Saturday, December 7, 2013

Military Prying Our Guns From Our Cold Dead Hands – One of Obama’s Ideal New Military Leaders Speaks

Military Prying Our Guns From Our Cold Dead Hands – One of Obama’s Ideal New Military Leaders Speaks

449 military on the porch of house confiscating guns


I just recently came upon an example of the type of military officer that Hussein Obama is seeking out as part of his new “post-purge” military.
The Army officer, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, in words reminiscent of B. Hussein Obama’s comments, writes of his professional killing expertise. Of course, when the Lt. Col. says the he’s really good at killing, it’s much more believable.
His take on the second amendment is that the average citizen and his neighbors who are not military guardsmen are not entitled to the same freedoms under the Constitution that he is. He is saying that the second amendment right to bear arms is only for those composing a “well regulated militia.” In essence, that there are two Bills of Rights, one with ten amendments for him and the military, and another for civilians which has nine amendments.
I might further mention to the Lt. Col. that while he has been plying his trade in foreign countries, substantive arguments could be made as to whether it was in the defense of his nation or as a tool of an imperialistic cadre disguised as a government, acting on behalf of commercial interests under the guise of national security.
A lot of lives have been lost and a lot of damage has been done to avenge the acts of 19 U.S. trained “foreign terrorists.”
His argument, in effect, makes the holders of nine rights subservient or of a lesser class of citizenry than his group which has ten. By his interpretation, we should be unarmed or less sufficiently armed while he is given the right to own firearms of his choosing, in essence giving control over us to him and his ilk.
That type of thinking exposes one of the dangers that the second amendment was created to protect us from.  The average citizens don’t want or need this trained Army officer patrolling our streets. We don’t really need him overseas fighting for multi-national corporate interests in our name either. We are fully capable of responsible gun ownership and the exercise of our freedoms at home on our own behalf.
He speaks of how great things are in Britain; how the rate of gun deaths is lower because they are an unarmed society. He doesn’t quote any statistics regarding the number of assaults, murders by other lethal means, rapes, muggings, or any of the other crimes which are easily prevented by armed citizens protecting themselves.
In order to get the full picture, one needs to remember that gun deaths reported include incidences of self defense, police shootings, gang violence, and many deaths other than the perceived misuse by an average otherwise law-abiding citizen.
It would also be helpful to the argument to consider that rapes are 125% higher in the U.K., and that assaults are 133% more prevalent in the United Kingdom. Another, more ambiguous but telling statistic is how safe people feel walking in the dark. The U.K. ranks 12th, America is 2nd.  These statistics are taken from NationMaster and are purported to be continually updated from multiple international sources, including United Nations agencies.
As he speaks from his pinnacle, of how he deserves and is entitled to more rights than we non-soldiers, maybe he needs to be reminded that he is getting paid and will receive retirement pay and other benefits in exchange for his service. All of the funding for his compensation comes from those he sees as having lesser rights than he. His employment is made possible by us. His position of perceived entitlement is granted by us.
He clouds the purely American issue of our right to bear arms by lamenting his inability to defend American gun violence to his British friends. I am not concerned with his personal difficulties relating to the locals and it is a totally irrelevant argument to the domestic issue of American citizens and their rights as sovereigns under the United States Constitution.
The American people have a right to defend themselves from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Those enemies can take on a variety of forms, from individual civilian criminals to a criminal government, to a criminal military. The only real protection we have from any of those potential threats is the right to be a threat in return. A right to forcibly end bad behavior if the need presents itself.
449 miltary threat charleston heston right to bear arms cold dead hands
Lt. Col. Bateman and other like-minded individuals who choose to tread on my rights and those of my fellow Americans will just have to deal with the reality that the Constitution was written to protect all of us from people who think it was written just for them. We all have a ten amendment Bill of Rights.
The Lt. Col.’s position on how to deal with the rest of us, as outlined in Esquire.com is below:
“Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not “upset enough” over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following “Gun Plank” to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:
1. The only guns permitted will be the following:
•          a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
•          b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
•          c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs — or the jobs of some other cops — harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide “buy-back” program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.”
Thank you, Lt. Col. for exposing the dangers of depending upon a military for our domestic security.
Please scroll to the bottom of this page for more posts from Rick Wells, or to “Like” him on Facebook.

Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits

Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits


Although the jobless rate in November fell to its lowest level since he took office, President Obama called on Republican lawmakers Saturday to spend tens of billions on unemployment benefits that are set to expire this month.
“It shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. But he said the “economic lifeline” is in jeopardy.


“All because Republicans in this Congress — which is on track to be the most unproductive in history — have so far refused to extend it” Mr. Obama said.
If Congress doesn’t act before lawmakers leave on their holiday break, about 1.3 million unemployed Americans will see their benefits run out. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would cost taxpayers about $26 billion to extend the benefits through next year.
The jobless rate in November dropped from 7.3 percent to 7 percent, its lowest level of Mr. Obama’s presidency. But the president said that’s no reason to cut off benefits for those still out of work.
“The hole that we’re still digging out of means that there are still millions of Americans looking for work — often because they’ve been laid off through no fault of their own,” Mr. Obama said. “These are people we know. They’re our friends and neighbors.”
Congressional negotiators are closing in on a deal to end the so-called “sequester” budget cuts and increase spending in 2014. But so far the potential deal doesn’t include an extension of unemployment insurance.
Most economists say unemployment benefits help the economy because recipients spend the money quickly on daily household needs.
“If Congress refuses to act, it won’t just hurt families already struggling – it will actually harm our economy,” the president said. “Unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways there is to boost our economy.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Iran forging ahead with uranium enrichment technology

Iran forging ahead with uranium enrichment technology

By REUTERS
12/07/2013 22:54

Development does not appear to contravene interim agreement but material can provide fissile core of nuclear bomb.

Centrifuges unveiled in Natanz
Centrifuges unveiled in Natanz Photo: REUTERS
DUBAI - Iran is moving ahead with testing more efficient uranium enrichment technology, a spokesman for its atomic energy agency said on Saturday, in news that may concern world powers who last month agreed a deal to curb Tehran's atomic activities.
Spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying that initial testing on a new generation of more sophisticated centrifuges had been completed, underlining Iran's determination to keep refining uranium in what it says is work to make fuel for a planned network of nuclear power plants.
Although the development does not appear to contravene the interim agreement struck between world powers and Iran last month, it may concern the West nonetheless, as the material can also provide the fissile core of a nuclear bomb if enriched to a high degree.
"The new generation of centrifuges was produced with a higher capacity compared with the first generation machines and we have completed initial tests," Kamalvandi was quoted as saying.
"The production of a new generation of centrifuges is in line with the (Iranian atomic energy) agency's approach of upgrading the quality of enrichment machines and increasing the rate of production by using the maximum infrastructure facilities".
Kamalvandi said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been informed of the development.
Iran's development of a new generation of centrifuges - machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope - could enable it to refine uranium much faster.
Under the Nov. 24 interim accord with the six world powers, Iran promised not to start operating them or install any more for a period of six months. But the agreement seems to allow it to continue with research and development activity at a nearby Natanz pilot plant.
Iran earlier this year stoked the West's worries by starting to install a new centrifuge - the IR-2m - at its Natanz enrichment plant. Iran is testing the IR-2m and other models at its research and development facility at Natanz.
Kamalvandi did not specify whether the new centrifuge model he was referring to was the IR-2m.
It is currently using a 1970s model, the IR1, to refine uranium at the main Natanz plant and its efforts to replace this breakdown-prone centrifuge are being closely watched.
Some experts believe the IR-2m can enrich uranium 2-3 times faster than the IR-1.
UN inspectors arrived

Report: Carl Gallups Says Obama Has No Hawaiian Birth Certificate; Hearings?


Breaking: Carl Gallups: 
Obama “Has no Hawaiian Birth Certificate”
AND “IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS”
By Sharon Rondeau | The Post & Email

(Dec. 6, 2013) — On his “Freedom Fridayradio show, host Carl Gallups and guest Dr. Grace Vuoto were discussing Obama’s illegal-alien uncle, Onyango (Omar) Obama, who has been allowed to stay in the United States after defying a deportation order decades ago.

Carl Gallups is a pastor, radio show
host, writer and former deputy sheriff
After Vuoto mentioned that Onyango failed to return to his country of origin when ordered, at approximately 6:15 p.m. EST, Gallups responded that “we don’t know where Obama is from.”  He added that he “knows a lot about that” but couldn’t elaborate, referring to the investigation conducted by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse which concluded that Obama’s documentation is fraudulent.

Gallups punctuated his comments with, “He has no Hawaiian birth certificate; I can tell you that.”

Gallups then said that Obama has lied about many issues such as Benghazi, Obamacare, whether or not he knew Onyango, the narrative of which changed after Onyango told the press that his nephew had lived with him for three weeks after beginning classes at Harvard Law School.

“And he’s lied about his birth certificate,” Gallups concluded, indicating that Congress would be compelled to take action.  He and Vuoto then referred to a hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday in which the hypothetical impeachment of Obama was raised in answer to congressional members’ questions about actions which could be taken in the absence of court responsiveness or legislation.

Gallups has been reporting on the work of the Cold Case Posse to the extent that he is able to make information public and has called Obama “a fraud.”

Vuoto said that “each day,” Americans are losing freedoms, to which Gallups responded that the U.S. is becoming like “Cuba,” “China” and other repressive countries.

Vuoto related knowledge of an interview conducted between Barack and Michelle Obama and Barbara Walters in which Walters reportedly told Obama that “people don’t trust you.”  Vuoto reported that Walters had intimated that Michelle “would have made a better president” than her husband.

It was Vuoto’s opinion that Walters did “the most humiliating interview of a sitting president.”

Vuoto is editor of the Culture and Politics section of World Tribune and is a regular guest on Gallups’ show.

At 6:30 p.m. EST, an advertisement on Gallups’ show said in a woman’s voice, “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii” in what appeared to be a spoof.  When Gallups resumed the broadcast, he chuckled and said, “There’s no gaslighting going on now here, is there?” in an apparent reference to the media’s failure to report on the birth certificate forgery.

Source link. © 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Obama Asks Supreme Court To Destroy First Amendment

Obama Asks Supreme Court To Destroy First Amendment

Obama-Golden-Calf-Liberal-Media-SC


When you think of President Obama, how far do you think he would go to control the masses? Do you think he would make a move and ask the Supreme Court of the United States to destroy the First Amendment protections of the media? How about removing Fox, CBS, NBC, or ABC news crews off TV? How about print media such as the Washington Times, New York Post, LA Times, or Houston Chronicle? What about internet media like the Blaze, the DC, or even the Free Patriot?
According to him, any journalist that seeks a profit from the news is tainted, and he would use that justification to remove that “privilege”.
As the Washington Times reports, don’t laugh. This is exactly the kind of state ran media corps he is asking for and the dangers of his request. The Obama Administration is using this “ground breaking” theory in their arguments to the supreme court!
The threat is carefully-camouflaged within the legal briefs filed to defend Obamacare in the Hobby Lobby case. At the core of its argument that Hobby Lobby must provide abortion-inducing “birth control” to its employees, the government claims that for-profit corporations have no First Amendment rights. Only individuals do. Plus non-profits.~ Washington Times
Therefore Bill O’Reily would get his individual Constitutional rights, as would Glenn Beck, Rachelle Maddow, George Stephanapolous, Matt Lauer, Diane Sawyer, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Marc Levin, and Brian Williams. Other’s that deliver internet media or talk radio would have rights as individuals as well. However, the companies that each and every one of these individuals work for would not have any freedoms granted by the Constitution unless they restructured into a non profit corporation. That way the only news media left that could damage his reputation would be NPR and PBS.
Then here is the kicker. None of the persons as individuals would be protected from being spied upon by the NSA. None.
Now to be fair, we agree, corporations are not people. As the liberal leaning Times points out:
To be fair, the Solicitor-General’s pro-Obamacare briefs in Sebelius versus Hobby Lobby do not single-out First Amendment free speech and free press rights; but they don’t exclude them either when they argue that First Amendment freedom of religion rights should be denied to for-profit corporations. Yet since when do any Constitutional rights hinge on whether an entity is a for-profit corporation? It’s a novel argument and a chilling one. If the Supreme Court accepts the idea it would set legal dominoes falling as other rights toppled. Once it’s the basis for limiting one First Amendment right, it becomes a sinkhole where other First Amendment rights disappear.~ Washington Times
Our First Amendment rights are a protection placed by the framers of our Constitution in the Bill of Rights to protect us from becoming a state ran media or a Theocracy. It states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It grants us the freedom to worship how we want, express our opinions, gives the media the right to report what is going on, and to have the government listen to our grievances.
But what about the businesses we work for? Do they not deserve some sort of protection as well? We do function under capitalism. Our work is a major part of our lives. We do the businesses work, we accomplish the business goals, we control the finances, and we are the ones that make it function. So in a closely held or small business, does it not represent us as well?
Hobby Lobby is not a small business but it is a closely-held business, a subchapter-S corporation owned by just seven members of the David and Barbara Green family. By disregarding this, and demagoguing purely against the supposed evil of for-profit corporations, Obama’s lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that would be used to claim that all our First Amendment rights are lost whenever we choose to work through the medium—the tool—of a business structure.
Disparaging the profit motive has been a long-time goal of the American Left; now they want it ratified by a Supreme Court decision. That would demote businesses to the lowest caste in America’s previously-classless society. They would become outcasts. Pariahs.” ~ Washington Times
While it is strange hearing this from the Washington Times, they have a point.
It is no secret that President Obama has been chipping away at First Amendment rights in this country. While this isn’t as direct and blunt as telling Military Chaplains he will arrest you if you conduct mass, it is still just as vile of an attack.
These are Stalin like tactics. Demonize those that seek to earn a profit, for they are taking away from the poor! Usually this ends up showing his socialist side while trying to make anyone that makes money providing goods and services look bad. Truthfully, he has done it for five years and usually the people either buy off on it, or see right through the Alinsky tactics.
The Washington Times has some good primary examples and an excellent analysis of the current fundamental battle being held.
For example, in arguing for health care reform in July 2009, Obama urged that medical professionals and insurance companies should not be trusted. He told ABC News, “A whole lot of people are having bad experiences because recommendations are coming from people who have a profit motive.” That same summer he accused doctors of performing unnecessary surgeries, even amputations, due to greed.
While the Occupy Wall Street movement has fought American businesses, Obama has led an Occupy America movement, railing against political speech by corporations. His infamous 2010 State of the Union remarks condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case that protects issue-related advertising by corporations. Corporate ads on behalf of a candidate for office remain illegal, although Obama often fudges over that important distinction.
But while he condemns corporate speech and restricts White House press, Obama freely spends public funds for propaganda, including an estimated $684-million to promote Obamacare, according to Associated Press calculations.
Hobby Lobby sued on principles of religious freedom and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that requires government to accommodate those principles. Instead of accommodating them, the Obama Administration saw a chance to expand restrictions on religious freedom.
The effort is being coordinated. For example, Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D, WI), last week said, “The First Amendment, we revere it. It protects the rights of religious schools, churches, places of worship. And I think that the sanctity of that is something we all appreciate as Americans. The Hobby Lobby is not one of those institutions.”
So, according to Moore, any type of religious activity at Hobby Lobby has zero First Amendment protection?
Does she know that each year Hobby Lobby purchases hundreds of newspaper ads at Easter and Christmas, inviting people “to know Jesus as Lord and Savior”? They even post a collection of their ads online (link). The official corporate statement of purpose includes “[h]onoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The company foregoes tens of millions of dollars of annual revenue by closing each of their hundreds of stores every Sunday. They provide chaplains and spiritual counseling to all 13,000 workers. They provide insurance to workers which includes 16 of the 20 contraceptives that Obamacare says they must. But not the four that actually terminate a pregnancy. For that, they face fines that could be $1.3-million each day.
Those details don’t matter to the Left. They are blind except to the dirty words, “for-profit.” But they glorify non-profits, as though non-profit or “non-partisan” means better-intentioned and clearer-thinking. In truth, neither for-profit nor non-profit is automatically good or bad.
The Left poses the issue like this: Religious liberty is for people, not corporations. Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Project writes, “a business corporation lacks the basic human capacities — reason, dignity and conscience — at the core of the right to free exercise of religion,” adding, “Have you ever seen Exxon Mobil in the pew next to you at church?” Of course, those identical points could be raised about non-profits as well. Posing arguments in her way misses the point.
Here is a better analysis: Corporations are legitimate and convenient tools that individuals use to accomplish their purposes. We don’t restrict religious use of other tools on the grounds that they lack a conscience. To accomplish our religious purposes, we can use a car rather than walk, or use radio and television rather than speaking only person-to-person. Rather than asking whether a corporation is for-profit, a better test is whether it’s a legitimate tool or instrument. For a family of seven devout Christians, their closely-held subchapter-S corporation, Hobby Lobby, can be used by them the same as their other personal assets, consistently with their religious faith. For companies in similar circumstance, or which are instrumentalities of churches and religious orders, Obamacare exemptions should apply. Multiple courts have agreed and so should the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, CBS, with thousands of shareholders, would have a more difficult challenge in claiming a religious exemption because they would be hard-put to demonstrate religious purpose and activitty. But they should have no difficulty with their claim to other Constitutional protections, once the Obama “for-profit corporation” test is rejected.
It’s frightening to grasp the audacity of the government briefs in the Hobby Lobby case, and the boldness of the new limits on Constitutional freedoms which they could sneak in if the Supreme Court approved “for-profit” as a new boundary line for rights.
The government brief also repeats a common nonsense argument that is heard so often that people rarely think it through. The claim is that an employer, by not providing contraceptives, is “imposing their religious views on their employees.” No. The employer is refusing to let the government impose its view upon the employer. If somebody compels you to perform an action, they are imposing upon you. When you refrain from taking an action, you are not imposing on anybody.
We have had too much imposed on us already from the first Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. Fortunately, even after the Hobby Lobby case, more challenges to Obamacare are in the legal pipeline. An important action by the State of Oklahoma. And multiple lawsuits by Catholic-affiliated institutions. It’s just too bad that the White House gets a bottomless pit of taxpayer money to fight against them. And uses the money to ask for outrageous new restrictions on our rights. ~ Washington Times

[Watch] DHS Warrantless Search and Seizures – No 4th Amendment Within 100 Miles of Any US Coast or Border

448 border map


In this video, two vehicles in communication with each other are pulled into a newly installed vehicle inspection lane at the Galveston Island ferry entrance.
This ferry does not operate internationally. It operates between Port Bolivar and Galveston Island, both in the state of Texas.
DHS doesn’t need a reason to search a vehicle or your person or your personal effects. They have decreed that the fourth amendment protections no longer apply within one hundred miles of any United States border.
There doesn’t even need to be a foreign nation on the other side of that border. The enforcement of oceanfront borders can be conducted in the same manner, according to DHS policy.
One hundred and ninety-seven million people live within the one hundred mile band within the U.S., which means, for over half of our population, they are living without their fourth amendment protections from illegal search and seizure.
This has been the case since 2008, when George W. Bush announced the Department of Homeland Security policy. The DHS determined that it would give itself the authority to seize electronics and their contents of any type, from any individual, without cause and without a warrant as part of border security. They then applied the 100 mile definition to broadly interpret the meaning of the word “border.”
A subsequent review, which was to have been completed, by the DHS, of its own policy was finalized after four years. Unsurprisingly, they upheld the policy as legitimate. Aside from one ACLU challenge, there has been little activity on this issue and virtually no publicity.
This is just more of the endless encroachment of the police state into our lives and more of an assault upon our freedoms as American citizens. We will not see any of these checkpoints disappear. We will surely see more of them as the expansive network of control by the controlling central government creates the framework for the modern police state in America.
Please scroll to the bottom of this page for more posts from Rick Wells, or to “Like” him on Facebook.

Sociopath on the Loose


It’s time to speak up, speak out and clarify who Barack Obama really is and what he’s done in five years in an attempt to destroy our Nation.  Let’s call a “Spade a Spade” now, to heck with what someone has conjured up as to what is and what isn’t politically correct.  Don’t know about you but I tossed the “Damn” race card out in 2008 when Obama and the Liberal news media were shoving it down our throat in 2008.
What you will read in this article has nothing to do with race, color of skin, financial status or Political Party.  It is strictly based on cold hard facts depicting how a corrupt politician and his cohorts brought change to our awesome Nation.  It’s all about misrepresentation, manipulation and selfish control to attain one’s goals.
When facing a critical problem, first one must discover the source.  That’s pretty darn easy – look no further just take a jaunt over to our White House.  Here you’ll find a group of like - minded people spawned from Alinsky, Socialists, Communists and extremists who have been working 24/7 to take over our Nation.
The Commander and Chief leads this pack from a distance, never getting his hands dirty, not even rolling up his sleeves because those serving him have waited for years for the Obama God to arrive in their midst. They have infiltrated our Government, our schools and our courts patiently waiting to make their move to destroy America as we know it.
To me I say it’s time to cut to the chase and call a “spade a spade.”  One word describes Barack Obama – no it isn’t sugar coated or suggestive it aptly depicts and identifies him.  SOCIOPATH
A Sociopath
A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others.  A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way).  Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others.  Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.
Recently Obama said this, “the issue of inequality drives everything I do in this office. There you are folks in a nutshell we have an Alinsky sociopath running our Country. He isn’t here to protect or defend this great Nation – no he’s here to methodically create a big Government turning the people into his workabees.
He will do all of the above via redistribution and he’s off to a good start via our stimulus money, Obamacare, filtering funds to his half – brother and Auntie too!  His blooming spending just goes on and on… 
While he’s doing this inequality stuff he steals our money to pad the bottomless pockets of the Unions, EPA, his big contributors, his buddies involved in the “Green Scam,” the not so famous Czars, the Muslim Brotherhood and Eastern Countries who are murdering Christians and the innocent.
So it’s time to remove our shackles and stand up to this person some refer to as “Mr. President.”  First, notify the House that there will be no more spending – they can live within their means.
 Next tell Congress we the people want Obama’s charge card and we the people don’t want any more money sent to any foreign Countries at this time – we want that money spent on our ugly National Debt. 
Another FYI for the House and Senate is this: we don’t want Obamacare or a single payer system never did.  We want the Government to stay out of our personal business – no more spying on us, no more IRS meddling and no more accumulated debt.
Obama we quit – no longer will we bend under your dictates and Executive Orders.  You’ve worn out your welcome and it would be best for our great Nation if you’d quietly resign and find a new Country. 
As Always,
Little Tboca
Views: 525

More Tax Dollars Going to the Middle East

More Tax Dollars Going to the Middle East

 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Votes

Washington-Capitol-Building-Money-CashThe U.S. government will fund $313 million in home mortgages for Palestinians living on the West Bank, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Monday.
The U.S. will also guarantee $110 million in loans to small- and medium-sized businesses located on the West Bank.
The mortgage and business-loan activities will be conducted by the federal Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
“OPIC is the U.S. Government’s development finance institution,” says OPIC’s website. “OPIC provides financial products, such as loans and guaranties; political risk insurance; and support for investment funds, all of which help American businesses expand into emerging markets.”
Let me tell you right now how it is not the responsibility of the United States to give loans or finance another country’s mortgage industry.  This is not acceptable use of the money hardworking taxpayers make.
I understand that we want to look like a good guy around the world, but with a staggering 17 trillion dollars in debt, we cannot afford to help with such matters.  It is time that we start decreasing our spending and paying down our debt.
This is just one more example of poor use of the money by our government.

Pentagon makes civilians fair game by changing drone rules of engagement

Pentagon makes civilians fair game by changing drone rules of engagement
0
  
Although not covered often by the corporate media, many Americans have learned the consequences of unmanned drone warfare and the collateral damage that occurs when innocent civilians are killed while trying to take out a specific target.  According to a recent report from a human rights organization dedicated to monitoring drone warfare, an estimated 27% of all casualties incurred by U.S. led strikes are on civilians and verified non-combatants.
Yet, to the Obama administration and Department of Defense, this collateral damage is considered acceptable, and in a new report by the Pentagon, rule changes to drone usage will now allow operators to only attempt to ‘avoid’ civilians during their missions, rather than the previous rule of ‘ensuring’ they are not killed or injured.
obama_drones_kill_children_collateral_damage_meme
The Pentagon has loosened its guidelines on avoiding civilian casualties during drone strikes, modifying instructions from requiring military personnel to “ensure” civilians are not targeted to encouraging service members to “avoid targeting” civilians.
Administration officials say the strikes are legal because the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda and its associates.  - Washington Times via  Liberty Blitzkrieg blog
The use of unmanned drones to conduct aerial strikes has been controversial, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. has used them to destroy terrorists and perceived enemy combatants in countries that are considered our allies.  Additionally, the Obama Administration has denied reports made by foreign leaders of the collateral damage these strikes have caused, and which have led to the death of many civilians.  Over time, these denials are threatening  America’s partnership in the War on Terror, and in our alliances for eradicating Al Qaeda insurgencies.
The United States has never declared war on any nation state since they created the ideological ‘War on Terror’, and as such, many believe the U.S. is acting in a rogue manner, violating numerous international laws in their quest to assert their National Security policies.  Thus the continuous attacks on human targets deemed to be enemies in that ideological war are being done with few boundaries, and with a justification that killing innocent civilians is simply the cost of doing business to protect the mission of the Department of Defense.

Read more at http://www.secretsofthefed.com/pentagon-makes-civilians-fair-game-changing-drone-rules-engagement/#0MjSXqwg6M96vZwW.99

Slap: Democrat Candidate Calls On Congress To Investigate Obama ID Fraud; Treason


Slap: Democrat Candidate Calls On 
Congress To Investigate Obama ID Fraud 

Democratic candidate for Michigan governorship Mark McFarlin appeared on Where's Obama's Birth Certificate Blog Talk Radio show to discuss his recent comments questioning Obama's birth certificate.

McFarlin says an international team of experts need to be given access to Obama's original birth records at the Hawaii Department of Health stating Obama waived his privacy rights pertaining to the birth certificate. McFarlin says if elected he will try to bring Obama's id fraud to the forefront and use his powers as governor to address it. He further states statute covers treason against the United States. This is a must hear interview...

AUDIO EXCERPT HERE:

Doc Dump: CCP Researcher Unloads; Multiple Counts Of Document Fraud


CCP Researcher Unloads:
Multiple Counts Of Document Fraud
[ see docs below ]

Cold Case Posse volunteer researcher and internet radio host Mark Gillar called in to the WOBC radio show and reported the following:

AUDIO HERE:
( Audio via BTR. )

Gillar said he is in contact with the Cold Case Posse almost daily and never has there been so much enthusiasm and confidence as there is right now regarding the Obama document fraud investigation. He said there's extreme reason for hope right now and that it's not just about the birth certificate it's about multiple counts of document fraud.

Gillar also confirmed that when Obama was purportedly born on August 4, 1961, health departments were still using the 1960 vital statistics coding manual which clearly would have required the term "negro" to be used as the race of Barack Obama Sr., not African. Gillar next pointed out that if someone listed their race as black or Afro-American, or colored, they were to be reported as negro according to the manual. Gillar added that many agencies are lying for Obama and there are going to be a lot of people going to jail over this.

For years, the Sycophant Obots demanded "Birthers" show any other Hawaiian birth certificate listing negro as the race of a parent. (See Document Below). Perhaps now Obots might be willing to show us a 1961 LFBC other than Barack Obama's on which a black parent is listed by the HDOH as anything other than negro? Obots have for some time quoted a current Hawaiian official as saying that parents are allowed to self-report their race and that it is reasonable that Barack Obama Sr. would have represented himself that way (African). Gillar begs to differ, suggesting that the 1960 Vital Statistics and Coding Manual trumps the opinion of a current employee of the HDOH who in all likelihood has never even read the manual in place on the day Obama was purportedly born or reviewed other birth certificates from that time period.

SEE PAGE 47 OF THE 1960 VITAL STATISTICS MANUAL HERE:

The 1961 edition of the Vital Statistics Coding Manual, often quoted by Obots, was published 6 days after Obama's birth certificate was accepted by the local registrar and therefore is not applicable to this discussion. See boxes 20 and 22 of Obama's purported LFBC below.
It should also be pointed out that for the longest time, one particular Obot claimed that no 1961 coding manual even existed. Though now a moot issue, it's amazing how Obots never acknowledge their mistakes. They just move on to the next issue as if nothing ever happened.

THE BIRTH DOCUMENT CONFIRMING OBAMA'S BC IS COCKAMAMIE:

This shows what happened back in 1961 when the black parent 
of a child self-reported themselves as anything other than negro.
Note the correction by the Hawaii Department of Health clerk.

As first reported by Mike Zullo at the CSPOA Convention in Missouri ...
OBAMA'S COCKAMAMIE BC:

FULL AUDIO: Democrat Candidate Calls On Congress To Investigate Obama ID Fraud - CLICK HERE.


New York Times Report says White House in 'Crisis Mode,' President 'seething'

New York Times Report says White House in 'Crisis Mode,' President 'seething'

A New York Times report published Nov. 8 says President Obama was "seething" after the disastrous launch of the HealthCare.gov website, and says the White House is in "crisis mode." According to the report by Times reporter Michael D. Shear, the president called for an Oval Office meeting with senior staff members that one aide called "an unsparing dressing down."
"The public accepts that technology sometimes fails," the Times report quotes the president as saying, and attributes the president's anger to the fact that he had personally promised that HealthCare.gov would be ready on Oct. 1.
“If I had known,” Mr. Obama said, according to the aide, “we could have delayed the website.”
What jumps out in the report is a quote attributed to Obama that is buried in the last line of the article. "I've already been burned by a website," Obama was quoted as saying during the meeting.
The quote gives insight into the president's priorities and seems to indicate that he is more concerned with his image and his legacy than he is with the millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance as a result of restrictions on insurers in the Affordable Care Act, or the skyrocketing cost of premiums that the president promised the ACA would bring down.
The White House staff is now reportedly scrambling to make sure the website is fixed by the end of November as promised, but many tech experts say that is unlikely to happen.
The report also says Democrats in Congress are now pushing for a delay in the implementation of the law, which seems ironic based on the fact that Democrats were unwilling to budge when Republican lawmakers proposed a delay in September, which lead to a partial government shutdown.
Democrats up for reelection next year are obviously growing increasingly concerned that fallout from the disaster that is ObamaCare could cost them their seats. Democrats were confident they would hold the Senate just a few weeks ago, and had high hopes they would also be able to take control of the House of Representatives.
If the website isn't fixed by the end of the month, and stories of Americans by the millions losing their health insurance continue to pile up, it seems doubtful that they can achieve either of those goals, and could very well suffer huge losses in both the House and Senate.
President Obama's job approval is at an all-time low, and with more bad news being reported every day, it doesn't appear that it will improve any time soon. It seems to be panic time at the White House and for Democrats on Capitol Hill, and a half-hearted apology from President Obama has done little, if anything, to turn things around.
The Times report also quotes Geoffrey Garin, a top Democratic pollster with close ties to the administration, who told the Times that although “it is not in their nature to panic,” White House aides “understand that panic elsewhere can create its own vortex,” especially among Democratic lawmakers who face re-election next year.
“I’m livid that this screw-up actually plays into the hands of the critics,” Representative Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA) said to the Times.

President Obama Awards Himself the Presidential Medal of Freedom

President Obama Awards Himself the Presidential Medal of Freedom obama your a retard

Barack Obama smiling 016 President Obama Awards Himself the Presidential Medal of FreedomWASHINGTON – On Wednesday President Obama presented awards to seventeen honorees of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The medal is the nation’s highest civilian honor, awarded for meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
After introducing sixteen of the honorees, President Obama announced he was awarding the medal to a non-civilian.
“The final recipient of this year’s Presidential Medal of Freedom is not a civilian, but today I’m making an exception to the rule. He’s someone I happen to know pretty well. He’s an inhabitant of this White House and he’s the dedicated and faithful husband of the first lady of the United States. He’s a loving father of two beautiful daughters and the respectful and loving son-in-law to their grandma. A selfless man who always places others before himself, ladies and gentlemen, the final Medal of Freedom recipient of 2013, President Barack Obama!”
The room erupted in deafening applause.
“Thank-you! Please, you’re too kind. Thank-you very much. Thank-you! Please ….”
p112013ps 0298 President Obama Awards Himself the Presidential Medal of FreedomThe applause grew louder with everyone standing, many weeping openly. President Obama put his hands on his heart and bowed his head.
“Thank-you so much! Please … thank-you. You’re too kind … thank-you!
“My fellow Americans, I am humbled by this award. I’m humbled because it’s an acknowledgment of how hard I’ve worked. An official recognition of my sacrifices, my diligence and my unwavering commitment to be the best that I can be so that others may flourish. In recent months some have said the age of American exceptionalism is over. But I say, look at me, for I am the personification of American exceptionalism!”
The audience roared with approval.
“I am a symbol of strength to all Americans. A man who stands tall in the center of the arena covered in sweat and blood, battling the forces of negativity and cynicism, bigotry and intolerance. Just months before last year’s election I stood up to the haters when I changed my mind and said our gay men and women should be able to marry. I took heat from naysayers when I promised that our transgender folks would one day be on the front lines of our military battles, side by side with our women. I withstood the storm of intolerance when I demanded our 13-year-old daughters have unfettered access to the morning-after pill and late term abortions 24-hours a day without parental consent. And I didn’t hesitate to fight for the right of a nine-year-old boy who believes he’s female to move his bowels in the girls bathroom at school.
“Five years ago the American people discovered that a man had arrived who would bring them the hope and change they hungered for. A man who would tell them what they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not. A man who made elaborate, unattainable promises that brought false comfort to the insecure and illusions of belonging to the intolerable. A man who could read a speech like no other before him. My fellow Americans, five years ago I was the man you’d been waiting for and today this award salutes the awe inspiring leadership that I delivered.
Obama Weit1 753x1024 President Obama Awards Himself the Presidential Medal of Freedom“I’ve stoically stood my ground as the unremitting winds of incompetency, insubordination and ingratitude howl around me. This past year alone my vice president spoke at a mosque dressed in a burqa, my former secretary of state performed an insensitive impersonation of a stroke victim at the U.N. and my wife proposed slaughtering obese children. When I’m not being blamed for the mistakes of my predecessor or the missteps of those in my administration, I’m being held responsible for the indolence of a Republican controlled House.
“But through it all I’ve remained strong. I’ve demonstrated a remarkable ability to weather the storms of adversity by standing tall and refusing to compromise as my presidency implodes around me. As my second term dissolves into a firestorm of racial division, bureaucratic incompetence and a catastrophic national debt, you know that I will walk away unscathed. For I am the hope and the change you demanded. You voted for me. You loved me. The blame for the smoking embers of what’s left of this country when I’m through will fall on the American people.”
The room erupted with wild applause.
“In closing, I want to thank you for sharing this historic moment with me. I accept this Presidential Medal of Freedom and will cherish it well into the next phase of my remarkable life. Thank you! God bless me and God bless America!”

Charlene Cleo Eiben: President Obama Awards Himself the Presidential Me...

Congressional Report: As gun ownership soared, murder rate fell dramatically

concealed-carry
With the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy fast approaching, parents, pundits and politicians are ramping up the rhetoric and demanding ever-more draconian gun control laws.
But signs suggest the efforts are unnecessary.
While gun ownership rose sharply during a recent 15-year period, murders and other gun-related homicides plummeted, according to a government study.
After the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting, the Congressional Research Service was commissioned to determine whether there’s a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. There was a link, all right, but probably not what the lawmakers expected.
From 1994 to 2009, legal gun ownership rose dramatically — from 192 million to 310 million, according to Breitbart News.
At the same time, non-accidental firearm- related deaths took a nosedive. Breitbart reported:
This rate rose from 2004 to 2005 and got as high as 3.9 in 2006 and 2007, but it then resumed falling in 2008, the year the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that individual firearm possession is Constitutionally protected — particularly for self-defense. This figure fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011.
In other words, as the number of firearms almost doubled over a nearly 20-year period, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was more than halved.
Although President Obama called for sweeping gun control legislation in the days after the Sandy Hook shooting, the measure debated on the U.S. Senate floor was a milquetoast background-check bill, and even that failed to muster enough votes to pass.
Speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation annual awards dinner in September, the president renewed the call for stricter gun laws, according to Fox News. Perhaps he should read the reports from his own government instead.
check out A cappella group’s amazing version of ‘Little Drummer Boy’ goes insanely viral.

Is the President Smoking Weed Again?

Is the President Smoking Weed Again?

The President is either high or ignorant, though perhaps we should embrace the healing power of “and.” He posits that if the nation raises the minimum wage, there will be an economic boom.
Only in leftwing fantasy land and Das Kapital does such a concept even come close to being credible. What’s worse, via his twitter account his minion tweeted out an info graphic making the case. One can only assume this is why he does not want poor children in Louisiana to get a better education. If they did, they’d quickly realize the President is full of . . . choom maybe?
In the land of unicorn farts that powers the Obama Administration — that magical land where the bad thoughts of Republicans can obstruct Obamacare — diverting capital to mandated wage increases can cause an economic boom. But in reality, it does not work that way.
At the same time the President is pushing this, he is also speechifying against inequality. The media has gone gaga over his speech, but here too the President has shown a deep ignorance.
In his speech, the President said,
“A new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups – these gaps are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else. The gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids and black kids. Kids with working-class parents are 10 times likelier than kids with middle- or upper-class parents to go through a time when their parents have no income. So the fact is this: The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race, and that gap is growing.”
As Ben Domenech noted after the speech
Does the president really not realize that he has the causation here completely backwards? He’s spoken eloquently in the past about the dangerous decline of fatherhood among the working class. It’s not that being poor means you’ll have absentee parents, it’s that absentee parents – particularly absentee breadwinners – means you end up poor. Where the middle class and upper class are better insulated from the consequences of the economic pain that comes from family breakups, the poor are not.
Given this President’s position, he has been uniquely qualified to make the case in favor of stable two parent families. Without making that case and without changing the statistics, the long term ability to lift the poor to the middle class will fail. But the President, starting out exactly backwards, has no hope of getting it right.
Of course the President really does not hope to get it right. He is not even serious. These campaigns for an increased minimum wage, coordinated with union activists encouraging fast food workers to strike, along with calls to close the gap in income inequality through speeches, are just designed to turn the media’s attention away from Obamacare.
Make no mistake about it, the President has seen his polling. He wants to distance himself from Obamacare as quickly as he can. The media has just needed an excuse to help him. He is giving the media the excuse. That does not mean Republicans need to play along.
In fact, the GOP needs to point out how President Obama’s healthcare scheme is further exacerbating inequality in the country by creating a multitiered healthcare system where the outcomes depend on just how far removed you can get yourself from Barack Obama’s death panels.

NOT NATURAL?….

“Has the recent wet weather made you think how abnormal the weather patterns have been over the last couple of years? How many times have you heard the comment “I am sure they are playing about with the weather?” I know I have, but that is where the interest ends for most people, because the very idea that the weather can be manipulated is so far off the scale it beggars belief.”
20130101-202121.jpg
Maybe this will make you think…..
British government papers, just released by the National Archives, show that throughout the Seventies there was deep mistrust between the two superpowers over environmental warfare. The documents reveal that both the United States, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the world’s climate.
“By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather,” one scientist is said to have boasted.
It is on record that a United Nations treaty has been signed by all countries which bans environmental warfare, such as causing earthquakes, melting the polar ice caps and altering climate.
But the clandestine work to create the ultimate weapon of mass destruction continues.
These claims are dismissed by sceptics as wild conspiracy theories but there is growing evidence that the boundaries between science fiction and fact are becoming increasingly blurred. The Americans now admit that they invested heavily over five years during the Vietnam war on “cloud seeding,” deliberately creating heavy rainfall to wash away enemy crops and destroy supply routes on the Ho Chi Minh trail, in an operation codenamed ‘Project Popeye.’
20130101-202214.jpg
It is claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in targeted areas, making the weather-manipulation weapon a success. The excuse from government officials was “the region was prone to heavy rain.”
In Britain, it has been alleged that before the devastating Lynmouth floods in Devon in 1952, the RAF had been conducting secret rain-making tests. Aircraft showered clouds with silver iodide, on which water droplets formed, became heavy and eventually fell to the ground as rain. In the next 12 hours nine inches of rain fell, 250 times the normal amount for August, and 35 people were killed.
Early work on climate control was crude and unpredictable but it is claimed that both the Americans and Russians continued to experiment behind closed doors even after the UN ban in the mid-Eighties, and both now possess sophisticated systems which are capable of controlling the weather – with potentially devastating results.
20130101-201846.jpg
In the US, the technology was developed under the high-frequency active auroral research programme ( HAARP), originally part of Ronald Reagan’s controversial Star Wars defence system. Based in Gokoma, Alaska, the weapon operates by beaming powerful radio waves into the upper atmosphere to alter weather patterns. Some experts claim the system is already up and running, while others say it won’t be ready for another 20 years.
Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa in Canada, who has studied official military documents about HAARP, is in no doubt that the weapon is ready.
20130101-202003.jpg
“There are very clear statements by the US Air Force to the effect that weather modification technology is available. HAARP will be fully operational by next year and could be used in actual military situations, ” he says. “To claim this system has any nonmilitary purposes is twisting the truth. I don’t think there are any peaceful applications – it is a weapon of mass destruction, capable of major climatic disturbance. Part of the beauty is that the enemy might never know that a weapon had been used. I believe the UN agreement is certainly being violated.”
He claims that at least one British firm has been involved in its development.
“It is time people began focusing on these weapons instead of concentrating solely on global warming,” Chossudovsky adds. “Both are a serious threat.”
The Russians are thought to have their own “weather steering” system,called ‘Woodpecker’, involving the transmission of low-frequency waves which are capable of disrupting the atmosphere and altering the path of the jet stream. It is claimed that a prolonged drought in California in the Eighties was caused by the blocking of warm, moist air for many weeks.
According to Damian Wilson, a Met Office physicist, controlling climate is a reality but not a precise science. “Clearing fog by dropping dry ice into clouds is a proven technique which has been around for decades,” he says.
“Large amounts of research have been invested in seeding clouds to generate rain and it is done in countries where there are water shortages. The problem is that it is unpredictable and you need clouds to start with. The technology does not exist to make rain fall from clear blue skies so it cannot be used in the desert to end droughts and famines.”
He believes it is possible to alter the course of a hurricane, which could have enormous life-saving potential. The recent mayhem in the Caribbean and America’s Eastern seaboard also shows what a destructive weapon a well-targeted storm could prove.
20130101-202559.jpg
The Americans used cloud seeding to try to control a hurricane in 1947 but the tactic backfired when it picked up strength and hit Savannah, Georgia.
It is known that the US carried out further hurricane-manipulation experiments between 1962 and 1983, under the codename ‘Project Stormfury,’ after it was calculated that a single hurricane contained as much energy as all the world’s power stations combined. More recent projects have involved pouring tens of thousands of gallons of vegetable oil on to the sea.
“Hurricanes gather their strength from the warm sea surface,” says Wilson. “By spreading a large film of oil on the sea it would reduce the intensity by cooling the surface. In theory it is possible to change the path of the hurricane this way. It would not surprise me if military research into controlling the weather goes on. As we suffer more summer droughts in the south-east of England I would also expect to see pressure for cloud seeding to be introduced in this country.”
It is not just the weather that has attracted the attention of the military.
Scientists have also researched ways of triggering earthquakes. By setting off small quakes, pressure could be released and a disaster averted. But military scientists believe it is also possible to direct powerful energy beams into vulnerable fault zones, causing the Earth’s plates to shift, creating a massive earthquake. Along fault lines beneath the oceans, the same technology could be used to launch devastating tsunamis.
Part of the problem in banning experiments involves agreeing a definition of what environmental warfare is. It has been argued that the famous Dambusters mission during the Second World War, when bouncing bombs were used to flood the German industrial heartland, were a form of environmental warfare.
20130101-202651.jpg
Half a century later, the threat is still being taken sufficiently seriously.
Former US defence secretary William Cohen warns: “Terrorists are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts.”
Owen Greene, director of research at Bradford University’s department of Peace Studies, believes efforts are continuing in secret to develop weapons that harness nature.
“There is so much money within the Pentagon that it would surprise me if they were not looking into it, ” he says. “I suspect it is going on in both the US and Russia. You can’t stop people researching the weather. As for earthquakes, you don’t even need to spend money on active military programmes because there is so much other work going on which could easily be adapted. Some of the ideas are quite credible.”
Another defence source says: “The risk is that by fooling around with nature, we may unleash irreversible damage and change our entire planet’s atmosphere.”
Despite these dire warnings, such is the immense power of nature, it seems inevitable that Man will continue to play God.