Saturday, March 19, 2016

LISTEN: Leaked Hillary Audio Reveals Her REAL Plan for Guns Once Elected

LISTEN: Leaked Hillary Audio Reveals Her REAL Plan for Guns Once Elected [Read Full Story Here]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is coming for your guns.
Oh, don’t expect her to say that during a campaign speech covered by the media or in an op-ed in The New York Times. But when she’s among friends and doesn’t realize she’s being recorded, she’s apparently a little more open about her plans.
The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained an audio recording of Clinton’s remarks to what was obviously a liberal, anti-gun crowd at a “small private fundraiser in New York” — which is the only kind of crowd to be found at a Clinton fundraiser in New York, most likely.

Clinton told donors that the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment.”
“And I am going to make that case every chance I get,” she added.
Clinton must have felt right at home with the enthusiastic crowd and her Greenwich Village host, convicted felon John Zaccaro. Perhaps after her remarks she sought his advice as to which minimum security federal prisons had the best cafeterias, but that’s only speculation.

Clinton has expressed support in the past for a ban on “assault weapons” similar to the largely ineffectual ban passed by Congress and signed into law by her husband, President Bill Clinton. That ban was allowed to expire under President George W. Bush.
“I was proud when my husband took (the National Rifle Association) on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.
That’s because Bush knew that such bans do little more than impinge upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans — something Clinton, despite her constant claims to be the “experienced” candidate for president, doesn’t appear to have figured out yet.
Clinton also criticized the NRA and promised to work to counter the lobbying influence of the organization.

“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA,” she said. “And we’re going to do whatever we can.”
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” Clinton added.
What she didn’t explain was “why.” Why, exactly, is this idea “just despicable”? How many gun owners have legally carried an AK-47 or similar weapon into a supermarket and committed a crime? Have there been 100 such crimes? A dozen?

Even one?
And if the answer is none — and one would think she’d be spouting examples left and right if she had any examples to spout — then what exactly would the point of a ban on such behavior be?
I think we all know the answer to that question, but you can listen to her comments here (if you can stand it) and decide for yourself:

H/T RedFlag News

“Doors Have Locks, Citizens Have Guns & Countries Have Borders.” AMEN TO THAT, SISTER!


by:Terresa Monroe-Hamilton 

Tomi Lahren gets this exactly right. The Hijrah migration is destroying Europe and Obama is bringing it here. Rape, violence and subjugation come with the unbridled influx of refugees. Just as illegal immigration erases our borders and destroys our sovereignty, so does the mass importation of Muslim refugees. Tomi refers here to Mohammad being the most popular name in the UK. Well, guess what… it’s number one with a bullet in America as well. Our leaders know damn well that ISIS is among those being brought in and they don’t care. This is why Americans are so angry. They want a sovereign country with borders. They are tired of their jobs being stolen by cheap foreign labor and they are sick of an invasion that is literally taking over their country. Trump didn’t just happen, he was created by these elitists because they just don’t care about anything but their own power and wealth.
From Chicks on the Right:
I love this more than words can say.
Americans will protect themselves. They will not be like European sheep. We are armed and we will take down militant Muslims if we have to. These people are not assimilating or integrating… they are conquering. Americans love immigrants. Our country is made up of them, but only when they come here legally. Not by coming over our borders illegally or by being brought in under the cover of asylum. Obama is trying his best to convert America into an Islamic nation. He hates America and wants to make it part of the Ummah. Doors have locks to keep out criminals… citizens have guns to protect those they care about and countries have borders to keep them sovereign. This is why the establishment must be taken down before they finish taking us down.


California Allows Non-Citizens to Vote, Which is Illegal, So Every California Vote should be Disqualified

California Allows Non-Citizens to Vote, Which is Illegal, So Every California Vote should be Disqualified

oped: I will take it a step further...Gov Jerry Brown and his entire administration should be Impeached,arrested and prosecuted for sedition/treason against the United States of America...he along with his father (A previous Gov) have collectively destroyed the former Great State of California! If the California assembly fails to act the FBI should open a investigation on the Seditionist acts of the Jerry Brown political administrations!


The official number of illegal aliens in the state of California is nearly 3 million. We can estimate the number to be more than double this amount in reality.
Over half of all drivers license issued in California were given to individuals who are here illegally and the state automatically registers those with a driver’s license to vote.
In 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed a bill giving full voting rights to illegal aliens. This gives them the right to vote in all elections from a local level to national elections, including that of choosing who will become President.

The biggest problem with this is it is against Federal law for non-citizens to vote in any national election. This in itself negates the votes made by illegal aliens in California and any other state which allows them to vote.
According to the law in California, which gives Illegal aliens the right to vote along with the Federal law that prohibits them from participating in national elections, we must conclude that all votes cast in California for President of the United States be considered null and void. What this means is the state of California's votes, both in the upcoming primaries and the general election, have to be disqualified.
In all fairness to the candidates running for president, and abiding by Federal law, the Federal government simply must prohibit California votes from counting until which time the state can prove that no illegal alien vote was cast in national elections.

The state has the right to permit them to vote in local and state elections if they choose, but not in national elections.
Since the sheer number of illegal aliens voting in California is astounding and is more than likely double that of legal citizens voting, the tally from the primaries must be held up and no delegates awarded.
What we have here in disqualifying California from national elections is, aside from it being against Federal law to allow non citizens to vote, would be keeping people who have no right to be here in the first place from influencing the outcome of elections nationally. The simple fact that they are here in this country illegally supersedes them from having any rights as legal citizens in making decisions as to who runs our country.

No country in the world allows individuals who are non citizens to vote in any election.
It is time the US abides by the constitutional laws of the land or become a nation of chaos where we pick and choose what laws we will obey and disregard the ones we happen not to agree with.
The moral issue is we must stand as a nation of values based on what makes us unique to the rest of the world and refuse to degrade our country to the substandard level socialist politicians wish to sink us to.
If the law is adhered to, the California votes must be ignored.

Lawyers, Trolls and COWS…An Interview with Assemblywoman Michele Fiore


I first met Nevada State Assemblywoman, Michele Fiore, at Bundy ranch. She has been part of the mix, and fighting the good fight, since that fateful day in Nevada when the BLM accosted activists at Bunkerville with AR-15’s, attack-dogs, and tasers. We have come along way since then. It has been a rollercoaster ride that has had both its exhilarating victories and painful defeats, we have seen friends and patriots both killed and arrested. Through it all, Michele has gone above and beyond the call of duty, playing the part of advocate, negotiator, and defender. It is vitally important that we support elected officials who are awake to the issues of Constitutional freedoms and have them be a part of these events as they showcase the credibility of the movement. They are able to reach a demographic of the population that we may not have access to, ourselves. They can also effect the local law making process in very dynamic and positive ways.

In this interview we speak with Michele about 3 very important topics to the Liberty Movement as a whole. First, we discuss the unexpected blessing of labor union attorneys stepping forward to help represent our “political captives,” as Michele calls them. The unions, themselves, have had a number of activists arrested under similar circumstances and realize if the powers that be were left unchallenged, it would set the precedent to allow any activists to be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. What’s more, they have offered this legal representation free of charge. This is incredible news for all of us that have friends and family members behind bars.

We then move to the subject of COWS (Coalition of Western States), a coalition of legislators, statesman, and patriots united to stop unconstitutional actions against United States citizens, and the trolling by the mainstream media and other front groups that has suddenly gone into high gear.

To finish this short interview, we move on to the troubling rumors of another round of indictments being handed down. Allegedly, starting tonight through early next week, more of our fellow patriots have the possibility of being rounded up. This time they are looking to bring in those that had brought a gun to the Bundy Ranch standoff. This is particularly troubling as it could potentially include hundreds (if not thousands) of good Americans that put their work, families, and lives on hold, to travel to Nevada in the hopes of keeping another Ruby Ridge or Waco did not happen. This is information Michele recieved from Pete Santali’s attorney at this week’s proceedings.

Please take the time to watch this interview and share it with your like minded friends and family.

Did Valerie Jarrett Order the Hit on LaVoy Finicum?

by:Tim Brown

As we are digging further into the murder of LaVoy Finicum and the ambush of the protestors from the Oregon refuge and their subsequent arrest, we are finding very disturbing information. On Thursday's Northwest Liberty News radio show, a bombshell from documents Jim White and I obtained indicates that the entire operation of January 26, 2016 goes up not only to Oregon Governor Kate Brown's office, but even to the White House. Because of the language that was used in the documents by the officers, we speculated along with Red Smith of and Paul Preston of that the White House orchestrated the entire thing and that when it comes to calling the shots, we don't look to Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, but rather to Obama's mama, Valerie Jarrett.

First, let me remind you that there are over 600 emails and texts that indicate the Governor Brown was in the loop on everything that was going on in Oregon during the protest at the Malheur Refuge, including some emails and texts that were directly from her. Second, due to newly released documents, we know that at least one Oregon State Trooper specifically acknowledged that the county to which the protesters were traveling on the day of LaVoy Finicum's murder was a well-known "UN free zone." The officer made the statement as though it was common knowledge, so does that mean that Harney County is not a "UN free zone"?
However, in those same documents, we have run across even more chilling and telling statements concerning where the command for the roadblock and the ambush came from.
If you pick up the radio show at the 7:00 mark here, then you will hear Red Smith detail what is in the documents.

In the deposition of another officer, he acknowledged that the authorization for the operation that led to the murder of LaVoy Finicum came from the "highest levels of national command authority."
Now, national command authority in the united States applies to the President and the Secretary of Defense. Smith said he has only heard "national command authority" used in military terms. Keep in the back of your mind that our military has been given propaganda against such Americans as those that gathered at Bundy Ranch in 2014 and those that protested the unconstitutional land grab of the DC government and the Bureau of Land Management.

So, why was there a command coming from the White House regarding a small protest in Oregon? Furthermore, who actually issued that command? It has been said that Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett has been Obama's closest adviser and the she was the one who talked Obama out of the alleged Osama bin Laden hit and later was the one that gave the stand down order in Benghazi. Could she be the one who issued the order for this particular action?
Jarrett is the one that told America that after the 2012 elections, the gloves would come off, and they have.
If the officer's deposition was not enough, among the emails that came from Governor Brown's office, she also made reference her own discussions with "national command authority." Guess who that turned out to be? None other than Valerie Jarrett.

I encourage you to listen to the show as more information was revealed that really is like LaVoy Finicum's widow described as "shocking to the conscience," along with the fact that we reported that John Ritzheimer, who was one of the protestors that was arrested, was finally released on Thursday. The word we are getting, and this came out in the radio show, is that when these people were arrested, they had no idea what to charge them with.
Friends the DC government is out of control. They are criminal, and we don't just need another investigation that doesn't go anywhere like we've had with the IRS, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Extortion 17 and an array of other scandals, we need some justice brought on the heads of these people, and we need it now!

Watch as Establishment Stooge John Kasich Smears Officer as He is Caught Violating the Law in His State (VIDEO)

by:Onan Coca
John Kasich has been the “worst” possible candidate for President in the GOP primary since day 1. Yes, that means that I believe Lindsey Graham and Chris Christie were probably better candidates (not much better, but better nonetheless). I have tried to warn you about him on numerous occasions (most recently here and here), and I wish more conservatives would do a little research on the man before considering casting their votes for him.

However, there are more reasons not to like John Kasich. First, he’s mean, rude and generally unkind. For years, people have been complaining that he’s the kind of person that gives jerks a bad name. Kasich has been described, as “brash,” “a jerk” and as quick to insult those with whom he disagrees. Secondly, he has shown little regard for our police officers in the past. The best example of both of these problems coming together can be found in a video of Kasich.
Watch as presidential candidate John Kasich demagogues police officers everywhere before referring to one in particular as an “idiot.” The worst part… the police officer was right, Kasich was wrong, but Kasich smeared the man anyway.

This video shows a side of Kasich I wouldn’t want being president. There is something to be said about how people treat “the little people” in life. Frankly as much grief as Donald Trump takes, almost every single “little person” who has interacted with him in life has GLOWING praise to speak of him personally. This officer in Columbus, Ohio was very professional with Kasich and 10 days later Kasich bad mouths him in front of the Ohio EPA workers. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are at least vocal about their distaste for police, Kasich seems a bit of a whining snake in this video. Pay your $85 fine and move along dear sir.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, John Kasich does not deserve your support. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing and the sooner he’s out of the picture the better of our Party will be.

Article reposted with permission from Eagle Rising.

Friday, March 18, 2016

For those who don't understand the Metaphor " I shot the Sheriff'..."

"But not the Deputy"..Eric Clapton's cover of Bob Marley's song ... a classic political statement...not meant to encourage violence but to point the proverbial finger at the real problem...the proverbial "Buck stops Here" serfs take orders from their bosses therefore what needs to be done is for the serfs to refuse unlawful orders and to hold those who abuse their authority/status/position proverbial  feet to the fire to include removing them from office for such abuses!

Need I really say more? Nope except people need to dig deep within their souls and stop being sheep led to their slaughter! 

Hit it Eric:

Obama: It's Insane that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns

The nerve! Obama asks taxpayers for raise

obama smirking
oped: I suggest Congress Impeach,arrest and prosecute Obama along with Hillary Clinton for fraud,sedition and treason against 'We the People' retro-actively seize all bank accounts and retrieve all monies paid to these criminals!

President Barack Obama, in his last year in office, seems to already be looking toward retirement — and he’s demanding that U.S. taxpayers give him a big pay raise moving forward.
Since 1958, former presidents have been given a substantial pension by taxpayers, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to cover any expenses they have.
According to a report released Thursday by the Congressional Research Service office, after he left office next year Obama was set to “receive a pension that is equal to pay for Cabinet Secretaries …which for calendar year 2015 was $203,700.”
That’s a lot of money, especially considering that former presidents often make a fortune writing memoirs and on the lecture circuit (Bill Clinton has made $132 million from paid speeches over the past 14 years).

But it’s apparently not good enough for Obama, who is attempting to get himself an even bigger payday on the taxpayer dime.
In his Fiscal Year 2017 budget, Obama requested $3,865,000 in appropriations for expenditures for former presidents, an increase of $588,000 (17.9 percent) from the FY2016 appropriation level.
The proposed increase also includes a bump in Obama’s pension and the pension of other former presidents.
The report also talks about criticism of the Former Presidents Act, which is the law that requires taxpayers to support ex-presidents for the rest of their lives.
“Some critics of the Former Presidents Act say the statute subsidizes Presidents who are not struggling financially,” the report said.
This story first appeared in the Washington Free Beacon.

Obama busted in Clinton email cover-up

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listens at left as President Barack Obama speaks to members of the media during a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, July, 26, 2012.  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Did President Barack Obama’s administration intentionally help hide some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides emails from public record?
Some critics are claiming that the Obama administration couldn’t have just misplaced nearly 100,000 emails and documents from a Clinton aide they claimed they couldn’t find — until a lawsuit seemed to jog their memory.
And it looks like hiding emails and documents that should be public record has become a pattern for the Obama administration.
The website Gawker sued the State Department last year after it claimed it couldn’t find any emails that Philippe Reines, an aide to Clinton and former deputy assistant secretary of state, had sent to journalists. After the lawsuit, the agency said it suddenly discovered 90,000 documents about correspondence between Reines and reporters.

In one email, Reines wrote to a reporter, “I want to avoid FOIA,” referring to the common acronym for Freedom of Information Act requests.
In fact, when it comes to providing government records the public is asking to see in just about any case, the Obama administration set a historic record for “losing track” of them in 2015.
In the final figures released during Obama’s presidency, the U.S. government set a record last year for the number of times federal employees claimed to citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
In more than one in six cases, or 129,825 times, government searchers said they came up empty-handed, according to a new Associated Press analysis.

Under the Obama administration in 2015, the FBI couldn’t find any records in 39 percent of cases, or 5,168 times. The Environmental Protection Agency regional office that oversees New York and New Jersey couldn’t find anything 58 percent of the time. U.S. Customs and Border Protection couldn’t find anything in 34 percent of cases.
“It’s incredibly unfortunate when someone waits months, or perhaps years, to get a response to their request — only to be told that the agency can’t find anything,” said Adam Marshall, an attorney with the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
When the government says it can’t find records, it rarely provides detailed descriptions about how it searched for them — or whether it really searched for them at all. Under the law, federal employees are required to make a reasonable search, but in many cases they seem to be making deliberate efforts to not find files.

“They do really crappy searches,” said Washington lawyer Kel McClanahan of National Security Counselors Inc., which handles transparency and national security cases. He lost a federal appeals case in November on behalf of a U.S. citizen, Sharif Mobley, trying to obtain U.S. records that might show why he has been imprisoned in Yemen since 2010. The court said the FBI wasn’t required to search for files in locations and ways Mobley’s lawyers wanted.
Under the records law, citizens and foreigners can — in theory — compel the U.S. government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas.
Overall, the Obama administration censored materials it turned over or fully denied access to them in a record 596,095 cases, or 77 percent of all requests, including in cases linked to Clinton’s email scandal.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Eric Bolling Hangs Michelle Fields Out To Dry To Satisfy His Master, Donald Trump

Jay Caruso
Is there anybody with any integrity these days who will stand up to Donald Trump and his band of goons? As I wrote on these pages yesterday, Fox News has chosen to throw a good portion its reputation into the toile, thanks largely to people like Eric Bolling who insist over and over again they are not on the “Trump train” and merely giving the GOP frontrunner the same attention any other frontrunner would get.

Eric Bolling’s favoritism towards Donald Trump makes Chris “Thrill Leg” Matthews look like Woodward & Bernstein during Watergate. It is not news, nor is it even commentary when you toss away any semblance of objectivity and replace it with fawning allegiance to one person at the expense of all others.
That allegiance (which is a nice word for it) to Trump by Bolling was no more evident than when Eric apparently told Michelle Fields, to take a hike. Fields was a regular on Bolling’s Fox News show, ‘Cashing In.’ However, with Fields accusing Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski of assault and resigning from the site that has done a disservice to the memory of Andrew Breitbart, it was time for her to get shoved away from Fox as well. From The Daily Beast:

Michelle Fields used to appear weekly on Fox News weekend gabfest Cashin’ In. The show’s host, Eric Bolling, was one of her biggest boosters—giving her a regular spot on his program, promoting her on social media, serving as a key “advocate” for the budding conservative commentator’s career.
But that’s all over now that she dared to get manhandled by Donald Trump’s notoriously shady campaign manager.
After Fields was grabbed and nearly yanked to the ground by Corey Lewandowski, hung out to dry by her own employers at Breitbart News (who later vowed to sue her), and maliciously smeared by the Trump campaign, nearly all of her colleagues at Fox have publicly and repeatedly shared their support. But not Bolling.
Instead, according to multiple sources close to the situation, she received a phone call from Bolling’s producer informing her that she will no longer appear on Cashin’ In.
Fields was told that she’s off the show because she is no longer “impartial” to Trump and therefore cannot speak objectively on his candidacy so long as it’s in the news.

Bolling’s producer said Michelle Fields is no longer impartial to Trump. 
And if this is what Bolling’s producer told Fields, there is only one logical conclusion to reach and that is the order came from Eric Bolling himself. It is after all, his show. He makes these decisions. Bolling accusing Fields of being impartial to Trump is like David Duke saying Westboro Baptist Church is “too bigoted.”
I’m so sick and tired of this. People are getting smeared, losing their jobs and for what? To reap the rewards (ie ratings and clicks) that come with being a Donald Trump sycophant? Is this where the conservative movement is headed? If so, it’s dead already and people just don’t know it.
How long have Republicans and conservatives rightly complained of the mainstream media showing not just favoritism towards Democrats, but outright allegiance to them and hostility to Republicans and conservatives? In that vein, how bad does it look for a television news station to show such favoritism to one political candidate?
The Fox News Channel had enough to deal with from the likes of Media Matters before all of this. This kind of stunt only fuels the fire and Fox News it seems is happy to piss away its’ reputation because Donald Trump brings ratings and therefore, more advertising dollars.
William Devane must be happy.
***** UPDATE ***** – Fox News has responded:

From a FOX News spokesperson:
“There was never any discussion or directive to remove Michelle Fields from the program and certainly not by Eric Bolling. The only recent conversation about her appearances on Cashin In’ was with a show producer last night and they mutually agreed to take her role as a guest panelist on a week to week basis.”

It Is Time To Grow Up And Unite Cruz And Rubio Supporters Behind Ted Cruz

Join or Die 

There are too many in it

Dan McLaughlin 
Ben Franklin, when the time came to sign the Declaration of Independence, remarked that “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” It was the coda to an enormously rancorous debate, in which the members of the Continental Congress were by no means all agreed on how to pursue their grievances with George III and his government, but at the end of which they united on a common course of action from which there was no going back. Conservatives need to take this lesson to heart. Marco Rubio on Tuesday became the 14th candidate to drop out of the Republican presidential race, and after winning 3.39 million votes and three primaries, he was the most successful contender yet to exit the stage, with many devoted followers here at RedState and across the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and the world of blogs and Twitter. Just about all of those supporters – myself included – recognized that Donald Trump represented an existential threat to both the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Now, it is time for all of us to act accordingly. Ted Cruz is the only thing standing between Trump and a nomination that will destroy both the movement and the party and make Hillary Clinton our next President. Both supporters of Rubio and supporters of Cruz need to suck it up and make common cause behind Cruz, or we shall all hang separately.

Sadly, if understandably after a long and bitter primary and while the threat of Trump still has tensions high, far too many people are just not willing to let go of their grudges. Many Rubio fans are still bitter – bitter at being compelled to choose a weaker general election candidate, bitter at some of Cruz’s heavy-handed tactics like making a brief play for Florida without any hope of winning any delegates there, bitter about the months Cruz spent on a strategy of trying to win Trump voters by cozying up to Trump. And many Cruz fans are bitter as well – bitter at Rubio staying in the race and costing Cruz delegates in places like Missouri and Idaho, bitter that Rubio campaigned in Texas, bitter at Rubio getting better press than Cruz after Iowa, or just generally bitter at Rubio over immigration. Some Rubio fans who swore “Never Trump” seem unable to let go and recognize that Cruz is the only “Never Trump” option on the table. 

Some Cruz fans seem dedicated to kicking the Rubio supporters while they are down and continuing to rant against Rubio and his supporters and gripe about the Gang of Eight as if it shot their dog, rather than recognizing that they have won this fight and still need a lot of help to win the ones against Trump and later Hillary. It is especially tragic given not only the stakes but the fact that Cruz and Rubio really only disagree on a fairly small band of issues, fewer than almost any pair of presidential rivals I can remember (there were bigger policy differences even when John McCain ran against George W. Bush in 2000 and against Mitt Romney in 2008). Rubio’s supporters wanted a conservative; they can still have one, just not the one they wanted, or they can sulk and cry about the unfairness of everything. And Cruz supporters who are implicitly or explicitly telling Rubio supporters that you don’t need or want our support sound like a bunch of 3 year olds who missed their naptime. 

You people all need to grow up. The stakes are too high, the threat too grave, the time too short. If Trump wins the nomination, we’ll have decades for recriminations, the kind of recriminations that kept Baby Boomer liberals busy until 1992 after they blew up their movement in 1968.
Rubio himself is coming around, telling his supporters in Minnesota that Cruz is the only conservative left in the race. He can show some leadership by taking the next step, and soon, to openly endorse Cruz and campaign for him, and Cruz can show some grace as well by welcoming that support.
For the Rubio fans, if there is any consolation that provides a chance at a little petty revenge, at least remember this: backing Ted Cruz now is not only the best revenge against Donald Trump and his sneers at “Little Marco,” it’s also the best way to sideline John Kasich, who has been nothing but a thorn in the side of anti-Trump efforts in general and Rubio in particular, even after Rubio helped Kasich win Ohio by explicitly instructing his supporters to take one for the team and vote Kasich (judging both anecdotally and from the exit polls, a fair number of Cruz supporters in Ohio did the same thing). But of course, even then, we will all need the Kasich voters on the Cruz bandwagon, too, just as Rubio needed the Jeb voters and Cruz has needed the Ben Carson voters.

I get that there are some Rubio supporters who genuinely can’t vote for Cruz, mostly over immigration, the main issue on which there was some real fire between the two. Even there, the disagreements are overstated – some Rubio voters preferred Cruz’s immigration stance but preferred Rubio for other reasons, some preferred Rubio’s position mostly out of general-election calculation rather than on principle, and some simply did not regard the issue as one of great importance. But even for those who think Cruz’s immigration stance is too harsh or too politically imprudent for the general election, remember that he still needs to defeat Trump, and even if Trump’s actual immigration policy proposals are opportunistic, implausible and insincere compared to Cruz’s, the fact is that Trump’s rhetoric and public brand are much more anti-immigrant than the son-of-an-immigrant Cruz’s.
The idea that there is no real difference between Cruz and Trump is a combination of monomania and total loss of perspective. Ted Cruz is a devoted champion of the right to life, of limited government, of the Constitution, of everything conservatives hold dear. You may not agree with him on every detail or every strategem, as I don’t, but he is on our side all the way down. And he is a man of great intellect and seriousness of purpose, however wrongly his rhetorical style may rub some of you. Trump is not one of these things.

For the Cruz fans, it’s also important to start accustoming yourself now to reality: Ted Cruz is going to have to make nice with people you don’t like very much if he is going to become the nominee and the President of the United States. His willingness to pursue a months-long d├ętente with Trump was only the first sign of that. That doesn’t mean apologizing to the likes of Mitch McConnell, but it will mean picking a running mate and advisers and later Cabinet members who are not 100% the same as Cruz, and will mean finding ways to bring into the tent the kind of voter who thinks Mitch McConnell is the bees’ knees.
The temptation to wallow in old grievances and keep fighting each other after the bell has rung can be an overwhelming one, but I leave you with the words of Winston Churchill. Hardly anybody in the history of politics had more reason to feel vindicated after years of unfair and unwise criticism – or to blame his predicament on others – than Churchill when he came to power in 1940, even moreso because the worst voices for appeasement – Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain – had been Prime Ministers from his own party. But in his “Finest Hour” speech in June 1940, after the fall of France, Churchill warned Parliament not to dwell on “how we got in this mess” when the wolf was at their door and yet still capable of being beaten by a desperate and determined resistance:

I am not reciting these facts for the purpose of recrimination. That I judge to be utterly futile and even harmful. We cannot afford it. I recite them in order to explain why it was we did not have, as we could have had, between twelve and fourteen British divisions fighting in the line in this great battle instead of only three. Now I put all this aside. I put it on the shelf, from which the historians, when they have time, will select their documents to tell their stories. We have to think of the future and not of the past. This also applies in a small way to our own affairs at home. There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments-and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too-during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine.

Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between Members of the present Government. It was formed at a moment of crisis in order to unite all the Parties and all sections of opinion. It has received the almost unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament. Its Members are going to stand together, and, subject to the authority of the House of Commons, we are going to govern the country and fight the war. It is absolutely necessary at a time like this that every Minister who tries each day to do his duty shall be respected; and their subordinates must know that their chiefs are not threatened men, men who are here today and gone tomorrow, but that their directions must be punctually and faithfully obeyed. Without this concentrated power we cannot face what lies before us.

RUMOR: Marco Rubio MAY Endorse Ted Cruz Today

Republican presidential candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. talk after a Republican presidential primary debate, Thursday, Jan. 28, 2016, in Des Moines, Iowa.

Rumors. Rumors. Rumors. What would a political blog do if it didn’t have rumors to monger.
First, don’t blame me. Blame Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol ‎@BillKristol
AZ: Trump 31, Cruz 19, Rubio 10, 30% undecided. Rubio could endorse Cruz in AZ Friday; Romney to UT for Cruz Monday. 
Is this possible?
Today Ted Cruz is in Phoenix for a rally. He’ll be accompanied by former Texas Governor Rick Perry.
A rapprochement between Cruz and Rubio was hinted at last night when Rubio pointedly noted that Cruz was the only conservative remaining in the race. Arizona votes on Tuesday and if Rubio wants to have an impact this is his best bet. In most polls, Trump leads Cruz by about 12 points, or basically the same level as Rubio’s support.

Cruz Looks to Arizona

AP Image 348449951501
Dan Spencer  

As the Republican presidential primary moves to Arizona, Sen. Ted Cruz is holding a rally at a Phoenix Christian college Friday, and Donald Trump plans a Saturday morning rally in the upscale Phoenix suburb of Fountain Hills. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio hasn’t announced any Arizona visits.
On Wednesday, Cruz was endorsed by Republican  U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, who represents Arizona’s 6th Congressional District: 

My top priority in Congress has always been to do what the Washington insiders simply refuse to do, and that is to reduce the size and cost of government and save our nation from the crushing debt that the Washington politicians have placed on the backs of each and every citizen of our nation. Throughout the never ending battles to do this, Ted Cruz has always been a principled leader fighting to do the very same thing. With a federal debt that is quickly approaching an unfathomable $20 trillion, our country’s future economic growth and prosperity are in grave danger unless we elect a principled conservative who is truly committed to stopping the out of control spending and borrowing that has led us to where we are today.
It’s clear that Ted is the conservative leader that we need as our next president, and my wife Joyce and I are proud to give him our strongest endorsement.  In the upcoming Arizona presidential preference primary, Ted is the clear choice for voters who want a conservative president who is truly committed to fixing the mess in Washington.

Cruz is also supported by Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar. While Trump has the backing of former governor Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Thursday the Cruz for President campaign launched a new TV ad in  Arizona. The ad titled “Grant,” is a 30-second spot that will run statewide in Arizona. The ad features Steve Ronnebeck, whose son, Grant, was killed by an illegal immigrant who was released from jail but not deported. In the ad, Ronnebeck says that he trusts Ted Cruz because he respects the Constitution and that “it’s time we put somebody in office who puts the American people first.” You can watch the ad below: 


“Grant” Transcript:
My son, Grant, was killed working an overnight shift at his job by an illegal immigrant.
He was out on an ICE bond. He should’ve been deported.
My son’s death was completely preventable.
I trust Ted Cruz, he believes in our Constitution. He believes in the rule of law.
It’s time we put somebody in office who puts the American people first.
CRUZ: I’m Ted Cruz and I approved this message.
There is also a 90-second version of  “Grant” which you can watch here.

In addition, the Trusted Leadership PAC, the umbrella group for a cluster of pro-Cruz super PACs, is placing a $580,000 TV ad buy in Salt Lake City, Utah, as well as in Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz., ahead of the March 22 primaries.
Recent Arizona polling included in The Real Clear Politics Average for the Arizona Republican Presidential Primary shows Trump ahead by 13 points:
  • Donald Trump – 34.0%
  • Ted Cruz – 21.0%
  • John Kasich -12.5%
At the Weekly Standard, John McCormack is optimistic about Cruz’ chances in Arizona because the Merrill polling found  that 30 percent of Republicans remain undecided:
Late deciding voters have broken against Trump in almost every state that has voted so far. If enough of these voters and Rubio supporters back Cruz, he could pull off an upset and capture all of Arizona’s 58 delegates.
McCormick also thinks  Trump may have hurt himself among these voters by announcing by showing flexibility on his immigration stance in a recent debate and showing himself to be ignorant about the details of his own immigration plan in an earlier debate. In 2013, Trump suggested he was open to supporting “amnesty” once the border was secure and illegal immigration stopped.
On the other hand, at the Washington Examiner, Gabby Morrongiello reports that the hundreds of thousands of Republicans that have taken advantage of early voting in Arizona, make it even harder for Cruz to win in Arizona. Trump is also helped by the fact that former candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio are still on early voting ballots diluting the Cruz vote.
According to  CNN, Cruz aides predict that 55% of the Arizona vote there has already been cast, and they expect John Kasich to play spoiler and prevent Cruz from overtaking Trump’s early vote lead on election day.

Bernie Sanders tells AZ Sheriff He Should Only Arrest People With ‘The Power to Fight Back’

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally ...
by Caleb Howe
Bernie Sanders holding a rally in Arizona , and in his opening remark, he made an outrageous open statement addressed to Sheriff Joe Arpaio that you have to hear to believe.

"Maybe I just begin by saying to your Sheriff here, Mr. Arpaio: Why don't you pick on people who have the power to fight back." 

Why don't you, Mr. Police Officer, arrest the people who can fight back against you. That's Bernie's message to the cops?
Law enforcement isn't a schoolyard scuffle, Senator Sanders, and the idea is for the police to have more authority and protection than the criminals they are apprehending. For police officers - and their parents and spouses and children - people who fight back are their worst nightmare. It's how officers are killed in the line of duty. Bernie, do you even hear yourself?
What a disgustingly stupid thing to say.

When Sanders made this idiotic comment, he had just been introduced by Katherine Figueroa, who's parents were arrested by Sheriff Joe, as he is often called, during a workplace raid. They were illegal immigrants and eventually faced deportation hearings, the result of which was they were allowed to continue to live and work in the United States. The deportation proceedings were dropped.
They won, in other words. So they had the means to fight back against the lawyers. So who did Bernie think they needed the power to fight back against? The police officers arresting them?
First his supporters attack a Trump rally. Now he wants cops to only arrest people with the power to "fight back." What exactly is Bernie Sanders encouraging in his supporters?

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Documents Show Officers Who Murdered LaVoy Finicum Chose United Nations over US Constitution

oped: see:  In this video you can see the OSP officer shooting LaVoy in the back at close range with a 308 cal rifle.."Overkill"

Documents have surfaced with staggering proof that the LeVoy Finicum shooting was guided by the dark light of the United Nations.
As more layers of the stinking onion keeps getting peeled away from the Malheur Reservation protest and the LeVoy Finicum murder\ federal cover-up, a new document has come into my possession that make 2 points clear, and I mean Crystal Clear: Constitution-loving Americans are the real enemy, and the United Nations propaganda campaign has been deadly effective.

It’s no secret that Americans who oppose the tyrannical reign of a Constitution-hating federal government are seen as the enemy.  Although the examples are copious, for brevity’s sake I am going to highlight just two.  A hat-tip goes to for their fine work on both of the events outlined below.

 Spokane Deputy Promotes MRAP for Constitutionalists 

The clip below went viral and spurred numerous rallies and protests.  The conclusion: Gun-loving Constitutionalists are the enemy, and giant armored trucks are needed to combat them

The MIAC Report
Although the MIAC report is nearly 7 years old, the plan outlined therein seems to be operating quite nicely for our overlords.
MIAC Report
Prelude to Murder
Let’s shift back to 2016 and further examine the incidents which occurred around the aforementioned Malheur Reservation protest, and all of the ancillary events that surrounded it; specifically, the murder of LeVoy Finicum.
On January 26, 2016, LaVoy Finicum, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne and a convoy of fellow protestors were heading to neighboring Grant County to meet with the Sheriff there, Glen Palmer.  Palmer was a vocal supporter of the Ammon Bundy led protest, and is a member of CSPOAAs recorded by Shauna Payne’s mobile device, the convoy was ambushed by law enforcement and fired upon repeatedly.sadly, one of the rounds, a .308, penetrated Mr. Finicum’s heart and ended his life However, did La  SVoy Finicum need to die that day?  And, more importantly, when did Constitutionally-sworn officers decide to trash their oath and follow the United Nations?

Any time an officer discharges their weapons in the line of duty, there needs to be an “after-incident” report filed.  It may be known as something else where you live, but the premise is the same.  A law enforcement officer needs to explain why they discharged their weapon, in writing and/or an interview.  In the LaVoy Finicum murder, the same process was followed by the officers involved; and the subsequent report of said interviews have fallen into my possession.  I want to thank my good friend, Paul Preston of Agenda 21 Radio, for sharing the documents.
U.N. Hit Squads
Some of the officers involved in the LaVoy Finicum murder were called into the offices of the Oregon State Police on 31 Jan, 2016 for interviews.  I will include the link to the entire document below, but for purposes of this article I am going to include a brief excerpt to illustrate the outright treason spoken by “Officer 1.”  Officer 1 was asked if he had any information as to what kind of support, or how many supporters, that Ammon Bundy and friends had in the neighboring city of John Day.  The quote below is how he answered (seen on page 111 of the accompanying document):


Link to Full Officer Testimony Can Be Found BY CLICKING HERE
Is federal law-enforcement beholden to the U.N., or to the US Constitution?  I think that the answer is clear.  I encourage all writers in alternative media to download the PDF of the LaVoy Finicum report, and write your own article based on the information available.  We know that mainstream media will not touch this, so it’s up to all of us.
Article reposted with permission from Northwest Liberty News.


How Donald Trump spends his time at his luxurious 20-acre Mar-a-Lago estate, according to his butler of 30 years

The resort comprises a white and gold ballroom, a spa, six tennis courts, a pool, eight cabanas, and a beach
[ The resort comprises a white and gold ballroom, a spa, six tennis courts, a pool, eight cabanas, and a beach]

  • Anthony Senecal, 74, has been master of the resort for 30 years
  • He says Donald Trump wakes up every morning at 4 to read the papers
  • The GOP frontrunner 'likes his steak rock hard, no one can touch his hair'
  • His ex-wife Ivana 'ordered gardeners away so she could swim naked' 
  • 'Guests have included Hillary Clinton, Tony Bennett, Chris Christie' 

  • Donald Trump rises every morning at 4am after just three hours sleep. 
    He collects five or six newspapers, then retreats for hours before emerging in golf gear. 
    He likes his steak rock hard - 'it would rock on the plate, it was so well done' - and wouldn't be caught dead in swimming trunks as he doesn't like swimming. 
    This is all according to Anthony Senecal, 74, who has been master of Trump's 118-room Mediterranean-style Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, for 30 years and has offered the New York Times a glimpse into his eccentric boss's life. 
    Despite having his own private hair salon on the resort, the GOP frontrunner refuses to let anyone touch his hair, Senecal remarks. 
    When he wears a white cap, he is in a good mood. When he wears a red cap, he is in a bad mood. 
    And over the years he has had a roster of exes who tried - and failed - to put their stamp on the place, including Marla Maples who 'really didn't belong here'.  

    Anthony Senecal, 74, (pictured with Donald Trump) has been master of the 118-room Mediterranean-style resort for 30 years. He says the mogul wears a red hat when he's in a bad mood, and white in a good mood 
    [Anthony Senecal, 74, (pictured with Donald Trump) has been master of the 118-room Mediterranean-style resort for 30 years. He says the mogul wears a red hat when he's in a bad mood, and white in a good mood] 

    Part of the furniture: Senecal at a grand piano in the Mar-a-Lago estate. He tried to retire years ago but Trump kept him on as de facto historian of the resort, which was built in 1927 for Marjorie Merriweather Post 
    [ Part of the furniture: Senecal at a grand piano in the Mar-a-Lago estate. He tried to retire years ago but Trump kept him on as de facto historian of the resort, which was built in 1927 for Marjorie Merriweather Post ] 

    The real estate mogul lives in extremes, Senecal remarks - doling out $100 bills to his groundsmen on a good day, and wheeling off in his golf cart on a gloomy one.
    To lift his mood, Senecal has a roster of tricks. 
    Once, the Times reports, 'Mr. Senecal quickly hired a bugler to play "Hail to the Chief" as Mr. Trump stepped out of his limousine to enter Mar-a-Lago.'
    And, he reveals, he refers to Trump as 'king': 'You can always tell when the king is here.'
    Indeed, the resort is regal. 
    It comprises a white and gold ballroom, a spa, six tennis courts, a pool, eight seaside cabanas, and a private beach. 

    And after the real estate mogul bought the estate in 1985, he turned the library into a bar and hung a painting of himself, in tennis whites, on the wall.
    Over the years, the resort has played host to all kinds of wealthy, rich, famous, and powerful pass through the resort.
    Hillary Clinton dropped by for Trump's 2005 wedding to his current wife Melania, he said, adding that Tony Bennett performed. 
    That year, Oprah Winfrey threw a party for Maya Angelou at the resort. 
    Now, Chris Christie is a regular feature on the sun loungers. 
    He also gives his two cents on the ex-wives that tried and failed to put their stamp on the estate.
    Ivana ordered gardeners to move inside so she could swim naked, Senecal recalled to the Times.
    Marla Maples 'really didn't belong here'.  

      Marla Maples 'really didn't belong here', Senecal said in his scathing review of Trump's ex-wives 
    [Marla Maples 'really didn't belong here', Senecal said in his scathing review of Trump's ex-wives ] 

    Ivana Trump would order gardeners to move inside so she could swim naked in the pool, Senecal recalled 
    [Ivana Trump would order gardeners to move inside so she could swim naked in the pool, Senecal recalled ] 

    Having dropped his butler duties to become the resort's de facto historian, Senecal often calls out Trump for embellishing the truth about the estate built for Marjorie Merriweather Post in 1927.
    He tells the Times that Trump once claimed the tiles in Ivanka's room were made by a young Walt Disney, which is not true.
    He also describes cushioning the mogul's ego by lying about how far he hit a golf ball.
    All the demands and eccentricities are worth it for Senecal, who regularly posts 'Trump For President' memes on social media. 
     You can always tell when the king is here
    Trump's butler Anthony Senecal 
    He is a member of Facebook groups such as 'The Trump Tsunami Is Coming' and 'The Trump Revolution'.
    Gushing about the mogul-turned-politico, he says he regularly walks through the resort handing $100 bills to the Hispanic ground-keepers. 
    Before taking up his role, Senecal worked in a number of different industries - restaurant owner, school teacher, radio host, tobacco shop owner, before retiring to Florida where he was scouted to be a butler. 
    He also took a brief hiatus from his role in the Trump estate to serve as mayor of Martinsburg, Virginia, from 1990 to 1992.
    His policy proposals included forcing all panhandlers to carry a $25 begging license - a move Trump allegedly praised. 
    However, he is now content back in his life at Mar-a-Lago, and reflects fondly on watching Trump's children grow up. 
    He tried to retire in 2009, but was dissuaded by Trump who said: 'Tony, to retire is to expire'.  

Oath Keeper, Sheriff Brad Rogers

The term “constitutional sheriff” is used often within the Liberty Movement. It is just as often used used by those that would try to lambaste the movement as well. I think that there are a lot of folks out there that do not fully understand what is really meant by the title of “Constitutional Sheriff.”  It is my belief that the office of a duly elected County Constitutional Sheriff truly is one of our most powerful defenses against the overreach of bureaucratically appointed, alphabet soup, agencies into our home counties. A well informed Sheriff can keep those that would wish to overreach their authority at bay, right there at the county line better than any other single agency. I had a chance to see this strategy at work, first hand, while helping Constitutional Sheriff Denny Peyman, of Jackson County, Kentucky, when his funding had been stripped by the local Chief Executive, after Sheriff Peyman had arrested him on corruption charges.

oped: However the Bundy Ranch event escalated to Oregon then had a bad ending a mini Waco event... No OathKeepers were present see:
I first met Sheriff Brad Rogers, of Elkhart County, Indiana, while I was at Bundy Ranch, covering the event for alternative media. Out of all the public officials and law enforcement that traveled from across to country, to help ensure that another “Waco event” didn’t happen on our watch, I had the least time to interact with Brad. I am glad to have had a chance to catch up with him while working on this piece. In the following interview, we discuss why Brad was first drawn to law enforcement as a career choice and his first awakening to what it means to be a “Constitutional Sheriff.” We discuss some of his more notable battles that he fought, and won,  in Elkhart County, Indiana, against the FDA and other agencies, while protecting the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens. We also discuss his thoughts on the stand off in Oregon and the following repercussions.

There were 3 in total that I met there at Bundy Ranch, and all struck me as men that walk tall. Each of them relating to me the most incredible stories of how they were all serving and protecting the people of their counties. Sheriff Brad Rogers, Sheriff Denny Peyman, and Sheriff Jeff Christopher are all very dynamic and unique characters, but they are united by the bond of being driven to do what they felt was right. They all strive to keep their constituents safe from the IRS, FDA, and any other federal agency they feel are not following the supreme law of the land, and overreaching their authority to victimize the people of their counties. This is part one of a three-part series interviewing these sheriffs that were on the ground at Bundy Ranch. Please watch for the other two interviews to be released soon

Jason Van Tatenhove
National Media Director / Associate Editor, Oath Keepers

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The States Created the Federal Government - Not the Other Way Around

For some time now, many have voiced the notion that federal law always trumps state law. According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, this is false.
Numerous federal agencies have imposed unconstitutional regulations, which carry the same impact and consequence as law. Many of these regulations limit our liberty and literally choke the life out of America’s small businesses.

As Article VI, clause 2, states, “This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.” Additionally, according to Article I § 1, only Congress can make law. Therefore, many executive orders, judicial opinions, and federal regulations not enacted by Congress or made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution are not legitimate law.
The “Father of the Constitution” James Madison described the doctrine of “anti-commandeering” in Federalist #46. “Anti-commandeering” simply means the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will. States are responsible to maintain their sovereignty in order to keep our Republican form of government, guaranteed in Article IV, § 4.

Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center points to the following four Supreme Court decisions from 1842 to 2012 which firmly established Madison’s “anti-commandeering” doctrine:
PRIGG v. PENNSYLVANIA (1842) Justice Joseph Story wrote the majority opinion concerning the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that the federal government cannot coerce the states to enforce federal law.

Story wrote, “The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.”
NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES (1992) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985. The law violated the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE of New York because “ [it] offers the States a ‘choice’ between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives–either accepting ownership of waste or ANTI-COMMANDEERING DOCTRINE regulating according to Congress’ instructions–the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.”

Justice O’Connor continued, “As an initial matter, Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program…While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.”
PRINTZ v. UNITED STATES (1997) The Brady Gun Bill required that county law enforcement officers administer part of the background check, thus providing local enforcement of a federal program.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority opinion, “…it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme…We held in New York [v. United States] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of DUAL SOVEREIGNTY.”

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS (2012) The federal government attempted to force states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for their Medicaid programs.
Justice John Roberts held that punishing states by coercing them to participate in a federal program violates the separation of powers. Roberts wrote, “The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract’. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the STATES AS INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS in our federal system. That system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ For this reason, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. Otherwise the TWO-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”
The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment appears to be simple enough. If the short list of less than 20 “powers” is not specifically listed in Article 1, § 8 as a federally delegated responsibility, then the individual States or the people reserve that authority. Is healthcare on the list? Business? Jobs? Wages? Education? Marriage? Abortion?

The States and the people created the federal government and determined its responsibilities - not the other way around. Constitutionally, States do not need permission from the federal government to take action. State legislatures must pro-actively enforce State sovereignty on behalf of the people they represent.
Our Constitution guarantees to all Americans in every state a Republican, representative form of government with separation of powers in order to maintain dual sovereignty. This foundational principle of liberty is unique to America’s form of government and is essential to our freedom.
*Article by Michael Moon and Karen Lees

Two Wealthy Texas Muslims Found Guilty of Slavery Tell Judge that punishing them would be “Islamophobic” – Judge Bans them from US


oped: Hassan al Homoud is a Qatari Military Officer who received training in Texas Hassan al-Homoud received military training at San Antonio's Camp ...

by: Tim Brown 
Two wealthy Texas Muslims have been found guilty of engaging in forced labor or two "servants," otherwise known as slaves. However, the judge in the case was told that to punish them would amount to nothing more that "islamophobia," which has been shown to be a ridiculous argument. The judge, however, decided they needed a lesson in law and banned them from the united States.
US Chronicle reports  
Hassan al-Homoud, 46, and his wife Zainab al-Hosani, 39, pleaded guilty to the crimes of holding a person against their will, and forced labor, otherwise known as SLAVERY. They tried to convince the judge that their actions were acceptable because their Prophet Muhammad, the creator of the religion of Islam, kept slaves of his own. Therefore, any punishment that they received would be Islamophobic.

District Judge Orlando Garcia was having none of that. Nor did he chance having the couple go to an American prison where they might be out on good behavior, and then possibly resume their religion inspired actions. He knew that, as followers of Sharia Law, the couple posed a danger to the United States, and as such, banished them from the country. Before they left, however, the judge ordered that the slave-owners pay each of their victims a sum of $60,000 to compensate their efforts. 

According to the complaint prepared by Homeland Security's Special Agent Edward Acuna, the problems are believed to have begun when al-Homoud applied for visas for two individuals, one from Indonesia, and the other from Bangladesh. 

While al-Homoud claimed in the application that the two would be paid as a housekeeper and personal servant, the fact is that he paid them nothing.
According to the complaint the two women were living in absolute squalor. They were provided no toilet paper and only minimal amounts of food. Additionally, while no television was provided, which is no big deal, the women were also provided no clean linens and no furniture or books. Furthermore, the women were only allows a few blankets and pillows to be used on the floor.
Both women, according to the complaint were not allowed to have cell phones and possessed no money. These two women were also transported each day to the resident of al-Homoud and his wife where they were forced to obey their every command. Furthermore, they were only allowed to eat from the family's leftovers, and they were also forbidden to use the family's bathroom to relieve themselves.

If this were not heinous enough, al-Homoud would store his slaves in a plastic box in his garage until he desired to use them again. In other words, al'Hamoud was simply being a good Muslim by following in the steps of Muhammad. He followed the Sharia.
While many Black Americans claim they are slaves, they don't have a clue as to the slavery that is the doctrine of the Islamic totalitarian religion. Blacks in America are free if they accept the responsibility of living as free men and women, but concerning the teachings of Islam, many are left hopeless and abandoned in what can only be described as a living hell.
Last year Pieder Beeli covered the issue of Islamic slaver in a series of article which you can read here, here, and here. Friend, his columns were about the Islamic slavery that was uncovered in 2013.
We are now talking about Islamic slavery in 2016 in the united States of America. On top of that, we are talking about Islamic slavery in the great state of Texas!