibly expensive.

In fact, it would take a Mad Max-style breakdown to justify bringing all of that booty back to Texas, says Irwin:
For it to make sense to go to all that hassle of storing your own gold, you have to be insuring against some much darker possibilities, like a collapse of the U.S. government and monetary system...

In some episode of hyperinflation and U.S. government collapse, as the nation falls into a Hobbesian state of nature, paper dollars will be no good, but gold would likely be the medium of exchange for buying food and guns and whatever else is needed for Texas to prosper amid the post-apocalyptic hellscape. [Washington Post]
Another reason — other than the one put forth by Capriglione — that a state might want to keep $1 billion of gold handy is if it were planning to secede. Texas has already tried to break away from the Union twice — in 1836 and 1865 — and more than 100,000 Texans signed an online petition earlier this year asking the White House to allow the state to secede.

Other than support from the Tea Party set, though, many Texas politicians aren't sold on the gold idea. State Rep. Lon Burnam (D) told the Texas Tribune, "We've got plenty of real problems that we're not going to deal with this session. Let's deal with them."