Saturday, January 25, 2014

Arizona GOP censures McCain for 'liberal' record

FILE - In this Nov. 13, 2013 file photo, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. A group of Arizona Republicans are seeking to pass a resolution censuring U.S. Sen. John McCain for a voting record they say is more aligned with liberal Democrats. The group plans to introduce the resolution at the Arizona Republican Party's state meeting Saturday Jan. 25, 2014. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
Associated Press

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.
The resolution to censure McCain was approved by a voice-vote during a meeting of state committee members in Tempe, state party spokesman Tim Sifert said. It needed signatures from at least 20 percent of state committee members to reach the floor for debate.
Sifert said no further action was expected.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers declined to comment on the censure.
McCain isn't up for re-election until 2016, when will turn 80. He announced in October that he was considering running for a sixth term. 

According to the resolution, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has campaigned as a conservative but has lent his support to issues "associated with liberal Democrats," such as immigration reform and to funding the law sometimes known as Obamacare.
Several Republican county committees recently censured McCain.
Timothy Schwartz, the Legislative District 30 Republican chairman who helped write the resolution, said the censure showed that McCain was losing support from his own party.
"We would gladly embrace Sen. McCain if he stood behind us and represented us," Schwartz said.
Fred DuVal, a Democrat who plans to run for Arizona governor, called the censure an "outrageous response to the good work Sen. McCain did crafting a reasonable solution to fix our broken immigration system."
McCain has been dogged by conservatives objecting to his views on immigration and campaign finance, among other issues, since he first ran for Congress in 1982. Republican activists were also turned off by his moderate stances in the 2000 presidential race.
McCain was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and won his Senate seat in 1986. 

Huckabee 'libido' speech: Did he call tea party Nazis, too?

 What the Huck! Mike Huckabee on the L-Word and Uncle Sugar | News ...
See what I mean Mike this pic is akin to Obama's...get the drift?]
Funny pictures: Funny Obama Poster pictures Collection
oped: If I told Mike once I've told him twice to keep his day job at FoxNews...Mike you are a nice guy and all...however your history as Governor of Arkansas as well as your failed attempt for a POTUS run proves the point...yes Mike you are akin to a RINO you lean left on most social issues...we the people understand this, being that you were a preacher and all...but Mike you are no Commander in Chief nor is our current POTUS Barry Obama...your show is a hit...stick with it, let the hard job of CIC go to someone who has the experience and knowledge to return our military and country to the era it once was...strong ,feared and beyond reproach!

Your comments said it all you are trying your best to straddle the fence and be a friend to all...thats ok for a preacher but not a POTUS and CIC!
 Ok Mike I will bring you up to speed and direct you to the real atrocities that occurred in Nazi Germany WWII,since you made the analogy  it was because the people of Germany failed to see what was really going on in the Nazi /Facists party called the Socialist Party.  This was a cover for the true agenda... akin to Obama's Progressive Party, they took down Christianity and moral values in order to attack the Jews,hetrosexuals and any others who were not supportive of the Pink Swastika Movement!

Please review :

Quotes from : Christian Science Monitor
Mike Huckabee scored points with Republicans with feisty comments on how Democrats 'insult' women, but his linking of conservatives' tactics to Nazi atrocities may take those points, and more, off the board. "

" Mike Huckabee is usually a pretty effective speaker. He’s folksy and cogent and smiles a lot, and that can soften the impact of his often-conservative social issue positions. But he sure created a stir on Thursday with his speech at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee. Democrats are mad at him for his remarks about their party and women. And that’s not all – some tea party Republicans aren’t too pleased with what Mr. Huckabee said about them, too." 

"On the left it’s all about “libido." As we noted Thursday, Huckabee at one point said the GOP should fight harder for women’s votes. The party shouldn’t just sit back and take Democratic charges that Republicans wage a “war on women," the former Arkansas governor told the RNC crowd.
Then he said this: “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, so be it."  

"It’s clear that Huckabee is trying to impute these retrograde beliefs to Democrats. But beyond that, his message was a bit muddied. And the whole subject is just bad news for the GOP, note Washington Post political experts Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan." 

"In his speech, Huck talked about how he wanted conservatives to stop calling more moderate Republicans RINOs – “Republicans in name only."
“Let’s stop calling each other somehow less Republican than someone else,” he said.
Then Huckabee mentioned that he would be going to Auschwitz next week and that the horror of the Holocaust began with the “devaluation of people."
"How could an educated nation like Germany end up doing something so horrible?"
“You realize that the only way you can end up there is when you start with the idea that people just aren’t as valuable as you are,” said Huckabee, linking the RINO issue with fascist atrocities in World War II.
Talk about umbrage. “Mike Huckabee Might Want to Rethink That Allusion to Nazis” read the headline on a piece by conservative thought leader Erick Erickson on the right-leaning RedState site.
Huckabee is getting beat up unfairly about the “libido” remark, wrote Mr. Erickson in the piece. But if somebody wants to, say, defeat Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell in his Kentucky primary, that doesn’t make them a Nazi, he added."  

Life, The Superbowl And Extra Cheese

Abortion Barbie gets stuck in the “fudge.” Anti-life survivors. And welcome to Weed Bowl I! All this — plus — Obama hears it from the girls. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s the Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest!

CDC Flu Folly

On the local news the other day the talking head was lamenting the growing number of flu cases in Alabama. Alabama, along with 39 other States, is currently experiencing a widespread flu outbreak, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“But what about the flu vaccine?” she breathlessly asked the physician she was interviewing.
“We are treating a number of the people who had the flu vaccine but they still got the flu,” the doctor said. “In fact, most of the patients we’re seeing were vaccinated.”
What? How can that be? I thought the purpose of the vaccine was to prevent the flu. After all, the CDC tells us “Flu vaccination is the best way to prevent people from getting the flu and potentially serious flu-related complication. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months and older get a flu vaccination each flu season.”
It also tells us that as of early January, “60 percent of Americans had not yet received a flu vaccination and lacked the protection it offers from the flu and its complications.” Yet most of the patients seen by the doctor in question had been vaccinated? Something is askew.
And that something is simple truth by the CDC and the medical-industrial establishment.
The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are nothing more than taxpayer-funded marketing arms for the medical-industrial complex. They are used to provide government-sanctioned legitimacy to a host of fake “diseases” created in labs along with their cures: expensive pharmaceuticals and tests for diagnosis.
In fact, like most Federal bureaucracies and crony corporations, they are nothing more than revolving-door employment agencies between Congress, Congressional staffs, watchdog agencies and big corporations. The former head of the CDC is Julie Gerberding, M.D., who is now head of the Vaccine Division of Merck. Merck’s vaccine division is worth more than $5 billion annually.
The CDC foists upon the public disinformation like this: “CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people.” The CDC claims that the vaccine prevents flu 50 percent to 70 percent of the time.

Notice the use of the words “flu-associated deaths.” That’s because the CDC adds pneumonia deaths as if the flu is the sole cause of pneumonia. But as Peter Doshi, Ph.D., revealed in a 2005 report published in the British Medical Journal, actual annual flu deaths are measured in the dozens, not the thousands. From his report:
[I]nfluenza and pneumonia” took 62,034 lives in 2001–61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.
In other words, the influenza virus was actually present in only 18 of 62,034 deaths attributed to both influenza and pneumonia.
Doshi research published more recently in the BMJ found that in the hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples taken each year from flu patients in the United States and tested in labs, only 16 percent test positive for the influenza virus. It turns out that most flu cases are actually caused by bacteria or fungus or any of a number of other things except the influenza virus being blamed.
Doshi writes:
But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

Each year, Big Pharma and the CDC conspire to create a vaccine based on the flu strains they anticipate to be prevalent in the coming “flu season.” But there are hundreds of flu strains out there, so it is a “hit-or-miss” proposition. This year, they missed; and H1N1 — the big scare from a couple of years ago — is back, though it wasn’t anticipated.
According to research by The Cochran Library, the average vaccine – which is produced before the onset of flu season and based on the previous year’s strains – must be administered to 100 adults to prevent one case of influenza. If the exact strain is matched, 33 adults must be vaccinated to prevent one case of the disease.
The report also stated the vaccination didn’t affect the number of people hospitalized or the number of work days lost but did result on one case of Gillian-Barré syndrome for every 1 million vaccinations. And this report relied on 15 trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry. It noted that “reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety” of the data in industry-funded reports. In other words: Big Pharma manipulates its data.
Neither the CDC nor the vaccine manufacturers are under any obligation to tell the truth about their vaccines. U.S. law prohibits suits against vaccine manufacturers for damages. Instead, those damaged receive money from the “taxpayer-funded” bailout called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
The marketing arms of the manufacturers and chain pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens are sparing no expense in deceiving the populace into lining up to be inoculated. This year, there is a new vaccine specifically marketed to seniors called Fluzone High-Dose.
David Brownstein, M.D., analyzed the study that compares Fluzone and Fluzone High-Dose. What he found was the new vaccine is .46 percent more effective than Fluzone, which is not saying much. The study shows that 217 people must be vaccinated with Fluzone High-Dose to prevent one case of the flu. That means 216 people paid double the price for the Fluzone High-Dose but received no benefit whatever.

According to the FAQ section at CVS’s website, the “high-dose” vaccine contains four times the amount of antigen (the part of the vaccine that causes the body to produce antibodies) as regular flu shots. What it doesn’t tell you — and you have to look at the fine print of the vaccine insert to find — is that 23 seniors died during the drug’s trial.
The insert also tells us that in addition to the 23 who died there were 226 other “serious” adverse events. That means 249 people out 3,833 trial participants either died or suffered a serious reaction as a result of the vaccine. The most predominant adverse event is the onset of Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is a paralyzing reaction similar to polio. It is so prevalent that if you admit to the emergency room and the physicians suspect Guillain-Barré, the first question they’ll ask is if you’ve had the flu vaccine.
There is a reason flu symptoms are experienced more often in the winter. The immune system is weakened by a reduction in vitamin D because of shorter days and because people are outside less and their skin is covered to protect from the cold.
Vitamin D supplementation is the best flu preventative, and it doesn’t carry the flu shot’s side effects. But the CDC, FDA and the medical-industrial establishment won’t definitively tell you that — if they do at all — because the medical-industrial establishment can’t make billions of dollars off vitamin D like it can and does off the flu vaccine.

Mexican Citizens Topple Cartels And Are Rewarded With Government Retaliation

Mexican Citizens Topple Cartels And Are Rewarded With Government Retaliation
There is one rule to citizen defiance that, in my opinion, surpasses all others in strategic importance; and it is a rule that I have tried to drive home for many years. I would call it the “non-participation principle” and would summarize it as follows:
"When facing a corrupt system, provide for yourself and your community those necessities that the system cannot or will not. Become independent from establishment-controlled paradigms. If you and your community do this, the system will have one of two choices:
  1. Admit that you do not need them anymore and fade into the fog of history.
  2. Or reveal its tyrannical nature in full and attempt to force you back into dependence."
In either case, the citizenry gains the upper hand. Even in the event of government retaliation or a full-blown shooting war, dissenting movements maintain the moral high ground, which is absolutely vital to legitimate victory. No revolutionary movement for freedom can succeed without honoring this rule. All independent solutions to social destabilization and despotism rely on it. Any solutions that ignore it are destined for failure.

I am hard-pressed to think of a better recent example of the non-participation principle in action than the rise of Mexican citizen militias in the Western state of Michoacan.
Michoacan, like most of Mexico, has long been overrun with violent drug cartels that terrorized private citizens while Mexican authorities did little to nothing in response. I could easily cite the abject corruption of the Mexican government as the primary culprit in the continued dominance of cartel culture. I could also point out the longtime involvement of the CIA in drug trafficking in Mexico and its negative effects on the overall social development of the nation. This is not conspiracy theory, but openly recognized fact.
The Mexican people have nowhere to turn; and this, in my view, has always been by design. Disarmed and suppressed while government-aided cartels bleed the public dry, it is no wonder that many Mexicans have turned to illegal immigration as a means of escape. The Mexican government, in turn, has always fought for a more porous border with the U.S. exactly because it wants dissenting and dissatisfied citizens to run to the United States instead of staying and fighting back. My personal distaste for illegal immigration has always been predicated on the fact that it allows the criminal oligarchy within Mexico to continue unabated without opposition. Unhappy Mexicans can simply run away from their problems to America and feed off our wide-open welfare system. They are never forced to confront the tyranny within their own country. Under this paradigm, Mexico would never change for the better.
Some in the Mexican public, however, have been courageous enough to stay and fight back against rampant theft, kidnapping and murder.

The people of Michoacan, fed up with the fear and subjugation of the cartels and the inaction of the government, have taken a page from the American Revolution, organizing citizen militias that have now driven cartels from the region almost entirely. These militias have decided to no longer rely upon government intervention and have taken independent action outside of the forced authoritarian structure.
The fantastic measure of this accomplishment is not appreciated by many people in America. Though many cartels are populated by well-trained former Mexican military special ops and even covert operations agents, the citizens of Michoacan have proven that the cartels are a paper tiger. They can be defeated through guerrilla tactics and force of will, which many nihilists often deny is even possible.

NPR reported:
"Joel Gutierrez, a militia member of the Michoacan region, says residents were “sick of the cartel kidnapping, murdering and stealing.”
“That’s why we took up arms,” says Gutierrez, 19. “The local and state police did nothing to protect us.”
The militia men have been patrolling their towns and inspecting cars at checkpoints like this one for nearly a year. All that time, federal police did little to stop them, and at times seemed to encourage the movement.
But that tacit approval appeared to end last weekend, when the number of the militias mushroomed and surrounded Apatzingan, a town of 100,000 people and the Knights Templar’s stronghold. A major battle between the militias and the cartel seemed imminent.
The federal government sent in thousands of police and troops to disarm the civilian patrols. A deadly confrontation ensued. Federal soldiers fired into a crowd of civilian militia supporters, killing two.
Militia leader Estanislao Beltran says the government should have gone after the real criminals, the Knights Templar, and not those defending themselves. He vehemently denies rumors that he takes funds from a rival group.
“The cartels have been terrorizing us for more than a decade,” Beltran says. “Why would we side with any of them?”

Initially, local authorities encouraged the militias, or stayed out of their way. The citizens armed themselves with semi-automatic weapons, risking government reprisal, in order to defend their homes; and so far, they have been victorious. One would think that the federal government of Mexico would be enthusiastic about such victories against the cartels they claim to have been fighting against for decades; but when common citizens take control of their own destinies, this often incurs the wrath of the establishment as well.
The Mexican government has decided to reward the brave people of Michoacan with the threat of military invasion and disarmament.
In some cases, government forces have indeed fired upon militia supporters, killing innocents while exposing the true intentions of the Mexican political structure.
Mainstream media coverage of the situation in the western states of Mexico has been minimal at best; and I find the more I learn about the movement in the region, the more I find a kinship with them. Whether we realize it or not, we are fighting the same fight. We are working toward the same goal of liberty, though we speak different languages and herald from different cultures. Recent government propaganda accusing Michoacan militias of “working with rival cartels” should ring familiar with those of us in the American liberty movement. We are the new “terrorists,” the new bogeymen of the faltering American epoch. We are painted as the villains; and in this, strangely, I find a considerable amount of solace.
If the liberty movement were not effective in its activism, if we did not present a legitimate threat to the criminal establishment, they would simply ignore us rather than seek to vilify us.

The militias of Michoacan have taken a stand. They have drawn their line in the sand, and I wish I could fight alongside them. Of course, we have our own fight and our own enemies to contend with here in the United States. As this fight develops, we have much to learn from the events in Western Mexico. Government retaliation has been met with widespread anger from coast to coast. And despite the general mainstream media mitigation of coverage, the American public is beginning to rally around the people of Michoacan as well. The non-participation principle prevails yet again.
The liberty movement in the U.S. must begin providing mutual aid and self-defense measures in a localized fashion if we have any hope of supplanting the effects of globalization and centralized Federal totalitarianism. We must begin constructing our own neighborhood watches, our own emergency response teams, our own food and medical supply stores, and our own alternative economies and trade markets that do not rely on controlled networks. We must break from the system and, in the process, break the system entirely.
I am growing increasingly exhausted with the incessant rationalizations of frightened activists posing as non-aggression proponents. The pungent smog of cowardice that follows them curls the nostrils, and the obvious transparency of their fear is a bit sickening. I wish I could convey how refreshing it is to witness a group of common people, regardless of nationality, with a set of brass ball bearings large enough to face off against government supported drug cartels notorious for mass murder and decapitation.
If you want see into the future, into the destiny of America, I suggest you examine carefully the developments of the Michoacan region. It is no mistake that good men and women are being disarmed around the world, and America is certainly not exempt. Look at what happens when we are not helpless! We can crush cold and calculating drug cartels as easily as we can crush psychopathic government entities. We are capable of superhuman feats. We are capable of globalist overthrow. We are capable of unthinkable greatness.

The rise of Mexican non-participation groups gives me much hope for the future. For if the most corrupt and criminally saturated of societies can find it within themselves to fight, to truly fight, regardless of the odds and regardless of the supposed consequences, then there is a chance for us all. We must look beyond the odds of success and become men — real men — once again. We must face down evil, without reservation and without apprehension. We must be willing to risk everything; otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to gain.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Obama’s Coming Coup D’état of America

A coup d’état  of America is on the horizon, led by Barack Hussein Obama. Shockingly, certain congressional members are complicit in the treason.

Guns won’t be used—at least until the coup d’état is over. Something much more insidious will be their weapon of choice.
Watch Western Center for Journalism’s exclusive video to find out about Obama’s coming coup d’état of America.

The Simple Case For Obama’s Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.
A very simple case can be made for the impeachment and trial of Barack Obama. He has committed a crime worthy of impeachment, one so simple and yet so obvious that no Democrat would dare defend his crime during a Senate Trial.  No liberal talking head or Hollywood celebrity could excuse it either.
It is a crime that he has been committing for so long that there is no one in our country who could excuse what he has done. But first, we need to ask ourselves what did the founders determine is a high crime. Because that will be the only argument the Democrats might use to save him from being convicted and removed from office.

Believe it or not, Andrew Johnson was impeached but not convicted of violating the Tenure in Office Act. It was written to prevent Johnson, a Democrat, from removing from his cabinet Republicans (particularly Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War) that Lincoln had put in his cabinet, and replacing them with Southern Democrats without the permission of the Senate. Andrew Johnson was impeached by the house, but he was not convicted and removed by the Senate. He was impeached for trying to remove Edwin Stanton and was almost convicted by one vote short of the two thirds majority required to remove a sitting president.

Andrew Johnson’s reasons for removing Stanton were very simple. Stanton, along with General Sherman and several black ministers, came up with a plan to give the freed slaves in the south “40 acres and a mule” to compensate them for their bondage; and Johnson fired him for trying to implement it.  Oddly enough, Johnson was the only senator from a seceded state, Tennessee, to remain in the Senate during the Civil War, and in a stroke of brilliance by Lincoln was chosen as his running mate on the “Grand Union” ticket because he was a Southern Democrat. The sole reason he was impeached and almost convicted was an act written by Congress to protect Lincoln’s Cabinet members from being removed and replaced with Democrats.
Most people don’t realize that Richard Nixon was never impeached; and yet when we think of impeachment of a sitting president, Nixon always comes to mind. Nixon quit rather than put the nation through the spectacle that the Watergate hearings had become. Nixon waited until he had effectively won the war in Vietnam and signed a peace treaty with the North Vietnamese before he did quit. But after he had left, the Democrats in Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam and signaled to the North that they would allow no US troops to stop their invasion of the South, erasing Nixon’s legacy and condemning South Vietnam to communist oppression.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying before a Federal Grand Jury in a court case about his sexcapades with various women who sued him for sexual harassment. He escaped conviction and removal because of the actions of a young lawyer and senator from North Carolina by the name of John Edwards, who did the deposition of  Monica Lewinsky for the Senate’s trial. The irony of those actions would not be revealed until Edwards himself ran for President in 2008 against Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination.
Johnson was almost convicted of breaking a law specifically designed by Congress to prevent him from firing Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Nixon was almost impeached for attempting to bug the Democrat Party campaign offices in Washington and covering up his involvement, and Clinton was impeached for lying in court to a Federal grand Jury–but wasn’t convicted because a man with an equal sexual appetite convinced the Senate that everyone lies about sex. To remove Obama from office, what he has to have done has to be so egregious that none can condone it.
Lying about Libya isn’t going to do it. Breaking the War powers act in Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and other places isn’t going to do it. Spying on millions of Americans without a warrant isn’t going to do it. But what will do it is a crime so simple and yet so massive none will challenge it.

Barack Obama has being using the Social Security number of a dead man. Every piece of paper he has had to put his Social Security number on is an act of fraud against the United States government because that number belongs to Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose SSN is the one Obama has used his entire life. For whatever reason (and you can be the judge), in 2012, the Social Security Administration refused to identify Harry Bounel’s Social Security Number,  even though Mr. Bounel died in 1981 in Hawaii. The Social Security Administration sought to protect his privacy.
Even now, there is a court case trying to force  this issue into the spotlight and verify that Obama’s Social Security number belongs to someone else. If it succeeds, all hell will break loose; and Obama will have to explain why he has used someone else’s social security number his entire life. And, he could become the first president in our history removed from office through impeachment and conviction.

Socialist NYC Mayor Backs Cuomo’s Ban On Conservatives

Photo credit: Kevdiaphoto (Creative Commons)
oped: imho just a lil advice for all who live in NYC or San Francisco Kawlifornia...move now don't procrastinate...NYC and SF are the new Sodom & is not if but when God has had enough and terminates these two nasty cities below the hill!

Although New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has backed away from incendiary comments he made earlier this month, the mayor of New York City is reinforcing his extremist views.
In a recent statement, Cuomo suggested that conservatives “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio confirmed his support of that sentiment during his appearance at the U.S. Conference of Mayors this week.
“I stand by that 100 percent,” he said, contending that he understood Cuomo’s “remarks to say that an extremist attitude that continues the reality of violence in our communities or an extremist attitude that denies the rights of women does not represent the views of New York State.”
Of course, the gun control policies he supports are contributing to community violence; and the demand for looser abortion laws is denying the right of millions of potential women to ever enter the world. Such facts, however, only complicate de Blasio’s tenuous argument against conservative values.

In typical leftist fashion, he resorted to vitriolic rhetoric meant to encourage a visceral hatred of those on the political right.
Speaking as though he represents the views of all New York residents, he lambasted conservatives by saying that “the people in New York State and the people of New York City reject extremist views against a woman’s right to choose and in favor of the proliferation of guns in our society.”
While it is true that he was elected after running a campaign based on the truly extremist values of his socialist past, millions of New Yorkers disagree with the prevailing leftist culture within the Empire State.
After Cuomo’s comments, numerous prominent conservatives – and countless other patriotic Americans – began to consider the feasibility of moving to a more welcoming state. Now that de Blasio has gone on record to reaffirm those intolerant views, one can only imagine even more houses will be up for sale in conservative neighborhoods across the state.

Russia says EU tries to impose 'alien view' of homosexuality

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at his meeting with Olympic volunteers in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russia, Friday, Jan. 17, 2014. Putin says gays should feel welcome at the upcoming Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, but they must "leave the children in peace." Putin told volunteers Friday that gays visiting Sochi "can feel calm and at ease," and vowed that there would be no discrimination at the games. But he emphasized that, according to a law banning homosexual "propaganda" among minors, gays cannot express their views on gay rights issues to anyone underage. (AP Photo/RIA-Novosti, Alexei Nikolsky, Presidential Press Service)
By Adrian Croft
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Russia, caught in a pre-Sochi Olympic uproar over gay rights, accuses the European Union in a new report of trying to enforce "an alien view" of homosexuality on other countries.
The accusation is contained in a 153-page "Report on the human rights situation in the European Union", in which Moscow hits back at human rights criticism it regularly faces from the West by listing what it sees as rights failings in EU nations.
The report, presented in Brussels on Thursday by Konstantin Dolgov, the Russian foreign ministry's human rights commissioner, said the EU and its 28 member states saw it as a priority to disseminate their "neo-liberal values as a universal lifestyle for all other members of the international community". 

"This is particularly evident in their aggressive promotion of the sexual minorities' rights. Attempts have been made to enforce on other countries an alien view of homosexuality and same-sex marriages as a norm of life and some kind of a natural social phenomenon that deserves support at the state level," the English version of the report said.
"Such an approach encounters resistance not only in the countries upholding traditional values, but also in those countries which have always taken a liberal attitude towards queers," it said.
It gave as an example the opposition of many French people to the legalization of same-sex marriage last year.
Russia, preparing to host the Winter Olympics in Sochi next month, has come under fire from human rights activists over a law banning the dissemination of "gay propaganda" among minors. 

Activists say the law is part of a crackdown on freedoms under President Vladimir Putin, who travels to Brussels next Tuesday for a summit with EU leaders.
Pop singer Elton John spoke out on Wednesday against the Russian law, saying it legitimized homophobia and provided legal cover to extremists.
U.S. President Barack Obama has included three openly gay athletes in the official U.S. delegation to the Sochi Olympics in a move he made clear was intended to send a pointed message to Russia about gay rights.
Former tennis star Billie Jean King, Olympic figure skating champion Brian Boitano and Olympic ice hockey medalist Caitlin Cahow were among a group of prominent Americans named to represent the United States at the Games' ceremonies.
Dolgov warned athletes not to use the Olympics as a podium to campaign against the Russian law. 

"If a skater is planning to come as a member of the Olympic team not to compete, but to fight against a law in the host country, it is very bad. It means that this particular skater does not respect Olympic principles, principles of the Olympic movement," he said at a news conference, without saying who he had in mind.
The Russian report said the most pressing human rights issues in the EU included a steady growth of xenophobia, racism, violent nationalism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism.
Grave violations of the rights of minorities, refugees and migrants were increasing in EU countries, and social rights of citizens were being infringed, the report said.
"No country is immune to human rights issues and problems. Nobody's record is perfect," Dolgov said.
(Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

Seven billion dollars will fund a lot of terrorism!

You can see the whole Earth from the Moon!

President Obama’s deal with the Iranians releases $4.2 billion in frozen assets and $7 billion over six months. That money will go a long way toward advancing radical Islam in the world and funding state-sponsored terrorism. 
In brokering the agreement, neither President Barack Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry placed any safeguards against the released Iranian money’s use to fund terrorism against the U.S., our troops, or Israeli interests.   
Please see my urgent update and new call for congressional intervention below – Mat. 
Barack Obama and John Kerry have been duped by Iran, exactly as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserts. 
It’s a classic tactic of diversion. While the world watches Iran’s nuclear program, there is a strong likelihood that a great deal of money will be flowing out of Iran throughout the Middle East and other regions to fund terrorist cells. 
President Obama brokered the “interim deal” with Iran that will theoretically stop and/or diminish Iran’s nuclear program.  In return, they are getting $7 billion dollars over six months if they hold to the agreement.
++Iran is the world’s most active sponsor of terrorism. 
President George W. Bush labeled Iran as part of the “axis of evil” because of their funding of terrorist organizations and radical Islamic groups, which fought against U.S. efforts to bring stability to the Middle East. 
In 2011, under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department declared Iran to be the world's “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”
In that 2011 assessment, the State Department reported… 
“Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals. 
In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq. 
Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity – theoretically, operationally, and financially.” 
There can be no doubt why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has derided the Obama agreement with Iran. Mr. Netanyahu declared that Israel is not bound by the agreement – and will defend itself, if necessary. 
He has called it, “A bad deal, a very, very, bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.” 
++Is the Obama administration delusional?  
The White House is staying quiet on the issue of the money potentially being used to fund terrorism. According to a report in the Washington Free Beacon,
“When asked last week ‘what safeguards will be in place to make sure that money is not funneled to terror groups by Iran,’ White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to answer.
Congressional insiders say that the White House dropped the ball by not mandating oversight of the unfrozen funds. ‘It’s really unconscionable to think America is now funding both sides of the war on terror,’ said one senior congressional aide working on sanctions.”
Meanwhile, President Obama has used every means possible to circumvent Congress and keep our elected representatives’ hands out of the administration’s “deal” with Iran. 
It’s no wonder why: The President knows the deal will not stand up to congressional and international scrutiny. 
++This is an extremely important call for congressional intervention.
Spearheading a bipartisan congressional effort, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill), have introduced a proposal in the Senate to impose a new round of sanctions that would be applied if Iran defaults on the agreement. The measure has 59 bipartisan supporters.  
Of course, President Obama opposes such a Senate initiative. Placating the President, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he will not allow the bill to come up for a vote.  
Reid’s decision is an arrogant dismissal of our legislators and the American people! 
We are calling on Harry Reid to allow a vote on the measure – and the Senate to pass the Iran Sanctions Bill. We are demanding transparency from the Obama White House concerning the Iranian deal to ensure that our national security and that of Israel is not further jeopardized!  
We cannot allow the Obama administration and Senator Harry Reid to circumvent Congress, the American people, and our Israeli allies!
 I am calling on you to get an immediate message to your senators, the Senate leadership, and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass the Iran Sanctions Bill. 
++American soldiers are in harm’s way. 
As one congressional source told The Beacon
“Can you imagine being an American solider fighting in Afghanistan learning the Iranian IED that just killed their friend was funded by U.S. sanctions relief?  This is the height of policy incompetence.


Secretary of State John Kerry has admitted that he does not know how Iran will spend its newfound cash. ‘My prayer is that no solider will be killed as a consequence of anything Iran chooses to do,’ Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last year when asked if he could guarantee the money would not go to fund terror.”
Congress cannot exercise oversight of the unfrozen funds since it has not been given a say in the Iran deal – unless the Iran Sanctions Bill is passed.
Passage of this bill is an important step toward holding the Obama administration accountable and exposing the potential failures of the agreement – both for us and for Israel
Click here to schedule your faxes: 
Thank you for taking this vital action. 
God bless America – and God bless Israel! 
Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
P.S. The rogue actions of the Obama administration leave America’s patriots with only one option – to strongly speak out against the actions of our Executive Branch.  
If this Iran deal is for the good of our nation, the Middle East, and the world, why is it shrouded in secrecy by the Obama administration? 
If this deal is “an important first step,” as President Obama contends, why is the White House circumventing the United States Congress and keeping the agreement locked in a room available only to those with top secret clearance?  
Please, demand congressional intervention by sending your immediate faxes today:  

Conservative? You Must Be Racist, Extremist

Conservative? You Must Be Racist, Extremist
[ These two leaders don't seem to be very tolerant.]

Why has Barack Obama’s popularity come crashing down? In a recent Gallup poll, the President’s approval rating hit a record low — below anything that either George W. Bush or his father experienced. The only President in modern times to get a lower rating was Richard Nixon, shortly before he resigned.
Why such abysmal ratings? Do you think it might have anything to do with the far-left policies Obama has pursued? His disastrous healthcare program? The National Security Agency spying scandal? Or maybe the use of the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate conservatives?
No, according to the man himself, none of those are the reason why his approval ratings have plummeted. When asked by New Yorker editor David Remnick to explain his dismal approval, Obama reached into his bag of tricks and played the race card again:

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said.
Well, sure, in a country of more than 300 million people, no doubt there are some people who are prejudiced. Just ask any Muslim you know. But the truth is Obama’s color isn’t the reason his popularity has plummeted. On the contrary, it’s the reason he was elected President in the first place, to which Obama alluded in the New Yorker article:
“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”
Think about it. What if Obama had been white? Do you think there’s any chance that an obscure white politician from Illinois who hadn’t even completed a single, undistinguished term in the Senate would have been elected President? Heck, if Obama had been white, do you really believe he would have defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination?

Not a chance.
If Obama had been white, do you believe the media would have ignored his very dubious associations or his lack of any real accomplishments as a U.S. Senator, an Illinois State Senator or a community organizer? Do you he would have been given a pass on such mysteries as the grades he got in college or why he can’t produce an authentic birth certificate?
No, Obama’s skin color has nothing to do with his plunging popularity. On the contrary, Obama was elected President in 2008 precisely because he was black, not in spite of it. He won because there was a vast reservoir of good will in this country toward him from whites who genuinely wanted him to succeed.
Had they known what he actually believed and the kind of far-left policies he would try to implement, there’s not a chance he would have been elected. It was precisely because he was able to hide his Marxist associations and his far-left agenda that he is sitting in the White House today.
Despite the fact that a majority of Americans say he’s taking the country in the wrong direction, Obama says he is more determined than ever to implement his radical agenda. And if he can’t get Congress to pass the legislation he wants, then he’ll do it without their approval.
He said so himself. As he convened his first cabinet meeting of the new year, Obama said: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

He then rattled off a long list of issues that he says Federal bureaucrats will begin implementing, regardless of what Congress does.
For a man who once taught Constitutional law, Obama sure doesn’t think much of the system our Founding Fathers created. Forget about checks and balances between three branches of government. Creating the laws under which we must live is supposed to be the responsibility of the legislative branch, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Obama’s job, as the head of the executive branch, is to implement the laws Congress passes.
Of course, Obama knows that is how the system is supposed to work. He just doesn’t like it. He doesn’t want to be bound down by the chains of a Constitution.
And he isn’t. Last year, for every law that Congress approved, the executive branch created hundreds of new rules and regulations. In 2013, the Federal Register, where such new dictates must be published, was more than 80,000 pages long.
Obama is sounding more like the dictator of a banana republic than the President of the American republic. He and his staff have repeatedly changed the rules for Obamacare in an effort to keep the program from totally collapsing. The Environmental Protection Agency is doing the same to destroy the coal industry in this country, as well as to implement the Administration’s agenda on “climate change.” (Remember, we’re no longer calling this trumped-up crisis “global warming.” In the wake of the winter storms that have been paralyzing much of the country, the environmental extremists needed a phrase that didn’t make them look totally ridiculous.)

Disturbing as his comments may have been, Obama hasn’t gone as far as Andrew Cuomo. During a radio interview last week, the New York Governor actually wondered out loud if conservatives should even be allowed to live in the State.
Here’s what he said: “Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
Be sure to note how Cuomo twists things to portray honest conservatives as extremists. If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that somehow makes you an anti-gay extremist. If you support the right to “keep and bear arms,” as the 2nd Amendment promises, then you must be a “pro-assault weapon” extremist.
If other words, if you disagree with the liberal agenda, you are an extremist. And not only does the Governor of New York want to exclude you from the political debate, but he doesn’t even want you to live in his State.
The bad news is that the left is getting even more open and arrogant about their intentions.
The good news is that more and more Americans don’t like it. A majority of our fellow countrymen now agree that the country is heading in the wrong direction.
How do we turn it in the right one? One way is to nominate, and then elect, politicians who will stick to their principles after they are elected. Pay attention to what they say now. And even more important, hold their feet to the fire once they get to Washington.
Nobody said it would be easy defending our liberties. But somebody’s got to do it. So it better be us.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Smith & Wesson Plans Slow Exit From California Semi-Auto Handgun Market

Smith & Wesson Plans Slow Exit From California Semi-Auto Handgun Market
Smith & Wesson announced Wednesday it will no longer sell its popular range of M&P (military and police) handguns in California, thanks to new gun-identifying regulations that are driving up manufacturing costs in the State while forcing more American citizens onto a registry that allows the government to keep track of their firearms.
The company released a statement Thursday criticizing California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which forces companies to begin “microstamping” each newly made weapon’s firing pin with a unique identifying marker that, at least in theory, can serve as a “fingerprint” to match spent shell casings with the gun from which they are fired.
Smith & Wesson also pledged to end civilian sales of its M&P line of pistols (with one exception) by August of this year, as the company allows its lineup of semi-automatic handguns to fall off the California roster of “approved” firearms. As The Truth About Guns observed, though, the company made no mention of whether it will continue to sell the same guns to California police departments. The law expressly exempts the police from having to carry handguns that can be traced through microstamping. Think about the implications of that for a second.

The press release is lengthy, but here are the highlights:
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (January 23, 2014) — Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that although it continually seeks ways to refine and improve its firearms so that consumers have access to the best possible products, the State of California is making that impossible when it comes to California residents.
Under California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi-automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.
Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company’s unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.
This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California’s position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

James Debney, Smith & Wesson President & CEO, said, “As our products fall off the roster due to California’s interpretation of the Unsafe Handgun Act, we will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law which mandates the unproven and unreliable concept of microstamping and makes it impossible for Californians to have access to the best products with the latest innovations. At the same time, we will do our best to support our customers in California with state-compliant products, enabling them access to at least a portion of the firearms to which we believe all citizens are entitled. In these challenging times, we hope you will support Smith & Wesson, and all gun manufacturers, in our fight to make the Unsafe Handgun Act about safety. We also encourage you to support the NSSF’s lawsuit and other efforts to stop microstamping, before it impacts your Constitutional rights.”
The “lawsuit” refers to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) filing of a suit against the State of California earlier this month on behalf of gun manufacturers challenging the validity of microstamping.
Smith & Wesson joins Sturm, Ruger as the second firearms maker this month to announce a slow exit from the California handgun market through legal attrition.

Paradigm Shift In How Citizens View A Sitting President

dictator obama
When was the last time you remember rooting for a leader of one of America’s traditional enemies instead of its own leader? I can’t recall that happening in the 40 years I have been following politics.
According to a recent poll, Americans favored, by an almost 2-1 margin, Russia’s Vladimir Putin over our President in the handling of the Syrian chemical weapons crisis.
The view of the office of the Presidency of the United States has undergone a fundamental change since Barack Obama, formerly known as Barry Soetoro, was elected in 2008.
Although Presidents come and go, good ones and bad, most have at least tried to give the impression of trying to do what is best for America, even if they’re not — until Obama. Unlike former occupants of the office, Obama clearly does not consider himself to be accountable to anyone: not to the law, Congress or the American people. He does not even appear to attempt to cover up his lawlessness against the Constitution or his alignment with America’s enemies like al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. His arrogance knows no bounds. For possibly the first time in American history, a sitting President is seen by a growing number of U.S. citizens as an enemy of the people and America itself.

It is commonplace anymore to read blogs and hear callers on radio programs calling the President of the United States a traitor and even have them side with our traditional antagonists like Russia. Obama is also often viewed as an enemy of our longtime ally, Israel, for his aiding and abetting terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and refusing to do anything about Iran’s nuclear buildup. Even when reading posts from people on news sites like Yahoo, hardly an advocate for conservatism, Obama news is typically overwhelmingly critical of him and often in the strongest terms. To hear Obama referred to as a Manchurian candidate is also not an uncommon occurrence.
In short, Obama is viewed by a growing number of people as being an enemy of America and against anything that could be good or beneficial for the country. That represents a paradigm shift of how the office of President is now perceived. If you care about liberty and the law, call the White House and demand accountability from Obama.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Tremors III Back to "Perfection" [Washington DC]

Yes indeed dealing with and fighting the Obama Administration and Congress is akin to battle with the Grabbers...big ol' nasty prehistoric worms whos undergroud tunnels fan out from Washington DC all across the nation. These grabbers attack men,women and children their appetite is unsatiable they won't stop until every drop of blood and every penny has been dragged underground and channeled back to their nasty lair located in Perfection and consumed in a orgy of gluttony !

There is only one group who can repel and conquer this nasty prehistoric not superman,not wonder woman not even mighty mouse...this group is called 'The Tea Party' ha
They are all geared up and locating the tunnels under their respective states and taking on these ugly nasty worms! 

Cue back to perfection:

Hillary Readies Her Crash Helmet

Hillary Witch Hunt SC

Three years from today, Barack Obama will be retired, which means America is once again heading into the messy political period known as a presidential campaign.
With that in mind, let me give you a word of caution: Don’t believe the liberal media. They always get it wrong.
The liberal pundits in the mainstream media predicted that Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in 1980. They predicted that John Kerry and Al Gore would both beat George W. Bush. And they predicted that Hillary Clinton would easily outdistance the political novice and freshman U.S. Senator, Barack Obama.

Now, the mainstream media has declared a winner for 2016! They’re preparing for the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I think time will prove them wrong.
Hail, the Conquering Clinton
On Google (GOOG), a quick search for Hillary headlines brings us such unbiased titles as: “16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016.”
Or how do you like this one? “Why Hillary Clinton Believes That Having a Female President Matters.”
My personal favorite is this one from the Huffington Post: “Ready for Hillary LGBT Kickoff Event Stirs Clinton Presidential Buzz.”
Meanwhile, liberal pundits are giddy over Chris Christie’s bridge scandal because – you guessed it! – they believe it will help Hillary Clinton.
I hope these leftists keep reading their own press releases because Hillary, though a strong candidate, can certainly be beaten.

You see, Hillary has a big problem. Since she’s already been anointed, there’s only one direction she can go from here… down.
The former first lady faces a very difficult task. After eight years of Democratic rule, people are bound to want change. Hillary won’t get the benefit of running after an eight-year GOP reign as Barack Obama once did.
In fact, after one party has been in power for eight years, Americans haven’t elected the same party to a third term since 1988. Even then, George H. W. Bush won largely because of the overwhelming popularity of Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton couldn’t get Al Gore elected in 2000, and George W. Bush couldn’t get John McCain elected in 2008.
Call me an optimist, but I see the conservative backlash against socialism gaining ground. I also see a talented group of conservative candidates preparing for the White House race. I think Americans will be just as happy to see Obama leaving as they were when George W. Bush retired to Texas in 2008.
Hillary knows this, and she’ll likely try to distance herself from Barack Obama. But Hillary was a liberal Senator from New York, and she served as Secretary of State in the Obama cabinet. It will be difficult to draw much distinction between herself and the president.

A Healthcare Nightmare
On top of that, Hillary has been a strong supporter of socialized healthcare since her husband’s first term. Remember “Hillarycare”?
If any one policy is responsible for Barack Obama’s unpopularity, it’s Obamacare. And Hillary has been in favor of socialized medicine since Barack Obama was nothing more than a union organizer in Chicago.
Couple that with Hillary’s involvement in the Benghazi scandal, and you can see why her road to the White House will be a rocky one. Hillary’s name is all over the killing of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, as she was Stevens’ boss at the time and should be held accountable.
Finally, the GOP has several candidates who are finally ready for primetime. One is Mike Huckabee, who spent the last six years on the Fox News channel. He’s well known and well liked. In fact, Huckabee is better known now than when he first ran for president in 2008 (following his tenure as Governor of Arkansas).
Other successful governors who may run include Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Mike Pence of Indiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and John Kasich of Ohio.
And don’t underestimate the core of U.S. Senate Republicans who will likely put their names in the hat. The list includes Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Each of these men would make formidable candidates, which means Hillary will have to win a brutal fight to become the next President of the United States.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

Ted Nugent: “Subhuman Mongrel” Obama Should Be Jailed For Treason

Ted "The Nuge" Nugent appeared at the SHOT show to sign autographs and discuss patriotism. He took a few swipes at Obama by referring to him as a "Chicago Communist-raised, Communist-educated, Communist-nutured 'sub-human mongrel' ACORN community-organizer gangster."

Black Students Hold College Hostage, Issue Absurd Demands

Photo credit: jimmywayne (Creative Commons)

There are few places within America in which political correctness is found in more abundant supply than on the average university campus. Among the most radicalized students within those institutions, however, no amount of social experimentation and guilt-based capitulation will ever be sufficient.
Such was the case among members of University of Michigan’s Black Student Union. Inspired by a campus speech from leftist icon Harry Belafonte, the group responded with a list of seven outrageous concessions it is demanding the school implement within a week.
Earlier this week, several members addressed a crowd, asserting they favor “physical action” if their demands are not met by the imposed deadline. Harkening back to the acts of militant radicals of the 1960s and 70s, these students are openly blackmailing their own school and acting as though they remain second-class citizens.

Included in their list of demands is an increase in the group’s budget, “emergency scholarships” specifically for black students, and the implementation of even more propaganda regarding the “historical treatment and marginalization of colored groups through race and ethnicity requirements.”
Sadly, the mainstream media, race-baiting leftists like Al Sharpton, and even the current administration have conspired to convince blacks – and other U.S. minorities – that they are perpetual victims and should demand reparations from the oppressive majority. In reality, groups such as the BSU are nothing more than bullies who resort to threats and intimidation to get what they want.
The students want to impose a quota for black students at the university, apparently believing that any school without a minority population that exactly matches the racial breakdown of society as a whole is inherently discriminatory. Meanwhile, there are no such protests within schools that have historically attracted a disproportionately high percentage of blacks.

Such intellectually dishonest demands have nothing to do with ending racial inequality. That problem was addressed decades ago and has since been used as an excuse to implement policies (like affirmative action) that actually punish whites based on their skin color. The true intention behind this and other protests is to perpetuate the myth that blacks are, and will forever be, the victims of an oppressive nation.
Belafonte’s message, which reportedly incited the protest, included his belief that American prisons are similar to the racist lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan.

PROOF Obama Is A Member Of The Muslim Brotherhood

Barack Obama has gorged his administration with Muslim Brotherhood members.
Obama openly backed the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt.  And Obama’s minions are plotting their return to power.
The Muslim Brotherhood front group, Council on American Islamic Relations—found to have funneled millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas—have met with White House officials hundreds of times.

The most pernicious act, however, of this Quran-toting President, Barack Hussein Obama—revealed in a classified State Department memo this week—is that Muslim Brotherhood members are regularly given VIP treatment at airports, not being subject to the TSA’s unconstitutional searches. No body scanners, no invasive searches, no Muslim Brotherhood members’ children having TSA agents stick their hands down their pants. Their treatment has been likened to that given to Saudi royalty!
Americans are Obama’s enemy. The Muslim Brotherhood are his allies. And the incontrovertible fact, as proclaimed widely throughout Egypt and screamed out in front page newspaper headlines, is that “Barack Hussein Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood!”

Alaska Legislators File COS Application

by:Anne Reiner
Congratulations to our Alaska team!  Representative Tammie Wilson filed resolution number 22 in the Alaska House on January 22nd calling for a Convention of States to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office of federal government officials.”
We hope it will be sent to the state senate next week to be filed as well.
This is where we need your help.  It’s moments like these when the people can sway a vote in both the house and the senate.  So we are asking all Alaskan citizens to either call or write your state legislature voicing your support of the Article V Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
We need your help in order to make this happen!
Below is the text of Alaska’s resolution:

Introduced: 1/21/14
Referred: State Affairs, Finance
Requesting the United States Congress to call a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office of federal government officials; and urging the legislatures of the other 49 states to request the United States Congress to call a convention of the states. 

WHEREAS the founders of the Constitution of the United States empowered state legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government; and
WHEREAS the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and
WHEREAS the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded; and
WHEREAS it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of its people, particularly for the generations to come, to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention of the states under art. V to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power;
BE IT RESOLVED that, under art. V, Constitution of the United States, the Alaska State Legislature respectfully applies to the United States Congress to call a convention of the states for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office of federal government officials; and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED that this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with art. V, Constitution of the United States, until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have applied for a similar convention of the states; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature urges the legislatures of the other 49 states to apply to the United States Congress to call a convention of the states.
COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Nancy Erickson, Secretary of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; and the presiding officers of the legislatures of each of the other 49 states.