Saturday, December 13, 2014

ISIS Publishes Sharia Approved-Guide How To Rape And Punish Sex Slaves (Even Prepubescents)

The more I know about ISIS, or IS, the more I am sickened: the worldview and goals of the Islamic State is evil and flies in the face of America’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
IS espouses a love of and pursuit of death, the Judeo Christian values America was founded on espouse LIFE.
Check out the latest in ISIS manifesto of evil:
ISIS has released what CBS News has described as a “strict code of conduct in the matter of stealing young women and trading them like cattle for sexual gratification.”
The list of 27 rules translated by MEMRI (below) are set in a question and answer format. 

They were issued by Research and Fatwa Department of the Islamic State with a title that translates into “Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves.” MEMRI believes it was “released in response to the uproar caused by the many reports this summer that ISIS had taken Yazidi girls and women as sex slaves.”
Trying to explain what Sharia law says about sex with female slaves, the guide discusses women in a manner that others would discuss inanimate property.
It explains rules such as its approval of having sex with a slave immediately after capturing them only if they are a virgin…

Continue Reading on ...

Convicted Terrorist Bill Ayers to Iran: U.S. a “Terrorist Nation” #Treason

oped: Yes indeed the not so bright professor finally backed himself into a corner on this one...smacks of the OJ Simpson secondary armed robbery charge in Las Vegas,Nevada 
Mr Ayers was not on a MSNBC guest spot and made a off the cuff IMO comment...he blatantly made the statement to:
Fars News, a state-controlled media outlet that serves the Islamic Republic of Iran,
which is sedition and falls into the category of Treason...being that it gave aid and comfort to the enemy (note: it meets the requirement being that there are way more than the required two witnesses to the crime...and aid is not defined as material..the comfort is clear)...! A secondary charge of slander and liable can also be made based on unfounded statements! 
The DOJ and FBI had better do their job...arrest,prosecute and strip Mr Ayer's of his US Citizenship... forget the death penalty just go for Life in prison without parole! #Justice 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, and the pot being Bill Ayers, the kettle being Iran. Remind me again why the Weather Underground criminal is not only a free man, but often solicited for interviews by news outlets?
Check it out:
Convicted terrorist and retired professor Bill Ayers sat down with Fars News, a state-controlled media outlet that serves the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he proclaimed that the United States is a “terrorist nation” that is the “greatest purveyor of violence on earth… and the foremost threat to world peace.”
The current regime in Iran is arguably the foremost purveyor of Islamic terrorism worldwide.
Iran has backed countless terror groups, which include Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi insurgents, while also providing aid and support to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. 

Ayers was a co-founder of the radical left-wing Weather Underground terror group.
Over a three-year time period, he participated in the bombings of the NYPD headquarters (1970), the U.S. Capitol building (1971), and the Pentagon(1972).
Continue Reading on ...

Friday, December 12, 2014

How Politics & Culture Collaborate with Killers by Gun Control

Amber Fernald
Mark Horne 

Restraining orders show that killers rule.

This story showed up in my Facebook feed yesterday: “Torres sentenced for murder of Amber Fernald.”
Alexis Torres arrived in court on Thursday morning to learn his punishment for the murder of a mother of three on June 10.
In November, Torres pleaded guilty to the murder of 33-year-old Amber Fernald in
her Sixth Avenue Lansingburgh apartment.
Fernald’s children were in court on Thursday — authorities say they witnessed their mother being stabbed by Torres.
“Not only did he kill Amber, He broke in, chased her down as she ran into her room to protect her children. And he repeatedly plunged  by butcher knife into her body in front of her kids,” said Shane Hug, Assistant District Attorney. 

“Her daughter turned 12 that morning as she watched her mother die. Her 3-year-old child shielded himself with a blanket, hoping not to be seen,” said Hug.
I heard that Fernald had a restraining order placed on Torres before he killed her. A search of google news confirms that fact. This was mentioned as a reason to argue that the killer’s sentence was too light. He obviously had premeditated this attack because he had been threatening her before.

I think the restraining order shows something else: that every law and every media and cultural input that made it more difficult for Amber to acquire and carry a firearm collaborated with her killer.
What good is a restraining order? Instead of a restraining order, Amber should have been indefinitely loaned an appropriate sidearm. If we are supposed to get protection from the police, then they should have given her some training.
What was the point of giving her an unenforceable piece of paper?
People act like guns are the cause of crime but they aren’t considering the real facts. Every single story of a big man attacking a woman is a story about how the absence of a gun victimized a woman. Every single story about a knife-wielding attacker cutting an unarmed victim is the story of how the absence of a gun caused harm.
A culture without cheap, readily available firearms is a culture where the stronger get to attack the weaker with impunity. Every culture that discourages or discounts gun ownership is a culture where women are trained to be sacrificed to violent men.
t is an evil and sick world. 

[See also, “No Gun Permit Unless You Give Up Your Facebook Password.”]
Yes, sometimes a gun-wielding criminal will take his chances against an armed person, but it is relatively rare. The risks to the criminal are far greater. So, if everyone is armed, crime drops because criminals know they are less likely to survive the encounter.
But a world in which most people are disarmed, because guns are downplayed or are two expensive, is a world in which violent men get to slaughter mothers in front of their children.
Liberals commonly act like a gun owner’s home is a danger to his children. If they want to discourage gun ownership then they ought to make it easier to quickly acquire a firearm. If I know that I can go buy a weapon any time I might need one, then I am more likely to not worry about investing in a firearm in order to be ready in case that time comes. Amber knew she was in danger. Everyone should have told her to arm herself for her own sake and for the sake of her children.
But no one even allows for such shifting circumstances. People who are against gun ownership are against it for all people in all circumstances. They talk as if the question of whether to buy a gun is a timeless one that doesn’t change when one’s situation changes.

That attitude left Amber vulnerable. It help bring about the moment where her daughter will never be able to celebrate her birthday again without flashing back to her mother being stabbed to death in front of her.

OOPS: Man Who Made His Living Excusing Black Crime Gets Murdered By Two Black Thugs

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 8.10.29 AM
Oh, the irony.  Check it out.
A prominent writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center was gunned down by two black males while hiking in Oakland, reports NBC Bay Area News:
A man who was fatally shot at a park in the Oakland hills on Tuesday afternoon has been identified as David Ruenzel of Oakland, East Bay Regional Park District police said Wednesday.
. . . They said they are investigating robbery as a possible motive for the crime.
Ruenzel’s son in a statement said his dad was a loving father, grandfather and best friend. He also described Ruenzel as a brilliant writer and educator who touched the lives of many 

The tragic irony of his murder is that according to Colin Flaherty over atAmerican Thinker, David Ruenzel had made a living using the notion of white privilege to excuse any and all black crime:
As a writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of this favorite topics was rooting out racism. And how white racism is permanent. White racism is everywhere. And white racism explains everything.
Read more: Down Trend

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Traitor John 'Benedict Arnold' Boehner #Ohio needs a recall election!

I strongly urge the electorate of Ohio to start a petition for the recall of John 'Benedict Arnold' the meantime I strongly urge the GOP to remove Boehner as Speaker of the House and replace with Trey Gowdy! I also strongly urge the GOP Senate to not elect Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader and replace with Sen Ted Cruz...failure to do so will have dire consequences on the future elections of Republican candidates starting in 2016! and Mr Boehner you are the one playing with matches...and you have burned all of your credibility! You make me sick you weak kneed coward,whimp,crybaby  fool !

John Boehner is a liar,fraud,dishonest,a turn coat Obama enabler who I truly believe is not only sleeping with Obama in the political sense but in the physical sense as well!    John Boehner can no longer be trusted as Speaker of the House as all the evidence shows he enables Obama at every level, while lying to the electorate ! John Boehner is by no means a conservative nor a moderate Republican...he is a outright Progressive Democrat who should at least have the cajones' to drop his title of 'Republican' and show his true political affiliation with the label progressive democrat party! 

Embedded image permalink
[This is just plain creepy! ]

The damn GOP had better wake the hell only took over Congress and the Senate based on lies from Boehner and McConnell about defunding Obamacare,Amnesty and getting to the bottom of Fast and Furious,Benghazi,IRS,NSA scandal after scandal which are still not have kicked the proverbial can down the road one too many times...time is up and your future is bleak to say the least! The Tea Party will take over and correct  your failures in the future 2016 forward !

Fed Scientists: Man Not Responsible for California Drought

(Before It's News)
The climate change crowd is usually quick to flock around federally-sponsored studies, but the latest one – sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – isn’t experiencing nearly the same popularity. Could it be that liberals, so heavily invested in the religion of global warming, would deny evidence that doesn’t match the narrative? No, that surely couldn’t be. That would make them just like those evil Republicans!
Still, unless my eyes are deceiving me, that seems to be exactly what they’re doing. The report, led by Columbia University professor Richard Seager, says that California’s historic drought is not being caused by man-made global warming. Instead, says the study, the drought is due to natural weather patterns that have afflicted the state for many years. Seager went on to say that “multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state’s climate record, and it’s a safe bet that a similar event will happen again.”

Be that as it may, there’s no question that California’s current drought is one of the worst in modern history. Decrying the unusually high temperatures the state is currently experiencing, climate-change apologists like Michael Mann have dismissed the report out of hand. “The authors of the new report would really have us believe that it is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?” asked the Penn State meteorologist in the Huffington Post. “Frankly, I don’t find that even remotely plausible.”
Marty Hoerling, a meteorologist for the NOAA, was quick to insist that the study was “by no means a final analysis, or final word, about the California drought.” Funny how when a nationally-sponsored study argues against the Earth-shattering doom of global warming – even on a specific basis – the leftists claim that the science isn’t settled. But when a report piles on more “evidence” of man-made global warming, there is nary a hint of controversy.
For his part, President Obama didn’t need any evidence at all to make the link between man-made global warming and the California drought. When he arrived in the state in February to deliver federal aid, he and his administration said the drought was an example of what we could expect across the country as climate change intensified. Even at the time, scientists backed away from the claim. Some studies have shown that California would actually grow wetter under rising temperatures, not drier.

While I agree with Hoerling that the science isn’t settled on the California drought, I would go a step further to claim that it isn’t settled on climate change as a whole. Studies like this one confirm that the left is more than willing to jump to conclusions on any weather disturbance they see. And as we’ve seen in their reaction to stories like Ferguson, liberals aren’t much for changing their minds even when all the evidence points to the contrary.
For more great articles like this visit
The climate change crowd is usually quick to flock around federally-sponsored studies, but the latest one – sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – isn’t experiencing nearly the same popularity. Could it be that liberals, so heavily invested in the religion of global warming, would deny evidence that doesn’t match the narrative? No, that surely couldn’t be. That would make them just like those evil Republicans!
Still, unless my eyes are deceiving me, that seems to be exactly what they’re doing. The report, led by Columbia University professor Richard Seager, says that California’s historic drought is not being caused by man-made global warming. Instead, says the study, the drought is due to natural weather patterns that have afflicted the state for many years. Seager went on to say that “multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state’s climate record, and it’s a safe bet that a similar event will happen again.”
Be that as it may, there’s no question that California’s current drought is one of the worst in modern history. Decrying the unusually high temperatures the state is currently experiencing, climate-change apologists like Michael Mann have dismissed the report out of hand. “The authors of the new report would really have us believe that it is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?” asked the Penn State meteorologist in the Huffington Post. “Frankly, I don’t find that even remotely plausible.”
- See more at:
The climate change crowd is usually quick to flock around federally-sponsored studies, but the latest one – sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – isn’t experiencing nearly the same popularity. Could it be that liberals, so heavily invested in the religion of global warming, would deny evidence that doesn’t match the narrative? No, that surely couldn’t be. That would make them just like those evil Republicans!
Still, unless my eyes are deceiving me, that seems to be exactly what they’re doing. The report, led by Columbia University professor Richard Seager, says that California’s historic drought is not being caused by man-made global warming. Instead, says the study, the drought is due to natural weather patterns that have afflicted the state for many years. Seager went on to say that “multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state’s climate record, and it’s a safe bet that a similar event will happen again.”
Be that as it may, there’s no question that California’s current drought is one of the worst in modern history. Decrying the unusually high temperatures the state is currently experiencing, climate-change apologists like Michael Mann have dismissed the report out of hand. “The authors of the new report would really have us believe that it is merely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the impact of human-caused climate change?” asked the Penn State meteorologist in the Huffington Post. “Frankly, I don’t find that even remotely plausible.”
- See more at:

The FDA Gets in Women’s Panties: Reusuable Menstrual Pads to be Subject to $4000 a Year in Extortion Fees

Condom vs. Tampon humor

Well, our good friends at the FDA are looking out for us again. Thank goodness we have them to fine us, charges us fees, regulate perfectly natural things, and keep us safe.  Heck, who knew that women couldn't even safely menstruate without them?
The FDA has decided that reusable menstrual pads are Class I Medical Devices. That means those who manufacture these products must pay an annual fee of THREE TO FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS to continue doing so.  Not only must these ladies armed with sewing machines pay taxes on their income, they must pay a fealty charge to the FDA to continue making a living this way. FDA Regulation #884.5435 states that a reusable menstrual pad maker must be "FDA compliant" – which means they must pay a yearly registration fee of $3,646 to remain in business for 2015 and a fee of $3,872 for 2016. 

recent posts afternoon funny pictures 63 pics november 21 2014 no ...

This is part of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act…also known as "The government gets a piece or they put you out of business." As people strive for more independence from Big Business, this will serve to put them firmly in their places. Self-sufficiency creates a competitive model and provides options other than paying for the lavish vacations and 19 bedroom homes of the CEOs and major stockholders of corporations who find the fees a nominal cost of doing business – if they are even subject to them at all.
Go read the mindblowing list of things that will be exempted: included are the little lights that go on urethral catheters and esophageal dilators. These things don't require oversight but a cloth pad does????????????? The FDA is terribly concerned for women, because reusable pads are considered "gynecological or obstetrical devices" that require their intervention. And fees. Don't forget the fees.

Women opt for natural reusable menstrual products for a variety of reasons:
  • These products are non-toxic, unlike the bleached white, chemical-laden store-bought varieties.
  • These products aren't piling up in landfills.
  • These products allow women to be self-sufficient – they don't have to rely on a trip to Walmart every month.
Let's talk about Class I Medical Devices. According to the FDA:

Class I means the class of devices that are subject to only the general controls authorized by or under sections 501 (adulteration), 502 (misbranding), 510 (registration), 516 (banned devices), 518 (notification and other remedies), 519 (records and reports), and 520 (general provisions) of the act. A device is in class I if (i) general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, or (ii) there is insufficient information from which to determine that general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device or to establish special controls to provide such assurance, but the device is not life-supporting or life-sustaining or for a use which is of substanial importance in preventing impairment of human health, and which does not present a potential unreasonable risk of illness of injury. (source)

Are you freakin' kidding me?  For that, people involved in cottage industries must pay thousands of dollars per year?  Why are they trying to medicalize the regular shedding of uterine tissue, something that has been occurring since the beginning of time?
If you want to talk about something that needs oversight, how about the feminine hygiene products you can purchase at the store?  Do you have any idea what carcinogenic materials those things contain?  Here's a quick primer on the contents of sanitary napkins:

In August Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) commissioned STAT Analysis to analyze volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds in scented, unscented, and Infinity versions of ultra-thin pads sold under the Always brand, which is manufactured by consumer-product giant Procter & Gamble (P&G).
The results of the testing indicate that both scented and unscented Always pads emit toxic chemicals, including chemicals identified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the State of California Environmental Protection Agency, as carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxins. The manufacturer discloses none of these chemicals on the product.
Some chemicals of concern detected include styrene (a human carcinogen), chloromethane (a reproductive toxicant), chloroethane (a carcinogen), chloroform (a carcinogen, reproductive toxicant, and neurotoxin), and acetone (an irritant). These chemicals also have industrial uses such as in the manufacturing of car tires, nail-polish remover, and Styrofoam, as well as in petroleum refining. (source)

This doesn't even get into the vast amount of plastic in intimate contact with your body:
Each conventional sanitary pad contains the equivalent of about four plastic bags! With everything we now know about the hazardous nature of plastic chemicals, this alone is cause for concern.
For example, plasticizing chemicals like BPA and BPS disrupt embryonic development and are linked to heart disease and cancer. Besides crude oil plastics, conventional sanitary pads can also contain a myriad of other potentially hazardous ingredients, such as odor neutralizers and fragrances. Synthetics and plastic also restrict the free flow of air and can trap heat and dampness, potentially promoting the growth of yeast and bacteria in your vaginal area. (source
For women who use tampons instead of pads, the content of those is even more grim:
Phthalates — which give paper tampon applicators that smooth feel and finish — are known to dysregulate gene expression, and DEHP may lead to multiple organ damage. 
Furthermore, to give tampons and pads that pristine, "clean" white look, the fibers used must be bleached. Chlorine is commonly used for this, which can create toxic dioxin and other disinfection-by-products (DBPs) such as trihalomethane. Studies show that dioxin collects in your fatty tissues, and according to a draft report by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dioxin a serious public health threat that has no "safe" level of exposure! Published reports show that even low or trace levels of dioxins may be linked to:
  • Abnormal tissue growth in the abdomen and reproductive organs
  • Abnormal cell growth throughout the body
  • Immune system suppression
  • Hormonal and endocrine system disruption
Meanwhile, the FDA's official stance regarding trace amounts of dioxins is that there are no expected health risks associated with trace amounts of dioxins in tampons…
So wait a minute…according to our noble guardians at the FDA, dioxin is okay, but by golly, they've got to monitor those women who use flannel and organic cotton!!!! They must keep those women safe – and of course, dependent on a monthly trip to pay their dues at the altar of Proctor and Gamble, and companies like them. (Learn more from the World Health Organization about the dangers of the dioxin they say is okay to place in your private areas.)
Sellers of these products have been notified that they must scramble to come up with over $3600 by December 31 to remain in business.
Prices of these products are sure to rise in order for the makers to be able to stay in business.  Support them by checking out this set of 5 pads or going for the gusto and getting a supply of 20 pads. You can also keep the FDA out of your panties by making your own pads - here are simple instructions.
If you agree that this is a ridiculous example of overreach that supports the interests of Big Business over the cottage industries that allow families to be independent and help to build a healthy economy, please sign this petition on the We the People website.



Obama: Some are Pretty Sure I’m an Illegal Immigrant


In a recent town hall meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, Barack Obama said that it was still hard for him to engage Republicans on the issue of immigration reform. The reason? According to Obama, it's because he believes that many Republicans believe he is an illegal immigrant.
As Obama spoke about setting up a legal system that "reflected human nature," whatever that means, he also said it needed to be combined with the "wisdom of the American people." He then threw in the emotional part of his argument by talking about not separating families.

"Now, does that mean everybody is going to listen to me, on the other side," Obama told the audience, who responded with laughter. "Not necessarily, they're pretty sure I'm an illegal immigrant."
"That was a joke," Obama added.
There is a plethora of evidence that this is no joke, but a serious question that Republicans won't touch with a 10 foot pole because they might be labeled racists.
He went on to recount the history of the Irish, who immigrated to America.
"Read your history and look at how people talked about Irish immigrants," Obama said. 

I agree, we should look to history for how the Irish came to America. Those who immigrated to America came on their own dime or with the help of a family member. They also had established employment or spent time with whoever paid their ticket to travel to the US in order to learn a trade. They were not on government assistance, nor were they offered government goodies in order to come.

Not only did the Irish have to make their own way, but once they arrived, according to Irish Genealogy Toolkit, those who had traveled Third-class or Steerage, "had to undergo three to five hours of medical and legal inspections."

"The legal inspection involved checking the immigrant's identity against the ship's manifest which had been prepared by the shipping company before departure in Ireland/England," the IGT website reads. "They were then free to enter the United States and to begin their new life." 

So, they weren't just let in without making sure they were who they claimed to be and they were checked to make sure they would not be spreading any diseases or be involved in criminal activities.

This is a far cry from what the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill proposed and it's a far cry from what Barack Obama is proposing. So why didn't someone call him out on this? It's probably because they don't know.

Obama then chided those who are against amnesty, "Look, immigration, as I said before, has always elicited passion and it's ironic because unless you are a member of an American Tribe, you came here from somewhere else." 

That is just not true. I'm not from a Native American tribe and I didn't come from anywhere else except Columbia, South Carolina. Somewhere in my history, there were obviously ancestors that came over from Scotland, but as for me, I was born in the United States of America. And that is true with many of those who are reading this article. We are not immigrants. We are natural born citizens, unlike the man child in the Oval Office.
Addressing those who came in the "right way," Obama said, "It wasn't always neat and orderly.
"What happens is once folks are here, we kinda forget that we used to be there," he added.
Again, I wasn't there. I suppose Obama's logic could be used for murderers and thieves too, since "we used to be there." No, we haven't, and this is a prime example of people defining the argument without actually dealing with the issue.

Finally, he asked us to do with Hillary has asked America to do, empathize. While I am one that does have sympathy for those that come to America on their own dime and work hard to do well for themselves and their families and contribute to the society, I have no sympathy for those that come and take the goodies from the government, at the people's expense, bring in disease and will not assimilate into the society, but rather seek to stir up insurrection and live lawlessly.
This is something that Obama and his administration have been clearly engaging in, orchestrated, Asymmetrical warfare that is not lawful, but is lawless.
Until he is called out on that, this will continue to be the spin that gets reported in the media.

Afghan woman bares legs in Kabul, stirring outrage and curiosity

A young woman bared her legs while walking through the streets of Kabul, Afghanistan, recently — stunning onlookers.
The mystery woman ditched her burqa in the ultraconservative country, which has plenty of rules about women keeping their bodies completely covered while in public.
Afghan journalist Hayat Ensafi took several photos of the woman wearing a midlength dress — evoking scandal in Afghanistan and curiosity throughout the world.
"I was shocked," he told BBC News. "I knew I had to catch this special moment because I never saw a woman here walking down the streets like this." 

After snapping her picture, Ensafi tried to talk to the woman, but he could not keep up.
"She walked very fast and didn't talk to me at all," he said.
Ensafi shared the picture on Facebook, where thousands of people shared and commented on it.
Since it went viral, many people have been speculating about the woman’s intention for showing her legs in public.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Afghan women wore veils, but short skirts were still relatively common.
Women’s rights suffered toward the end of the 20th century under Taliban rule, and some of that era’s severe dress codes have lingered.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

RedDog Saloon...Virginia City Nevada...2014 end of season shows!

In 1966 the house band was Big Brother and the Holding Company. Janis Joplin joined the band here and went on with it when it returned to San Francisco. 

Hello Red Dogs!
2015 is almost here and I am going to send it off in fashion!
First Lacy J Dalton will be performing next Friday night, December 19th at 7:30pm.
This is Lacy's Christmas show for her local friends and fans at the Red Dog and benefits wild horses.
Entrance is $27 including all fees and can be purchased online at through pay pal or by calling 775.847.7474 during business hours.
Dale Poune will be joining Lacy for this show and together they will bring down the house!
Names for this show will be held at the door as will call.
Then on New Years Eve we once again will be hosting a party to bring in the 2015.
Lady and the Tramps will be our entertainment for the evening with music beginning at 8pm.
A $25 cover will begin at 6pm and includes party favors, snacks throughout the evening, Champaign toast at midnight and FUN!
Armbands can be purchased at the Dog or at and is limited to 100 guests.
Pizza can be ordered by guests for inside dining or to go for those that have other plans that night.
We wish all of our fans, friends and loyal customers a very merry Christmas and prosperous 2015!

It’s time for a Convention of States, particularly since Congress doesn’t think so

by Allen West 
You’ve probably heard this story before. Following the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Elizabeth Powel, the premiere “Saloniste of Philadelphia” approached Benjamin Franklin on his way out of the Pennsylvania State House and asked what form of government the delegates of the Congress had agreed upon. He replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
It was a simple challenge presented almost 220 years ago that resonates with a stentorian echo to this day.
When I travel the country, many folks ask what they can do, what can be done when the rule of law — the US Constitution — is clearly being violated?

Well, it seems more than a few Americans have an answer and have accepted Franklin’s challenge – although it’s not something you’ll see widely reported in the media.
As Bryan Anderson writes for Investors Business Daily, “A very important meeting is being held in Washington this week, but career politicians, lobbyists and most in the media don’t want you to know about it. More than 100 state legislators from around the country are meeting at the Naval Heritage Center.”
“The Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL) will discuss the rules for the first-ever Article V Constitutional amendment convention. This is their third meeting. They’re preparing to take on Washington, and Congress doesn’t like it.”
“The Framers of the Constitution had the foresight to anticipate what Congress has become: a dysfunctional mess. In Article V they wisely provided a means for the states to step in and amend the Constitution largely without congressional approval. The state legislators in ASL are determined to convene an amendment convention. Our situation is that dire.” Sounds like it’s high time for a Convention of States.

Now of course the crowd inside the beltway will portray these patriotic and concerned Americans as “right-wing extremists” — but fi seeking to implement procedures the Founding Fathers bequeathed is extreme, then what is the future of our Constitutional Republic?
I find this to be a truly noble endeavor in understanding the constitutional basis of our country — and the application of the rule of law, which has been so clearly assaulted. Read my friend Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, which clearly presents the sound legal and constitutional basis for this venture — and offers a series of amendments which could be instituted.
Consider this, we wrote just yesterday about the massive $1 trillion omnibus — or as it’s being labeled, “Cromnibus” (Continuing Resolution/Omnibus) – a spending measure being considered in a lame duck session, or else, we go into a government shutdown.
And how is it that the U.S. Senate did not pass a single appropriations bill this entire year — what are they doing? We have $18 trillion in federal debt, 20 percent of American households on food stamps, the Social Security Disability Income Trust Fund nearing depletion and an immigration reform debacle.

Some folks believe the country hasn’t been this mired in critical problems and so divided since the Civil War. And in all of this, Congress apparently cannot do the nation’s business.
The recent report on the CIA released by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein, was just partisan political antics — certainly not good policy. Getting re-elected and the gimmickry of political chess are the only areas where Capitol Hill is successful. And challenging the status quo is frowned upon by both party establishments.
However, despite an 8 percent approval rating, over 90 percent of incumbents were just re-elected. Americans are beheaded and executed by Islamic terrorists, yet no one wants to declare war and properly prosecute a combat operation to defeat the enemy.
Is it any wonder the country feels helpless and is crying out for reform? What’s the solution?

As IBD writes, “The good news is: State legislators can force reform on Congress. The most important question for the Assembly of State Legislatures is: Which reforms are so popular that they could be adopted by 38 states and become Constitutional amendments? It won’t be enough for 34 states to pass applications and simply hold an amendment convention. Having support for reforms from 38 states must be the goal. (Thirty-eight states are required to adopt Constitutional amendments, 34 to call an amendment convention.) Doing otherwise — pushing for reforms that can never achieve approval from 38 states — plays directly into Congress’ hands. Congress and the Washington insiders want the states’ reform efforts to fail.”
The interesting point is that after the midterm elections of 2014, there are 69 of 99 state legislatures under GOP control — but the question is are they constitutional conservatives? If only 34 states can be mustered, then all efforts must be taken to Congress for a “mother, may I” application vote — and we know where that would end up.

I’d like to know where the new head of the Republican Governors Association, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslem, stands on this issue, and if he would support this constitutional initiative.
What type of amendments would I recommend? Well for starters those which are easy to grasp, such as equal application of the law (“Congress shall make no law applicable to the citizens of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress”), a balanced budget amendment, and term limits for federal office holders. For other great ideas, read Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments.
If this initiative could be successful and set a precedent it could be continually used — after all, that’s why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments. This isn’t meant to be a way for states to take power away from the federal government but rather a necessity to ensure the feds operate within their constitutionally prescribed parameters. It’s not a punitive weapon.

America is a Republic and operates under the system and principle of federalism — as least we used to. There are countless instances when the federal government has superseded state law, some rightly so. However, with the unlawful immigration reform executive order along with Obamacare, we find our states being subject to the whims of the federal government. The convening of an Article V convention is a viable tool for the states and the people, to ensure they accept and stand up for Franklin’s challenge – a Republic, if we can keep it.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Four Iraqi Christian kids beheaded after refusing to convert to Islam, telling ISIS: “No, we love Jesus.”


Four Iraqi Christian children, who were all beheaded by the Islamic State, refused to betray Jesus and graciously died in his name when the ISIS militants gave them one last chance to say the Islamic words of conversion, Rev. Canon Andrew White revealed. 

Christian Post  In an interview last week with the Christian Broadcast Network published on the Orthodox Christian Network, White, who is the only Anglican vicar in Iraq and is know as “The Vicar of Baghdad,” detailed the plight of Christians in Iraq and recounted two instances when Islamic State’s forceful conversions directly pulled the strings of his heart.

Speaking on ISIS’ brutal mistreatment of religious minorities, White recounted the recent incident when ISIS militants beheaded four kids, all of whom were under the age of 15, when the kids refused to say that they would follow the Prophet Muhammad and told the ISIS fighters that they will always “love” and “follow” Jesus.

“ISIS turned up and they said to the children, ‘you say the words that you will follow Muhammad.’ The Children, all under 15, four of them, they said, ‘no, we love Yasua [Jesus]. We have always loved Yasua. We have always followed Yasua. Yasua has always been with us.'” White said. “[The Militants] said, ‘say the words!’ [The Children] said, ‘no, we can’t do that.’ They chopped all their heads off.”   


Why Our Founders Required an Oath to Include 'So Help Me God'

[Oath Keepers} 

[Oath Breaker..!]  

Bill Federer 

Why has the tradition in America been for oaths to end with “So Help Me God”?
The military’s oath of enlistment ended with “So Help Me God.”
The commissioned officers’ oath ended with “So Help Me God.”
President’s oath of office ended with “So Help Me God.”
Congressmen and Senators’ oath ended with “So Help Me God.”

Witnesses in Court swore to tell the truth, “So Help Me God.”
Even Lincoln proposed an oath to be a United States citizen which ended with “So Help Me God.”
On DECEMBER 8, 1863, Lincoln announced his plan to accept back into the Union those who had been in the Confederacy with a proposed oath:
“Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States…Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion … that a full pardon is hereby granted to them…with restoration of all rights of property … upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath … to wit: 

“I, ______, do solemnly swear, in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves… and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves… SO HELP ME GOD.”
A similar situation was faced by Justice Samuel Chase, who was the Chief Justice of Maryland’s Supreme Court in 1791, and then appointed by George Washington as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1796-1811.
In 1799, a dispute arose over whether an Irish immigrant named Thomas M’Creery had in fact become a naturalized U.S. citizen and thereby able to leave an estate to a relative in Ireland.

The court decided in M’Creery’s favor based on a certificate executed before Justice Samuel Chase, which stated:
“I, Samuel Chase, Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify all whom it may concern, that … personally appeared before me Thomas M’Creery, and did repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State, entitled, An Act for Naturalization.”
An oath was meant to call a Higher Power to hold one accountable to perform what they promised. . . . Courts of Justice thought oaths would lose their effectiveness if the public at large lost their fear of the God of the Bible who gave the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

New York Supreme Court Chief Justice Chancellor Kent noted in People v. Ruggles, 1811, that irreverence weakened the effectiveness of oaths:
“Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths.”
George Washington warned of this in his Farewell Address, 1796:
“Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?”
In August of 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville observed a court case:
“While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul.” 

The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say.
The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms: “The court of common pleas of Chester County (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God.”
The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.'” Oaths to hold office had similar acknowledgments.
The Constitution of Mississippi, 1817, stated: “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.”

The Constitution of Tennessee, 1870, article IX, Section 2, stated:
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”
The Constitution of Maryland, 1851, required office holders make “[a] declaration of belief in the Christian religion; and if the party shall profess to be a Jew the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
In 1864, the Constitution of Maryland required office holders to make “[a] declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
The Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1776, chapter 2, section 10, stated:
“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: ‘I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.'”
The Constitution of South Carolina, 1778, article 12, stated: “Every…person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in the future state of rewards and punishments… (is eligible to vote).”

The Constitution of South Carolina, 1790, article 38, stated: “That all persons and religious societies, who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshiped, shall be freely tolerated.”
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court stated in Commonwealth v. Wolf (3 Serg. & R. 48, 50, 1817:
“Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life.”
It was understood that persons in positions of power would have opportunities to do corrupt backroom deals for their own benefit.
But if that person believed that God existed, that He was watching, and that He would hold them accountable in the future, that person would hesitate, thinking “even if I get away with this my whole life, I will still be accountable to God in the next.” This is what is called “a conscience.”
But if that person did not believe in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments, then when presented with the temptation to do wrong and not get caught, they would give in.

In fact, if there is no God, and this life is all there is, they would be a fool not to.
This is what President Reagan referred to in 1984: “Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience.”
William Linn, who was unanimously elected as the first U.S. House Chaplain, May 1, 1789, stated: “Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there be no God, there is no law, no future account; government then is the ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake.”
Sir William Blackstone, one of the most quoted authors by America’s founders, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1770):
“The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting.”
When Secretary of State Daniel Webster was asked what the greatest thought was that ever passed through his mind, he replied “My accountability to God.”

Benjamin Franklin wrote to Yale President Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790: “The soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this.” Benjamin Franklin also wrote:
“That there is one God, Father of the Universe… That He loves such of His creatures as love and do good to others: and will reward them either in this world or hereafter, that men’s minds do not die with their bodies, but are made more happy or miserable after this life according to their actions.”
John Adams wrote to Judge F. A. Van der Kemp, January 13, 1815:
“My religion is founded on the love of God and my neighbor; in the hope of pardon for my offenses; upon contrition… In the duty of doing no wrong, but all the good I can, to the creation, of which I am but an infinitesimal part. I believe, too, in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
John Adams wrote again to Judge F. A. Van de Kemp, December 27, 1816:
“Let it once be revealed or demonstrated that there is no future state, and my advice to every man, woman, and child, would be, as our existence would be in our own power, to take opium.  For, I am certain there is nothing in this world worth living for but hope, and every hope will fail us, if the last hope, that of a future state, is extinguished.” 

John Adams wrote in a Proclamation of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer, March 6, 1799:
“No truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration… than… acknowledgment of… a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments.”

Liberal University Won’t Comply With Minimum Wage Hike Because of “Budget Constraints”

oped: Hypocrisy anyone?...akin to Obama do as I say not as I do...yes indeed Liberalism/Progressivism is a mental disease...unjust and downright unfair! 

Philip Hodges 

A liberal university is now proving the conservative case against minimum wage law.
UC Berkeley says it can’t comply with a local ordinance that raises the minimum wage to $10 an hour because of “budget constraints.”
It’s funny, because that’s exactly what conservatives have been saying all along as a reason against government wage controls. While giant corporations can afford the wage increases, many small businesses can’t comply with such stringent government mandates and controls, such that they either have to find a way to pay their workers extra or be forced to shut down.
What’s infuriating in this particular case is that UC Berkeley has been “exempted” from the local minimum wage ordinance since it’s a state-run institution. 

The Daily Caller reported:
California’s minimum wage is $9 an hour for all workers, but on October 1 the city of Berkeley implemented a local ordinance raising it to $10, seeking to improve conditions for low-skill workers in a city with a high cost of living. However, the city cannot compel state government entities to pay the higher wage, and so UC-Berkeley, the city’s largest employer, has exploited its state affiliation to keep paying 25 percent of its student employees less than the city minimum, according to a report by Inside Higher Ed

The school has defended itself, telling the local East Bay Express that “budget constraints” require that it keep student wages down. However, the UC system has recently given big pay boosts to some of its top executives, leading many to criticize its claims of a money shortage. For example, earlier this year, UC-Berkeley vice chancellor and provost Claude Steele received a pay increase of $75,000, raising his base salary from $375,000 to $450,000. That raise could have paid for a higher minimum wage for 220 student employees working 20 hours a week over a 17-week semester.
So, they’re paying their top executives extra, but “budget constraints” necessitate that they compensate many of their regular employees below minimum wage. They’re acting like all the corporations they claim to hate. It’s the same story. The higher-ranking executives get the big pay raises and the yachts while the people at the bottom of the totem pole get pennies on the dollar.
People can gripe and complain that that’s greedy of these executives, and they very well might be right. But if it bothers them that much, they should petition their bosses for higher pay. I’m not saying that’s guaranteed to get them a raise, but they certainly shouldn’t go crying to the government to get them to force businesses to pay more. That’s not the government’s business. As long as a business is paying according to what they and their employees agreed, the government has no place in mandating wages.

Democrats to Release Intelligence Report to Create Political Chaos

Diane Feinstein is so old... ... and Arizona Senator John McCain were among guests at the dinner
[A picture is always worth 1000 words ...need I say more?]

What do people think of when they hear of a "failed rescue attempt" announced by either a government spokesman or a member of the media? What about when you hear from the same people that a member of a Special Forces unit was killed during a failed rescue attempt?
To the uninformed, one would think that the "rescue team" somehow messed up, or that something just went bad. Although that's a typical reaction, in most cases, it's dead wrong.
In most cases, it's not the fault of the operators or even the intelligence. It's the fault of — say it with me — politicians. Surprise, surprise!

Believe it or not, the military does know what it's doing, and given the right intelligence, can properly complete almost any rescue mission. It's the civilian political contingent that won't allow them to make the necessary real-time mission decisions which then results in operators getting killed or ending in a failed rescue mission.
But the military gets blamed for the lack of mission success. The media also like to blame failed missions on faulty intelligence.
Good actionable intelligence can be hard to get and sometimes people have to get their "hands dirty" to extract it. Bad guys rarely just offer it up like a plate of hors d'oeuvres. This is especially true when dealing with terrorists.
We all want to remain safe, but as it may be better not to know how that steak gets to the grocery store shelf, it may be better if the public at large doesn't know how the intelligence community can achieve that level of safety we all take for granted.

And then in come the Democrat politicians, wishing only to score cheap political points (or worse), ready and willing to sell out the intelligence community.
Josh Gerstein at Politico wrote: "The White House signaled Friday that it still favors going ahead next week with release of a long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation practices many view as torture, despite indications of a last-minute move by Secretary of State John Kerry to put off the release due to concerns about possible retaliation against American forces and hostages overseas."
You think? You think there might be "possible retaliation" from the release? And who are the "many" who view practices as torture? The U.N., Amnesty International, and professors at Columbia and UC Berkeley?

Is dressing up a terrorist in women's underwear torture? Is subjecting them to a barking dog torture? Torture is what our enemies do to our guys!
Yet "The president has been clear that he wants the executive summary of the Committee’s report to be declassified as expeditiously as possible, and we welcomed the news from the Committee that they plan to do so next week," National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said Friday afternoon in a statement to Politico. The precise timing is up to Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Committee.

Well thank heavens! It will be up to the trained intelligence expert Diane Feinstein. Hooray!
As usual, Rush Limbaugh had a good take on this whole mess. He said,
"If you boil this down to its essence, the Democrats are gonna release another report via a Senate committee, that they still run, on how rotten the CIA was, how bad our interrogators were, how mean we are, and how this is not who we are. And they're gonna once again release a document that catalogs all the torture and all the abuse of all these Al Qaeda prisoners that we had captured on the battlefield."
I agree with Rush that this is purely a political stunt, and it's a darn shame that the Dems care more about gotcha politics than our safety and the safety of our people worldwide.

He also said that Feinstein wants to release this while she is still in charge and that "The Republicans are going to control the Senate, they're gonna control the House, and the Democrats want as much chaos going on here and around the world as they can get."
I can hear some now saying that "you can't really believe that." Well, yes I do, and I believe it is 100% accurate. The Democrats view everything through a political prism and how to achieve or maintain an advantage. It's the only thing they care about. And too often, Republicans are clueless, always playing defense while giving into Democrat demands.
There is absolutely no purpose for a report like this to be released other than to damage America's credibility and standing as the good guys.
But it's quite natural for Obama and his minions to do something like this. For to them, we are not the good guys.