Saturday, January 31, 2015

FORWARD THIS TO MICHAEL MOORE: Chris Kyle’s Iraqi Interpreter Destroys Liberal Blather Of ‘Racism & Cowardice’

Screen Shot 2015-01-31 at 7.26.15 AM
MSNBC, Michael Moore and others have tried to disparage American Sniper, Chris Kyle, as a coward and a racist who went on killing sprees. Kyle’s Iraqi Muslim interpreter had this to say about Chris.  Who will you believe? I’m going with ‘Johnny Walker.’ Check it out.

When we had a sniper mission, he would watch the targets. Then, sometimes I would go take care of something and he was never afraid that I was returning with my M4 and grenades. And not just Kyle, all the SEALs I worked with.
Kyle said I trust Johnny Walker with my life. When I came to America, I got invited to Chris’s book signing in La Jolla.

When Chris saw me at the event he left everyone and just came up to me and hugged me. Because he hadn’t seen me since 2007 and thought I could have died and had no idea where I was. After he signed the book, he was going to speak. Ten seconds into his speech, he said I am not an American hero. Johnny Walker is the American hero and then he made me stand up.
Then, he said that I saved more SEALs’ lives than him. Pointing at me, and I am an Iraqi Muslim. So how is this racist?
Sometimes I would forget to bring an MRE to a sniper mission. Chris would share his MRE and he would talk about family. If he was racist towards Muslims why would he share intimate details of his life with a Muslim? I don’t see that in any way as racist. I think the ones calling Chris Kyle racist are racists. 

If you’re going to call Chris Kyle racist, then call me a racist too. At times we were on the base, Kyle would laugh with the other Iraqi soldiers and joke with them. Again, why would a racist engage in that behavior?
The insurgents had a $50,000.00 bounty on my head. Every time Chris Kyle killed an insurgent he saved my family, and the innocent Iraqi families too. Why would a racist man protect me and innocent Iraqi families?
People should be respecting and honoring him. It hurts Taya, his brother, his dad, his children, his whole family and everyone in the SEAL community when people say such things about a man like Kyle. He treated me, an Iraqi Muslim, like a brother. So everyone needs to give him the respect that he fully deserves, and finally let the man rest in peace.” 

Read More:

MICHELLE TAKES SWIPE AT AMERICAN SNIPER: Criticizes Chris Kyle’s Sex In Military Movie, ‘It’s Always a HE’

oped:Oh really Michelle...sorry but neither you nor Barry Barack have any right to criticize anything military related, neither of you ever took the time to serve your country in the military [way to busy raping and pillaging the Royal Welfare system !]...and by the way why are you addressing the sex scene ?...Been a long time for you? Oh wait Barry prefers boinking men in the butt...hmmmm jealous much?

Really? Apparently Michelle Obama is upset because American Sniper featured a man instead of a woman.
First Lady Michelle Obama joined critics of American Sniper, taking issue with the gender of the main character — even though the story revolves around the real-life exploits of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle.
“Of course, it’s always a ‘he.’ We sort of forget about the 1.5 million women veterans who have served in uniform,” she said.

Critics have come out the woodwork since the release of the Blockbuster movie, which has already pulled in more than $250 million. The film was shown at the White House, but neither President Obama nor the first lady have weighed in on the movie before.
While Mrs. Obama complained about the sex of the main character, she praised the movie for its real-life feel in remarks Friday.
Read more: Truth Revolt

Christian Woman Takes Over Podium at Muslim Event: “Islam will never dominate the United States

and by the grace of God, it will never dominate Texas.”  



A Christian woman took over the podium at the 11th annual Texas Muslim Capitol Day event on Thursday and declared, ""Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will never dominate Texas." 

You already know this bold and brave woman from an earlier stand she took at the National Cathedral in Washington. Her name is Christine Weick.

The 50-year-old approached the podium, grabbed the microphone and said, "I proclaim the name of the Lord Jesus Christ over the Capitol of Texas. I stand against Islam and the false prophet Mohammad. Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will not dominate Texas." The woman then walked away and joined the other protesters."

She then stepped down to join other protesters who had gathered with signs and chanted "Jesus," "Islam is a lie" and "No Sharia here."
Keep in mind that this event is sponsored by the designated terror group Hamas-Council on American-Islamic Relations. Also keep in mind that the executive director of the Houston chapter of Hamas-CAIR, Mustafaa Carroll, has gone on record to declare, "If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land."
At the event, Mustafaa said, "Texas Muslim Capitol Day will provide Muslims with an opportunity to benefit Texans state-wide by urging lawmakers to support issues that affect people of all faiths. This is also an opportunity for people of all ages to learn about the democratic process."

The problem is that Sharia is completely unlawful, according not only to the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution, but most importantly to the Scriptures, since the basis of Islam is a false god and a false prophet.
When alleged "threats" came into CAIR (see how they play the victim?), they contacted the FBI. Carroll says that the group's agenda was not encouraging the passage of Sharia law either.
"It's not even logical," he said. "It's a shame that I even have to address that."
Not logical? Seriously?
We just reported on the fact that an Islamic tribunal set up in Texas occurred this week! It's based on Sharia law! This is the camel's nose under the tent America!

Furthermore, consider that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front group, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Hamas funding trial in our nation's history, and that the Muslim Brotherhood has penned its goals for the destruction of America from within and the establishment of a Caliphate.
Speaker of the House Joe Straus defended CAIR and their event saying, "The Texas Capitol belongs to all the people of this state, and legislators have a responsibility to treat all visitors just as we expect to be treated — with dignity and respect," Speaker of the House Joe Straus said in a statement following the event. "Anything else reflects poorly on the entire body and distracts from the very important work in front of us."

However, freshman Rep. Molly White (R-Belton) took a little different stand. Though she was not at the event, she did leave instructions for her staff should members of the Muslim community come to her office.
"I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws," she posted on Facebook. "We will see how long they stay in my office."

And what did Rep. White get for her instructions? That's right, CAIR played the victim again and sent a letter to Speaker Straus asking whether or not she violated ethics rules by asking Muslims to pledge their allegiance to the United States. Amazing!
White first responded correctly, "I do not apologize for my comments. … If you love America, obey our laws and condemn Islamic terrorism, then I embrace you as a fellow American. If not, then I do not."
That was before noon. However, by 3pm, she issued a statement in which she welcomed "all of my constituents who would like to come and visit our office in the Texas State Capitol."
"As law-abiding American citizens, we all have the privilege and the right to freedom of speech granted to us by the First Amendment," she wrote. "... As a proud Texan and American I fully denounce all terrorist groups or organizations who's [sic] intent is to hurt and destroy the great state of Texas and our nation."

Perhaps you are a Christian who thinks that Christine Weick's actions were "unchristian." Let me remind you that a righteous indignation over false gods being openly promoted should consume every believer in the Word of God. Remember Elijah and the prophets of Baal? Elijah didn't have a hard time mocking them, did he (1 Kings 18)? Remember Nehemiah and those that came to Jerusalem to sell their wares on the Sabbath? He had harsh words that would be followed by harsh actions if they showed up again on the Sabbath (Nehemiah 13:16).
I ask you, where are the Christians who are bold? Where are the Christians who are unafraid and defend God and His Word more than they care about who they offend? I can say at the very least that Christine Weick has some intestinal fortitude to do what the men of this country should have been doing long ago. May God give American Christians their righteous indignation back and may He bless us once again with true repentance.

Muslim Brotherhood Meets With State Dept., Declares Open Jihad

mulism brotherhood state department
By Joel Himelfarb
Just days after the Obama State Department played host to a delegation of leaders aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group has called for "a long, uncompromising jihad" in Egypt, the Washington Free Beacon reported Friday.

Earlier this week, State hosted a Brotherhood-linked delegation looking to mobilize support for the overthrow of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi.

One delegation member was Waleed Sharaby, a Brotherhood-linked judge. He posted on his Facebook page a statement translated by the Free Beacon as saying: "Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone."

The Free Beacon reported that Sharaby flashed the Islamic group’s four-finger Rabia symbol.

The delegation also included two other members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Participants at the State Department meeting included several department officials including a deputy assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor.

Just days after that meeting, the Brotherhood declared: "It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom."

The statement also emphasized the importance of preparing to engage in jihad and invoked the name of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.
The Free Beacon reported that the statement said al-Banna "prepared the jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers."

Experts said the timing is certain to be an embarrassment to the State Department and the Obama administration.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood "issued its call to jihad two days after its meeting at the State Department will be grist for endless anti-American conspiracy theories about a supposed partnership between Washington and the Brotherhood," said Eric Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"The State Department should have foreseen what an embarrassment this would be," he added.

The Muslim Brotherhood's operatives "have been committing violent acts for a very long time," Trager told the Free Beacon.

Under President Mohammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood operative overthrown by al-Sisi in July 2013, "Muslim Brothers tortured prisoners outside the presidential palace," Trager said. "After Morsi's ouster, they have frequently attacked security forces and state property."

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Secret Emails to Finally Nail Obama in Major Scandal?

Who needs secret emails? Obama basically admits he is out to destroy this country.
Check it out:
The new GOP majority in the U.S. Senate is turning up the heat on its investigation of allegations the Internal Revenue Service shared private taxpayer information with President Obama, demanding Obama turn over communications he and his staff had with the agency.
The Washington Times reported it obtained a copy of a letter signed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and the 13 other Republicans on the panel. 

Addressed to Obama, the letter asks for his communications with the IRS since 2010 for their investigation into whether the agency has been engaging in illegal distribution of private taxpayer information. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of using the IRS as a political weapon since discovering the agency obstructed the applications for tax-exempt status of conservative organizations critical of Obama’s policies.
The letter said: “We have an obligation to conduct oversight of the federal government’s administration of our tax laws. As part of this oversight, we are seeking to determine the degree to and manner in which the Internal Revenue Service shares taxpayer information with the executive office of the president.”
Continue Reading on ...

Jordan to ISIS: If you kill the pilot, we’ll execute captive terrorists

Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea. The only thing that needs done with terrorists is ending their heartbeats.
Check it out:
Jordanian officials said would-be bomber Sajida al-Rishawi and other Islamic State fighters would be “quickly judged and sentenced” if Muath al-Kaseasbeh is killed, the Daily Mail reported.
The deadline for a possible prisoner swap passed Thursday with no word from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, about the fates of al-Kaseasbeh or fellow hostage Kenji Goto of Japan. 

“I have reliable contact in the Jordanian government who says a message has been passed to ISIS,” said Elijah Magnier, chief international correspondent for Kuwait’s Al Rai newspaper. “It warns that if they kill the pilot, they will implement the death sentences for Sajida and other ISIS prisoners as soon as possible. There are other prisoners in Jordan that ISIS would like to free.”
Jordan had agreed to an ISIS demand to free al-Rishawi, a would-be al Qaeda suicide bomber. ISIS said that in return, it would spare the life of the 26-year-old pilot, who was captured in December near Raqqa in Syria.
Continue Reading on ...

Friday, January 30, 2015

Valerie Jarrett / Barack Obama one and the same #Traitors #Impeach

Enough is Enough Yes? Impeach,arrest,prosecute See >

Embedded image permalink

Liberal GW Professor: Obama Guilty of ‘Violations of His Oath of Office’

Jonathan Turley
[George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has said that the framers of the Constitution would be shocked by how much power has gravitated to the president.]

oped: He was doing well until he supported Loretta Lynch...she is just a female version of Eric Holder...both are radicals as is Obama ...! They are three peas in a pod The New Black Panther Party...EOS nothing will change until Obama et al are removed from offioce! #PERIOD

At the Attorney General Nomination Hearing for Loretta Lynch, George Washington University Law School professor and nationally recognized legal scholar Jonathan Turley, scathingly rebuked actions taken by President Obama and current Attorney General Eric Holder, saying that the "Justice Department is at the epicenter of a constitutional crisis.”
Turley began by stating his approval of Loretta Lynch and suggested that she would make a great leader if confirmed:

“I want to begin by saying I have great respect for Ms. Lynch, as I’ve said before, her extraordinary career as a prosecutor pays great credit to her and to her nomination. Indeed, if confirmed, and I hope she is, I believe that she could be a great Attorney General. If great leaders are shaped at great moments in history, this could be such a moment for

“The Justice Department,” said Turley, “is at the epicenter of a constitutional crisis, a crisis that consumed her predecessor and his department.”

“My focus therefore, of my written testimony and my oral testimony today is less on Ms. Lynch, than on a department she wishes to lead,” said Turley. “As my academic writings indicate, I have been concerned about the erosion of the lines of separation of powers for many years, and particularly the erosion of legislative authority, of this body, and of the House of Representatives.”
“That concern has grown to alarm,” said Turley, “in the last few years under President Obama, someone that I voted for, someone with whom I happen to agree on many issues – including some of the issues involved in these controversies.”

“We are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system,” said Turley. “It’s changing in the very way that the Framers warned us to avoid.”
“The Justice Department has played a central and troubling role in those changes,” explained Turley. “In my view, Attorney General Eric Holder has moved his department outside of the navigational beacons of the first and second articles of the Constitution.”
“In that sense, Ms. Lynch could be inheriting a department that is floundering,” said Turley. “The question is whether she can or will tap back to calmer constitutional waters.”
“As discussed in my written testimony, the Framers focused on one defining single danger in our system, and that is the aggrandizement of power in any one branch or in anyone’s hands,” explained Turley. “They sought to deny every branch the power to govern alone.”

“Our system requires consent and compromise,” said Turley. “It goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a nation, as we are today, less things get done, but that division is no license to go it alone as the president has suggested.”
“You have only two choices in the Madisonian system,” explained Turley. “You can either seek to convince your adversaries, or you can seek to replace them.”
“You don’t get to go it alone, and there is nothing noble about circumventing the United States Congress, because it means you are circumventing the United States Constitution,” said Turley, “and any person who claims that they can get the job done alone is giving the very sirens call that the Framers warned against, and one that I hope this body resists.”

Jonathan Turley, returning his focus back, continued to reprimand the Justice Department.
“The American people, in my view, have been poorly served in recent years by the Justice Department,” said Turley. “The balance that has been sought, in recent years, has been lost precisely as the Framers have feared – the rise of a dominant executive within our system, a type of uber presidency.”
“It is certainly true that the Framers expected much from us, but no more than they demanded from themselves,” said Turley. “They expected this institution to fight jealously over its own authority; they gave you that authority, not to protect your power.”
“The separation of powers,” explained Turley, “is designed to protect liberty from the concentration of power.”

Turley went on saying:
“It doesn’t matter what party we’re from, and it doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if we agree with what the president has done. In my view, he has worthy ends, but he has chosen unworthy means under the Constitution, and the Justice Department has been a catalyst for that.”
Turley did not spare President Obama in his written testimony either. In further expounding upon our nation’s separation of powers and the “balance sought by the Framers,” Turley had the following to say about President Obama’s executive overreach:

“… The effort to establish unilateral authority presents an existential threat to our system of government. Although the President has insisted that he is merely exercising executive discretion, any such discretion by definition can only occur within the scope of granted authority and only to the extent that it is not curtailed by the language of the Constitution. This includes his obligation to faithfully execute the law. U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 4. Some of the President’s actions can be viewed as within permissible lines of discretion. However, many of his actions cannot and are violations of his oath of office. That oath is not merely an affirmative pledge to defend the Constitution but to yield to its limitations on his own authority. To put it simply, that was the deal struck on January 20, 2013.”

Turley then charged the Senate with fixing what Obama and his Justice Department, under the leadership of Eric Holder, has seemingly broken.
“In exercising the power of confirmation, this body has a undeniable interest in confirming that a nominee will address these relational breaches, these unconstitutional actions,” said Turley.
Then, Jonathan Turley, ceremoniously concluding that Loretta Lynch will be confirmed as the next Attorney General, also charged Ms. Lynch with understanding what she is swearing allegiance to when she is sworn in.
“When that moment comes, however, there should be a clear understanding as to what she is swearing true faith and allegiance to … ,” said Turley. “The department that she leads, should be the embodiment, not the enemy, of the separation of powers.”

State Department Hosts Muslim Brotherhood Leaders

mulism brotherhood state department
oped: Bottom line if it walks, quacks,acts like a duck...well shit howdy it is a duck...wtfu people Barack Obama is a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader...EOS no debate on the issue his own words:  
 Wind Change

Obama Dictator 

Yesterday White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz redefined the Taliban as an “armed insurgency.” He just could not bring himself to say Islamic terrorists. This young fella was straining to remember his assigned talking points about the “Tal-ee-ban.” We reported yesterday how BBC Arabia and Al Jazeera now have a policy of not using the word “terrorists” — after all, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, or offend the enemy.
Words are one thing, but actions are something else completely. A certain visit to the U.S. State Department must cause every American consternation — well, except for the Islamapologists.

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, “The State Department hosted a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders this week for a meeting about their ongoing efforts to oppose the current government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who rose to power following the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, an ally of the Brotherhood, in 2013.”
Continues on AllenBWest

Meet Mohammad Fazi...Obama's MB bro!

Sgt. Bergdahl poses with his Taliban captors, quite a different scene ...
[Bergdahl poses with his Taliban captors, quite a different scene ...]

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl sits in a vehicle guarded by the Taliban in eastern ...

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl opens up
[Bergdahl crying when being traded and sent back...he wanted to stay!]

Feeling Among Elites That Christians 'Should be Eradicated'

the insider argument is historically false christianity was illegal ...
Tad Cronn 
University of North Texas sociologists George Yancey and David Williamson are issuing a warning that some of the most virulent anti-Christians in the country tend to be among the influential and elite.
Yancey and Williamson, authors of the new book “So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Christianophobia in the United States,” studied anti-Christian sentiments among various people and found some common, and alarming, traits.
The sociologists say that there is not rampant “Christianophobia” in the country, but that those who do hold the most irrational anti-Christian views tend to be well-educated and gravitate toward positions where they could, at least in theory, use their authority to assert their hatred.
The authors aren’t talking about your average folk who may not want to go to church, but the sort of rabid, unreasoning hatred that you often see among atheists on the Internet.

Yancey said that he and Williamson first decided to explore the topic when they were conducting interviews of liberal activists for other projects and they began to notice a worrisome trend of anti-Christian feeling among some respondents.
In a blog entry, Yancey stated that the title of the book, “So Many Christians, So Few Lions,” comes from the unusual number of interviews in which respondents made jokes about feeding Christians to the lions, which

Yancey compares morally to making jokes about throwing Jews into ovens.
He shared three examples of some of what he considers the worst statements from respondents:
“I want them all to die in a fire. (Male, aged 26-35 with doctorate)
“They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse. Their only purpose is to damage and inflict their fundamentalist virus onto everyone they come in contact with. (Female, aged 66-75 with master’s degree)
“They make me a believer in eugenics….They pollute good air…I would be in favor of establishing a state for them… If not, then sterilize them so they can’t breed more. (Male, aged 46-55 with master’s degree)”

The authors note that there seems to be less of this intense level of hatred directed against Christians than there is directed against atheists. However, people who hate atheists are less likely to be highly educated or in positions of social influence than are those who despise Christians.
Yancey says this presents an unusual aspect to the data the authors gathered, in that we tend to think that educated people are more reasonable and less prone to irrational hatred. There is perhaps an inference that could be drawn that maybe hatred of Christians is somehow justified. But the authors don’t seem to believe that, just note it.
Yancey said one of the aspects of hatred directed at Christians is the ways in which the Christianophobes dehumanize the targets of their hatred. He refers to a definition which he identifies as “animalistic dehumanization.”
People who engage in animalistic dehumanization believe that Christians show “lack of culture instead of civility, coarseness instead of refinement, amorality instead of moral sensibility, irrationality instead of logic and childlikeness instead of maturity.”
On the last point, Yancey said the Christian haters believe that Christians are immature and easily manipulated by their leaders. As examples, he shared statements from two interviewees:

“The leaders are deceptive and power hungry individuals who invoke ‘God’ in a political sense to rally their supporters. … They play to people’s emotions, daily. (Female, aged 26-35 with bachelor’s degree)
“Their movement’s leaders are the worst type of manipulative authoritarian scum and their millions of followers are sad, weak people who are all too willing to give up their self-respect and liberty for a fantasy. (Male, aged 26-35 with bachelor’s degree)”

The authors’ work underscores what I’ve always felt was a powerful theme in the atheist religion (yes, religion). While many atheists will make a show of pretending to be smarter than the average bear, many if not most of the atheists I’ve ever encountered are obviously motivated more by emotion than intellect — specifically, an intense dislike of Christianity.
That dislike does tend to coalesce into the sort of irrational hatred that the authors describe, and I believe it is the real motivating factor behind the countless lawsuits that aim to stop public prayers, remove monuments, prevent mention of God in schools, etc., etc.
Their observations about the most hard-core anti-Christians being in positions of influence also rings true. Just take a look at Mikey Weinstein and the inordinate influence he has exerted at the Pentagon in recent years.
I would suggest that the differences in social influence and education between atheists and Christians are simply part of the natures of the two groups and have nothing to do with who is smarter.

The key phrase for atheists is “highly educated,” which says nothing about intelligence. Applying Ockham’s Razor (a favorite philosophical concept atheists love except when it’s used against them),  education just means you’re adept at parroting answers teachers want to hear and jumping through bureaucratic hoops — hardly evidence of the ability to think independently.
(William of Ockham, of course, was a Franciscan friar and theologian, which should tell you which side in the atheist-Christian debate really has the brains.)
As for social influence, those who reject Christianity are less likely to feel hesitant about pursuing power and wealth than most Christians. Obsessed as most atheists seem to be with proving once and for all that they are right and Christians are wrong, it’s only natural that the most virulent anti-Christians would wheedle their way into positions of authority.
Yancey and Williamson bring up many intriguing points that shed light on the current state of our country. Their book could be worthwhile reading for Christians who want to know their enemies

EPA Tells Lies about Climate Change, Again

Bob Allen 

If the head of the EPA tells lies about global warming, what else is she willing to do for her job?
globalwarmhoax At the EPA’s web log, Gina McCarthy writes, “We Must Act Now to Protect our Winters.”
2014 was the hottest year on record, and each of the last three decades has been hotter than the last.
In mountain towns that depend on winter tourism, the realities of climate change really hit home. Shorter, warmer winters mean a shorter season to enjoy the winter sports we love—and a financial hit for local economies that depend on winter sports.
Even if you hate winter, climate change affects you – because climate risks are economic risks. Skiing, snowboarding and other types of winter recreation add $67 billion to the economy every year, and they support 900,000 jobs. 

This woman has no place running the EPA. Her blog piece starts with a massive lie—last year was NOT the hottest year on record (unless you are comfortable ignoring the devil in the details of how that claim was measured… yeah, I can make a thermometer read higher by placing it in the right environment to achieve a desired warmer reading)—and it continues on down a hill of Gruberisms from there.
Get ready for lie after bold-faced lie, designed to gain a desired outcome of increased government power, and wealth for bureaucratic cronies.
If we fail to act, Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, TX, by 2100. Amarillo is a great town, but it’s a lousy place to ski.
With all due respect, that’s a load of hysterical crap—none of the real science says Aspen will be like Amarillo in just over 80 years—even using the most wild and unsupported projections of Climate Change devotees.
Using the X-Games as a context for this putrid nonsense is brilliant propaganda targeted at young people that would make Joseph Goebbels smile from the grave.

Thus, Climate Change Depot:
“There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming standstill and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records,” writes Marc Morano, former staff member of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years.’ This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. ‘Hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’.” The most reliable statistics—and those most difficult to manipulate into Climate Change lies—show that the alleged warming trend clearly is not occurring as Gina McCarthy wants the gullible and ignorant to believe. Even if it were, there is no proof man has any significant impact on such things, nor that this isn’t just a natural shift in our climate brought on by much bigger factors.”
Remember Jonathan Gruber! People of this ilk know you won’t support their pet projects unless they lie, and lie big. Don’t fall for the Climate lies.

Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Defends Family against Feds

roy moore
Bob Allen 
The Alabama Chief Justice urges the governor to defy unconstitutional marriage definitions that might be imposed by Federal courts.
Thank you, Lord, for Judge Roy Moore. Thank you.
I refer to the report from the New American: “Alabama Chief Justice Urges Defiance of Federal Tyranny.”
In a powerful letter sent to Alabama Gov. 

Robert Bentley this week, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court encouraged the Republican governor and lower courts to defy “judicial tyranny” — specifically, a recent unconstitutional ruling by a federal judge purporting to overturn the state’s constitutional protections for the “divine institution” of marriage. Quoting scripture from the Holy Bible, the state Constitution, as well as previous federal and state Supreme Court rulings, Chief Justice Moore argued that federal courts were using “specious” arguments aimed at “destroying” marriage, with far-reaching consequences for Alabama and beyond. Moore warned in the letter that issuing “marriage licenses” to homosexuals would be a violation of state law and Alabama’s Constitution. The governor also indicated in a statement that he would continue to defend the state Constitution and the will of the people. 

The letter from Chief Justice Moore, the state’s highest judicial official, was released days after U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade issued a ruling purporting to expand the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. For Chief Justice Moore and other top Alabama officials, however, the controversial federal order goes far beyond any semblance of legitimate constitutional power. “As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage,” Moore wrote in his letter, adding that the people of Alabama had specifically recognized in the state Constitution that a marriage is a “sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman.” The state Supreme Court has also ruled that marriage is a “divine institution.”
Now watch the attacks and name-calling begin. Opponents will not address the Chief Justice’s arguments, nor accurately cited history; they will focus on the man with unjust and lying smears and bigotry, and ignore the facts.

[See also, “If Our Civil Rulers Deny Jesus, Then Jesus Will Deny Them.”]
Moore’s letter is packed with support for his position. In addition to the state Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and previous Alabama Supreme Court rulings protecting the institution of marriage, the chief justice also cited a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. “Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is ‘the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement,’” Moore explained, quoting the U.S. high court’s decision in Murphy v. Ramsey.
More than thirty states have allowed the clear and rightly determined will of the People to be overturned on the tyrannical whims and fancies of Federal judges. Perhaps here is the new “shot heard round the nation” that will stem the tide, and put steel in a few spines.
Judge Moore has something. It’s called conviction—principle—honor. He is the opposite of a politician. He’s everything virtually all of our elected leaders are not, which is why he’s so despised and hated.


Clinton-Appointed Judge Accuses Seven Obama-Holder DOJ Attorneys of ‘FRAUD!’

Obama Holder Operation Chokepoint

1.  One the part of an officer of the court;
2. That is directed to the ‘judicial machinery’ itself;
3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4. That is positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose;
5. That deceives the court. 
The ruling states there are “at least two instances of conduct by defendant’s counsel that, in the court’s view, provide indication that fraud on the court has occurred here.”

FOX News reported additional details:
Allegra’s ruling also documents other alleged wrongdoing. When Tom Atteberry, new ATF Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, tried to reopen Dobyns’ arson case, Justice Department attorney Valerie Baker told him not to because it would damage her defense against Dobyns. Atteberry was a witnesses in the case, but the judge didn’t hear about the DOJ effort to silence him until trial. Allegra ruled that the DOJ action may amount to ‘fraud upon the court.”
“It’s very, very serious,” said Dupree. “Judges don’t make allegations like this cavalierly. It’s only after they have looked at the evidence and they have deep concerns that something that is not quite right. This is not by any means a run-of-the-mill, routine order.” 

Last summer, Judge Allegra awarded Dobyns $173,000 in damages and rebuked the ATF for failing to adequately protect Dobyns and his family. The Justice Department appealed that ruling, but in another highly unusual move, Allegra successfully had the case remanded to his court, so he can pursue the seven government lawyers for concealing evidence. Recently unsealed documents obtained by show that the DOJ disagrees with Allegra’s decision to keep the lawyers out of his court. 

Judge Allegra wrote that, “The record indicates that there is much more involved here than a simple misstatement of fact, a fraudulent filing, or a failure to advise the court of a critical fact. Rather, it appears that there is significant evidence that defendant’s conduct may actually have subverted the judicial process…”

Eric Holder, the head of the Obama DOJ, is the first sitting attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress, receiving the rebuke in bi-partisan fashion for his lies in the Fast and Furious Obama gun-running scheme to Mexican warlords.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Obama is contemptible...!

Obama Embracing Role of Dictator Once Again » Obama dictator
Barack Obama is using the power of the presidency to advance his personal vendetta against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu by intentionally influencing Israel's sovereign elections. This is a profound overreach by our President and a truly contemptible act.

Please see the update and call to action below  

President Barack Obama has deployed his campaign "A-team" to Israel for the despicable purpose of influencing Israel's elections and ensuring that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not reelected to office in Israel's March elections.

When I was first made aware of this, I was literally outraged at the audacity of our President to flagrantly intervene in a foreign nation's elections – this time acting against the sovereignty of our most trusted ally in the Middle East.

+ + Barack Obama's stealth operation has been exposed

Dr. Aaron Lerner of the Independent Media Review Analysis (IMRA) picked up on an article in Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, which was not originally translated into English for obvious reasons, as you'll see in the following article…

"Foreign Funding Bankrolls Anti-Netanyahu Campaign – Flies in 5-Man Obama Team

Ha'aretz reporter Roi Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition
today that the foreign funded organization, 'One Voice', is bankrolling the
V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu's national camp in the March
2015 Knesset Elections.

One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team
of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama
campaign's national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices
taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.

V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party - rather “just not Bibi".
As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to
Israel's campaign finance laws." 

To circumvent Israel's laws against foreign influence on their elections, the organization "One Voice" will do Barack Obama's bidding with a campaign called, "just not Bibi."
According to their website, One Voice "is an international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution," which is also a goal of the Obama administration.    

Mr. Obama's henchmen operating in Israel will most certainly demonize Prime Minister Netanyahu, as they masterfully did against his opponents in each of his two American presidential campaigns.

If Barack Obama's campaign machine is successful in defeating Mr. Netanyahu and helping elect a more liberal leader, Israel could see a historic shift in the political makeup of the nation, much like Americans experienced in 2008.

+ + We are issuing a Proclamation of Blessing for Israel. 

Liberty Counsel's sister organization, Christians in Defense of Israel, is one of the nation's most ardent pro-Israel organizations. Together, we make a formidable support base for Israel and the Jewish people.

There could not be a better time than now to support Israel!

That's why we have chosen now to send a Proclamation of Blessing to Israeli leadership, which declares our strong support. We will include deliveries to President Obama's office, Secretary of State John Kerry, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Click here to add your name to the Proclamation of Blessing and show your support for Israel: 

+ + Benjamin Netanyau is arguably the strongest leader in the pro-Western world.
Patriot, as you may know, Liberty Counsel has initiated many pro-Israel initiatives and sponsored numerous trips to the Holy Land. Over the years, we have been blessed to be in the company of Prime Minister Netanyahu for strategic meetings.

Anita and I consider Benjamin Netanyahu to be a man of great moral character, a strong leader, like-minded in supporting pro-Democracy governments, and is passionate about the wellbeing and security of his nation.

Given that information, you can see why I was outraged when the news came to me of President Obama's egregious violation against the Israeli Prime Minister. This act will no doubt influence Israel's elections and it further disgraces the United States.

Please join with me, Liberty Counsel, and Christians in Defense of Israel by adding your name to the Proclamation of Blessing for Israel.  

God bless you – and God bless Israel!

Mat Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel/Christians in Defense of Israel

P.S. President Obama profoundly erred in advancing his personal vendetta against Prime Minister Netanyahu by intentionally influencing Israel's elections.

I urge you today to sign the Proclamation of Blessing as crafted by Christians in Defense of Israel.

Proclamation button

If God is great, why does evil exist?

, funny, judgement days picture, judgement days pictures, judgement ...
If God is good, why is the world full of death and suffering?
If God is great, why does evil exist?
Why do bad things happen to good people?

There are only three possible answers to these questions:

  • God does not exist...
  • He is powerless to stop evil...
  • Or, he does exist and he has a purpose for everything that happens! 
  • Indeed and this is the clue to the answer! 
What the world at large...especially secularist,radicals and perverts just don't seem to get...God gave us the gift of *Free Will* this freedom will be judged after one enters the afterlife free from the body and temptations removed...what one does with this freedom is the ultimate test...and the price to be payed will last for eternity not just the 100 years or so one may live to in the physical body!   
Funny Quotes Contact Dmca...

So the question now you believe or not? Do you really want to say no and risk eternity?...I know everyone says well no one has returned to tell us about it...well God gave us faith also...those who choose to accept it will benefit and go to heaven vs hell...simple really your choice believe or not...I choose to believe, the odds are in my favor as well as those who also choose to believe! 
Who are going to bet on? :

or the false prophet who is very good at talking smack and leading you astray :

cultural differences cartoon 7 

Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama or whatever his real name is...but alas God does know:) 

Bottom line: Even if I am wrong so what at least I will go through life with a clear conscience...not worrying about guilt...treat others as you want to be treated...#EOS :)

The Second Amendment as Our Founders Understood It

The Second Amendment states:
via:Godfather Politics
The New Hampshire State Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing regarding some gun issues which are: 

  • Repealing the existing law that requires a person to have a concealed firearm license in order to carry concealed.
  • Increasing the length of time a license to carry is valid.
  • Directing the state police to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states to recognize their carry licenses. 
  • In Texas in 1999, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms.
    There was naturally blowback from this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial practice. You see, his sin was not citing legal precedent to support his decision.
    That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country, run by pinhead lawyers -- so full of arrogance that they think themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one bad decision leads to another and so on.

    Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second Amendment's “obvious purpose … was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia” (the National Guard). In the early 1980s, the Illinois Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.
    I'm not a constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read. Did the framers intend the Second Amendment to encompass an individual's right to carry guns for self-protection? It turns out the founders had plenty to say on the subject.

    The first state Declaration of Rights to use the term “bear arms” was Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.”
    Noah Webster of dictionary fame was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase "bear arms” meant. A prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated:
    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” 
    Again, pretty straightforward, but one might expect that of a wordsmith.
    In fact, Webster's famous 1828 dictionary defines "bear" as “to wear; to bear a mark of authority or distinction; as to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.” Continuing to the word "arms": "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body." So according to Webster, "bear arms" is to carry or wear weapons openly or concealed. Further, Webster defines "pistol" as a "small firearm, or smallest firearm used … small pistols are carried in the pocket."

    Thomas Jefferson was an admirer of the writings of Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria wrote an essay on "Crimes and Punishments" which greatly influenced the Eighth Amendment on cruel and unusual punishment. Jefferson wrote word for word passages from Beccaria in a commonplace book (a journal). One such passage was a denouncement of laws which forbid di portor le armi. In other words, to forbid the bearing, carrying or wearing of arms. At the end of this rather lengthy passage was the money quote: 

    “Does the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed.” 

    Beccaria's passage was the source in Jefferson's proposed Virginia Constitution of 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." By the way, Jefferson carried pocket pistols.

    One of Thomas Jefferson's Pocket Pistols
    John Adams wrote of the right of "arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion … in private self-defense."
    In 1789, mere days after Madison proposed the Bill of Rights, Tench Coxe, a friend and correspondent of both Madison and Jefferson, wrote that this would confirm to the people "their right to keep and bear their private arms." Interestingly, neither man corrected Mr. Coxe that it was only within the militia, because it isn't.

    So if the right to bear arms is unrestricted, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, artillery or other heavy weapons? Well, I believe the answer is clearly no. How can I say that? Simple. Words mean things. The Second Amendment gives one the right to "bear arms," arms that an individual can carry or wear, to protect oneself.
    Okay then, what about grenades, bombs, bazookas, etc. Although they can be carried they are not considered weapons of self-defense, and are more prone to cause collateral damage of the innocent as well as the guilty or the aggressor.
    Finally, there is the question of having to register your weapon or obtain a license to carry. Is this an infringement of the Second Amendment? Yes it is. Senator Ted Cruz described it well. "Would one need to register or obtain a license to exercise their religious or political beliefs or free association such as the First Amendment delineates? Wouldn't you think it absurd to require or permit before objecting to unreasonable search and seizure?"

    The bottom line is an infringement is an infringement regardless of the amendment they infringe upon, and it is clear that most if not all of these gun control measures infringe upon an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
    Attribution: Stephen Halbrook 

    Protect the 2nd Amendment!

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Says No to Federal Court on Gay Marriage

Aug 1st, 2001 - Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has a ...
[Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore]

ambiguity - Gynecomastia - Small Penis " (details from " Hermaphrodite ...
oped: Ok let's put this issue to bed once and for all...yes there is a third sex in biology it is called hermaphrodite...being an individual animal or flower that has both male and female reproductive organs, a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissue, a person or thing in which two opposite forces or qualities are combined.
A person with hermaphroditism or intersexuality; also called intersex.
Taking this into consideration a person claiming to be born homosexual only qualifies as a third sex if they are in fact a hermaphrodite. If not they are just acting on choice,that being just another sexual fetish (mental stimulation) not worthy of marriage or special treatment of any kind!   

Pictures of those BORN that way:;_ylt=AwrTcYGtJ8lU.tMAwROJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZ29xY3ZzBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEc2xrA2J1dHRvbg--;_ylc=X1MDOTYwNjI4NTcEX3IDMgRiY2sDYzlrdHAzbDlwNjZkNyUyNmIlM0Q0JTI2ZCUzRDNxaW0yaGxwWUVKbUsuWWFaVGZjaGNtcXptZjJUM2FwekxUUHpnLS0lMjZzJTNEMjUlMjZpJTNEaXlqTzdPZ2c0alRKU3Npa1FMemYEZnIDdXNoLW1haWxuXzAyBGdwcmlkAwRtdGVzdGlkA251bGwEbl9zdWdnAzAEb3JpZ2luA2ltYWdlcy5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzMxBHF1ZXJ5A21lZGljYWwgcGljdHVyZXMgaGVybWFwaHJvZGl0ZXMEdF9zdG1wAzE0MjI0Njk2OTAEdnRlc3RpZANudWxs?pvid=EssktzIwNi7E07kdU5MZpwA7MTIuNwAAAABhrA5y&p=medical+pictures+hermaphrodites&fr=ush-mailn_02&

If the courts want to attach a rider stating that third sex persons (hermaphrodites)are entitled to marriage under the equal rights clause of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights I nor anyone else would have a problem with this...however this does not apply to those who just prefer fetish sex (Gay/homosexual) which does not qualify as a third sex by any stretch of the imagination #PERIOD 


While the nation is worried about deflated footballs, there’s someone with real balls who is finally standing up to the overreach of the federal courts. 

“Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so.
"Moore's office released the three-page letter that was delivered to the governor this morning in response to a federal judge's ruling Friday striking down the ban. 
“‘As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment,’ Moore wrote.”
You may recall that this is the same Chief Justice Roy Moore who was removed from office because he defied a federal court on a Ten Commandment display.
Moore was elected chief justice again in 2012.
I’m sure liberals will argue that refusing to abide by this judge’s decision is unconstitutional. How is it that a single judge can overrule the constitution and the determination of the legislature and the will of the people when the United States Constitution does not say one word about marriage?

If a single judge or a group of judges can nullify any state law, then what use are individual states, their constitutions, and their laws? Why not eliminate states and turn all law making over to the courts.
“State voters approved the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment in 2006, with 81 percent voting in favor of it. The amendment defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.” 
One judge has the constitutional right to overrule 81 percent of the voting public in a state on an issue that is agreed on by people of different races and genders?
The next thing that will be said is that refusal to abide by the ruling by this single judge on the issue of same-sex marriage is similar to Alabama upholding laws regarding racial segregation after the courts determined otherwise. Here’s the difference.

The law prohibiting same-sex marriage applies to everybody equally. It applies to men and women, blacks and whites, and people of all ethnic persuasions. No one is excluded from the law, and no one is favored by the law.
Same-sex sexuality is what people do; it’s not like skin color. It neither comports with the law of God nor biology. It is opposed by blacks and whites and men and women. There is no third sex.
If every state that voted to ban same-sex marriage joined with Alabama, the federal government would have a difficult time enforcing its unconstitutional move.
Once again, the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. “Ginny” Granade was based on a twisted reading of the 14th Amendment banning. Like judges before here, she argued that banning same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with same-sex marriage. The 14th Amendment has become a judicial wax nose that is too often shaped by the worldview of the judges who are interpreting it. They begin with the belief that same-sex sexuality is normal and moral and then find a constitutional way to support that belief.
The media report that people's attitudes about same-sex marriage are changing. That may be so, but it's judges that are making the determination and not the people.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Sandy Hook Commission says Screw the Constitution - Confiscate Guns!

confiscate guns

Just a little over a week ago the Sandy Hook Commission presented its recommendations to Communist Governor Daniel Malloy (D-CT). Among those recommendations were to confiscate all guns that had the capacity to fire more than 10 bullets without reloading. They further showed their disregard for the law by stating that it wasn't their job to determine constitutionality.
Following the Sandy Hook shooting, in which it is alleged that 26 people lost their lives, people across the political spectrum sough to blame everything under the sun for the shooting except the shooter. Communists and socialists blamed guns (as though they had legs and arms and could get up on their own and kill people) while so-called "conservatives blamed anything from violent video games to music to mental health to anything in between. One thing is for sure, it wasn't the guns that were the problem and I won't say there isn't a certain influence of games of music, but those things are relative. The real reason, at least according to the reports we've been given, that Sandy Hook happened was a guy who had crime on his mind.

Though it is questionable about some of the things that are alleged to have happened surrounding Sandy Hook, one thing is clear, Socialists and Communists set their sights immediately on disarming the American people.
Connecticut, being Ground Zero, has felt the brunt of the knee jerk reaction of Communists in their state.

Governor Dan Malloy passed legislation that criminalized law-abiding citizens if they did not register their guns, something eerily reminiscent of the Weimar Republic and eventually the Nazis in Germany. When tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners refused to comply with the law, it took some time, but now the commission has come up with new proposals. First the commission decided to recommend a ban on "the sale and possession of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading."
Though the Connecticut legislature decided to ban AR-15s and issue a 10 round limit on magazines that just doesn't seem to go far enough for these people. Remember, the only way these people will be happy is when the American people have absolutely no arms at all. The goal is complete and total gun confiscation and don't let anyone tell you different. If they do, ask them how much legislation would be enough?

Though the legislature allowed citizens (that sounds like they are issuing privileges rather than recognizing rights, doesn't it?) who had banned guns and magazines to keep them as long as they registered or declared them, the commission is out for those guns without any grandfathering. They want total confiscation of any gun that can fire more than ten round without reloading.
Commission members said it was parents' testimony that convinced them to recommend gun confiscation.
"In one of the classrooms, when the shooter stopped to remove a magazine and put another one in, children escaped from the classroom," said Norwalk Fire Chief Denis McCarthy, a commission member.
"The single biggest common denominator between them is not mental health, it's not the structure of the school, and school safety issues, it's access to, possession of, and use of these weapons of war," said Dr. Harold Schwartz, Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hartford Hospital's Institute of Living.

The only problem for Dr. Schwartz is not one shooting, including Newtown involved "weapons of war." The Bushmaster AR-15 is not carried into battle by our soldiers and it isn't the state's place to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms… of any kind! 

One member of the commission, former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, said, "Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide. The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons."
It's worse than just what these people label "assault weapons," which are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles. They want handguns too.

"I believe that if we're serious about banning assault weapons, it shouldn't just cover long guns," former Hartford Chief of Police and member of the 16-member Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Bernard Sullivan recommended at a meeting in March 2014. "It should also cover handguns because the weapons of choice in the urban environment are primarily the 9-millimeter Berettas, Sig Sauer, whatever you want to call them, that have high-capacity magazines that can fire 17 or 18 bullets without reloading because of the magazine."
However, note their blatant hypocrisy in the fact that, according to the Connecticut Post, "Commission members stressed that the manufacture of such weapons in the state would not be banned."
Well, why not? Couldn't people like Lanza break in and obtain these weapons and cause the same damage? Isn't that what they are selling the people? It's because there is money involved. That's why! These people are hypocrites, nothing more.
It seems that the commission came together, determined that mass shootings always involve guns and that they should be confiscated and banned. They failed to address how those guns were obtained. For instance, Adam Lanza allegedly murdered his own mother to steal her guns. He didn't own any of his own. So all the hoops they have put up for law abiding citizens to jump through would not have stopped Lanza in any respect.
This commission completely ignores not only the US Constitution, but more specifically the State Constitution of Connecticut which reads:

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
That's more specific than the US Constitution! Yet, these tyrants claim it isn't their duty to determine whether they are recommending something lawful.
But apparently this commission believes it will not answer to the people and gave excuses for their claim that they aren't interested in determining whether their recommendations are lawful or not.
Commission chairman and Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson said, "We're not writing proposed legislation. We're writing end results."
Just keep in mind that though these people claimed to listen to parents testifying, they never mentioned the testimony of Mark Mattioli, who lost his six-year-old son at Sandy Hook, who said the problem wasn't guns, but "a lack of civility." They also ignored this testimony and this one.

This commission is not interested in the truth. It's interested in creating more victims and granting more power to an already tyrannical state. They are interested in good intentions, but it seems to me they are merely paving the road to Hell. 

Bottom Line this says it all: