Thursday, November 20, 2014

Boehner's Office Lists 22 Times Obama Argued Against Executive Amnesty

Boehner's Office Lists 22 Times Obama Argued Against Executive Amnesty

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is using President Barack Obama’s own words to argue against executive action on immigration. Boehner spokesman Matt Wolking on Wednesday laid out 22 instances when Obama said he could not create or ignore immigration law — even though the president argued on Sunday that his “position hasn’t changed.”

According to Wolking, Obama’s argument “is a flagrant untruth,” and he pointed to recent reports in the New York Times, Washington Post’s Fact Checker, and FactCheck.org highlighting that flip-flop.
“President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans, but he can’t run from what he’s said over and over (and over) again,” Wolking wrote (emphasis his). “Not only are Americans not stupid – they can read. President Obama should listen to President Obama, drop his plan to ‘expand the authority of the executive branch into murky, uncharted territory,’ and work with Congress rather than insisting on his stubborn, ‘my way or the highway” approach,’” Wolking concluded.
Later Wednesday morning Boehner spokesman Michael Steel added that executive amnesty would kill Obama’s chances to work with Congresss on immigration and other issues going forward.
“If ‘Emperor Obama’ ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his Constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for Congressional action on this issue – and many others.”
Read the 22 times the Speaker’s Office found Obama saying he could not take the actions many expect him to take as early as this week (emphasis Wolking’s):
1. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)
2. “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)
3. “Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it’s going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)
4. “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. … I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)
5. “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)
6. “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I’m president, I’m not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That’s what the Executive Branch means. I can’t just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)
7. “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)
8. “I can’t solve this problem by myself. … [W]e’re going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can’t do it by myself. We’re going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I’m confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)
9. “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.  But that’s not how democracy works.  See, democracy is hard.  But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)
10. “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)
11. “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)
12. “So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can’t ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  We are doing everything we can administratively.  But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things.  It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.  And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)
In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:
1. “Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)
2. “We are a nation of immigrants. … But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)
3. “I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)
4. “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.  And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books.  … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)
5. “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)
6. “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)
7. “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they’ve allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option. … What I’ve said is there is a there’s a path to get this done, and that’s through Congress.” (9/17/13)
8. “[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)
9. “I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there.  What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing.  And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)
10. “I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power].  I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.  There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

Kobach: Obama's Lawlessness Could Lead To 'Ethnic Cleansing' In America

face every day.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Kobach: Obama's Lawlessness Could Lead To 'Ethnic Cleansing' In America

Kobach: Obama's Lawlessness Could Lead To 'Ethnic Cleansing' In America

Rtukneuwk3o3ot5ypvpi
AP Photo / Charlie Riedel
Kobach, a vocal advocate of the anti-immigrant movement, claimed during his radio talk show that there was a strategy to replace American voters with Hispanic ones who favored socialism.
"The long term strategy of, first of all, replacing American voters with illegal aliens, recently legalized, who then become U.S. citizens," Kobach said. "There is still a decided bias in favor of bigger government not smaller government. So maybe this strategy of replacing American voters with newly legalized aliens, if you look at it through an ethnic lens, ... you've got a locked in vote for socialism."
Koback also responded to a caller who was concerned about ethnic cleansing, which the caller claimed was a threat from immigrant and Hispanic rights groups.
"What happens, if you know your history, when one culture or one race or one religion overwhelms another culture or race?" the caller asked. "When one race or culture overwhelms another culture, they run them out or they kill them."
Kobach then responded with his take.
"What protects us in America from any kind of ethnic cleansing is the rule of law, of course," Kobach said. "And the rule of law used to be unassailable, used to be taken for granted in America. And now, of course, we have a President who disregards the law when it suits his interests. And, so, you know, while I normally would answer that by saying, 'Steve, of course we have the rule of law, that could never happen in America,' I wonder what could happen. I still don't think it’s going to happen in America, but I have to admit, that things are, things are strange and they're happening."
Listen to the audio below, via Right Wing Watch:

did not take action on and that is defending United States Territory from invasion , gross malfeasance of Office on the part of several Government agencies needs to be addressed , current law calls for the deportation of these invaders of our country

The Presidents action is both wrong and unlawful , the Office of President does not have the power to legislate , but what I think is of equal note is what the President did not take action on and that is defending United States Territory from invasion , gross malfeasance of Office on the part of several Government agencies needs to be addressed , current law calls for the deportation of these invaders of our country ,,,, the rule of Law is not being upheld by this President in the face of a crisis that represents a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and the American People , Terrorists , Drug Cartels , and the spread of infectious disease clearly presents that threat to our National Security , this lawless President has assumed powers he does not legally hold ,,, the Constitution provides a clear direction ,,,,Impeachment and removal for the deliberate malfeasance in fulfilling the duties clearly outlined in the oath of Office for the President of the United States and by Constitutional requirements for conduct of duties ,,, This President has failed to act to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States ,,, If Congress will not take action then they too are complicate and guilty of malfeasance ,,, these are legal grounds in my opinion for the American People to hold this President and this Congress in contempt of the Constitution ,,, Mass Armies and march on Washington and force the restoration of this Republic and the Rule of Law ,,,, Clearly Congress has no other option but to remove by force this entire Administration ,,,, We now wait for Congressional response to this direct subversion of the Constitution ,,,,, they do not have much time ....
In his immigration speech to the nation Wednesday night, President Obama will say the administration plans on granting protective status or “deferred action” to...
foxnews.com

Transcript: President Obama's immigration address

Transcript: President Obama's immigration address

updated 8:21 PM EST, Thu November 20, 2014
Watch this video

Obama unveils new immigration plan

Editor's note: President Barack Obama's remarks announcing a new executive action on immigration as prepared for delivery and released by the White House.
Washington (CNN) -- My fellow Americans, tonight, I'd like to talk with you about immigration.
For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. It's kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities -- people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose.
Media strategy behind immigration speech
But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.
Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.
It's been this way for decades. And for decades, we haven't done much about it.
When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.
Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn't perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.
Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.
What is Obama is expected to announce?
Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President -- the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me -- that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.
Tonight, I am announcing those actions.
First, we'll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.
Second, I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.
Third, we'll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.
GOP: Obama will regret immigration order
I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable -- especially those who may be dangerous. That's why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.
But even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is, millions of immigrants -- in every state, of every race and nationality -- will still live here illegally. And let's be honest -- tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn't realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn't being straight with you. It's also not who we are as Americans. After all, most of these immigrants have been here a long time. They work hard, often in tough, low-paying jobs. They support their families. They worship at our churches. Many of their kids are American-born or spent most of their lives here, and their hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours.
As my predecessor, President Bush, once put it: "They are a part of American life."
Now here's the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we're going to offer the following deal: If you've been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you're willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you'll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.
That's what this deal is. Now let's be clear about what it isn't. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive -- only Congress can do that. All we're saying is we're not going to deport you.
I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it's not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today -- millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.
That's the real amnesty -- leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I'm describing is accountability -- a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you're a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.
The actions I'm taking are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half century. And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill. I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary. Meanwhile, don't let a disagreement over a single issue be a dealbreaker on every issue. That's not how our democracy works, and Congress certainly shouldn't shut down our government again just because we disagree on this. Americans are tired of gridlock. What our country needs from us right now is a common purpose -- a higher purpose.
Most Americans support the types of reforms I've talked about tonight. But I understand the disagreements held by many of you at home. Millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. So we don't like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship. I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they've gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But that's not what these steps would do. Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society. And I believe it's important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other's character.
Because for all the back-and-forth of Washington, we have to remember that this debate is about something bigger. It's about who we are as a country, and who we want to be for future generations.
Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?
GOP governors hedge on immigration reform
Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents' arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?
Are we a nation that educates the world's best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America?
That's what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.
I know the politics of this issue are tough. But let me tell you why I have come to feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, I have seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three jobs, without taking a dime from the government, and at risk at any moment of losing it all, just to build a better life for their kids. I've seen the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them just because they didn't have the right papers. I've seen the courage of students who, except for the circumstances of their birth, are as American as Malia or Sasha; students who bravely come out as undocumented in hopes they could make a difference in a country they love. These people -- our neighbors, our classmates, our friends -- they did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. They came to work, and study, and serve in our military, and above all, contribute to America's success.
Tomorrow, I'll travel to Las Vegas and meet with some of these students, including a young woman named Astrid Silva. Astrid was brought to America when she was four years old. Her only possessions were a cross, her doll, and the frilly dress she had on. When she started school, she didn't speak any English. She caught up to the other kids by reading newspapers and watching PBS, and became a good student. Her father worked in landscaping. Her mother cleaned other people's homes. They wouldn't let Astrid apply to a technology magnet school for fear the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant -- so she applied behind their back and got in. Still, she mostly lived in the shadows -- until her grandmother, who visited every year from Mexico, passed away, and she couldn't travel to the funeral without risk of being found out and deported. It was around that time she decided to begin advocating for herself and others like her, and today, Astrid Silva is a college student working on her third degree.
Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid -- or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?
Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger -- we were strangers once, too.
My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal -- that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.
That's the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us. That's the tradition we must uphold. That's the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless this country we love.

OK IF THE Ferguson ROITERS ARE SUPOSE TO ATTACK THE ARCH WHY IS THE FED BIZ OPPS PLANNING ON FIXING IT

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=43f793f7b28aad1f765afbfa7eb87c74&tab=core&_cview=0

COVERUP: Obama Admin Goes After Ferguson Eyewitness Because of What He Saw [PHOTO]

COVERUP: Obama Admin Goes After Ferguson Eyewitness Because of What He Saw [PHOTO]


Authorities in Ferguson, Mo., are making preparations for expected rioting and looting by protestors.
The grand jury will officially announce whether or not they will indict Officer Darren Wilson soon.

Click here to get a FREE subscription to the Conservative Tribune. The civil unrest is expected based on numerous threats against specific targets and insane demands issued by protestors who vow to “shut down” the city with civil disobedience and violence.
The governor has already declared a State of Emergency, and the National Guard has been mobilized and set in place.
Apparently the federal government is getting prepared for unrest in Ferguson too, as was evinced by a recent photo of several dozen Department of Homeland Security vehicles congregated in a St. Louis area hotel’s parking garage.

DHS vehicles near Ferguson
According to The Liberty Eagle, the Navy veteran who snapped the pictures of the DHS vehicles has since lost his job and has been threatened by the feds, for simply taking and posting pictures of government vehicles to social media.
Mark Paffrath, the Navy veteran who worked for Drury Plaza Hotel in Chesterfield, a St. Louis suburb near Ferguson, is the man who took the pictures and short video of the DHS vehicles in the Drury Plaza parking garage.
The day after he posted the pictures and video on his Facebook page, he was ordered to remove them by his General Manager.
He complied, and thought that was the end of the story.  However, he was called to the GM’s office again the next day, this time to meet the hotel’s Director of Security, Jim Bohnert.
Bohnert informed Paffrath that he was being let go from his job with the hotel because he had almost cost them a $150,000 contract with the DHS.
He was also berated by Bohnert, and told “you’re a terrorist and you have dishonorably served your country by posting the photos and video”.
At the end of their short conversation, Paffrath was chillingly warned “if you repost the photos and video you will have the federal government knocking on your door and you will be incarcerated”.
It would appear that DHS was embarrassed by the pictures that revealed their buildup of forces in the Ferguson area.
It also appears that this embarrassment led them to lean on the Drury Plaza Hotel, who in turn fired Paffrath, who did nothing criminal that would warrant the attention or termination.
If it is true that the DHS pressured the hotel to fire Paffrath over the pictures he snapped and posted, then this is outright tyranny.
Citizens are allowed to take pictures of anything they want and are allowed to post such pictures on social media if they so choose.
A picture of a congregation of DHS vehicles in a parking lot in St. Louis in no way, shape, or form violates national security, or disseminates classified information or state secrets.
Paffrath should sue both the Drury Plaza Hotel and the DHS for wrongful termination, and for violating his First Amendment rights.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you think it was wrong for the DHS and the hotel to fire this man for simply taking and posting some pictures of DHS vehicles in a public place.

ALERT: New Video Shows Ferguson Protesters Training to “Shut Down” a Community [VIDEO]

ALERT: New Video Shows Ferguson Protesters Training to “Shut Down” a Community [VIDEO]


Ferguson, Mo., protesters expecting an announcement from a grand jury soon have been planning and training to shut down the nearby community of Clayton using civil disobedience and nonviolent tactics, according to a report released on Thursday.
The demonstrators held a training session Thursday evening in St. Louis as part of their preparation to punish Clayton economically on the first workday after the grand jury decision is announced, according to KTVI (H/T Three Percenter).

Click here to get a FREE subscription to the Conservative Tribune. Video from the training session, available below, shows protesters scrambling around in seemingly random order — it’s hard to know exactly what that is supposed to do for them, but organizers said they hoped to see hundreds or even thousands of people show up for the protests.
Thousands of people protesting on the first workday after the announcement gives a pretty good sense of who is attending these protests. Hint: they’re not employed.
KTVI said several similar training sessions have been held recently, so by now we expect the protesters to be unparalleled in their ability to scramble around in random order.

Which helps explain why they’re unemployed.
Protests have been ongoing since the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson. A grand jury has been investigating the shooting and leaked testimony points to it exonerating the officer of any wrongdoing. Some have promised violence, even civil war, if Wilson is not indicted for Brown’s murder despite there being seemingly no evidence for such a charge.
The plan is to meet in “public green spaces” like parks and spread out in small groups from there, using civil disobedience to block traffic and keep tensions high.
“We want the people to know these meetings are about non-violent direct action,” Don’t Shoot Coalition Co-Chair Michael McPhearson told the station. “Some of it will just be people talking, people expressing themselves. There’s nothing we’re doing to try to create violence. But we don’t want to diminish tensions without there being change.”
Watch the KTVI report here:
While we fully support the right of all citizens to assemble freely, express themselves, and petition their government for redress of their grievances, such actions should not interfere with the rights of other citizens. When the freedom, safety, or economic prosperity of American citizens is threatened by a group of demonstrators, authorities must step in to restore those liberties.
It would be wise of the protesters to keep in mind that in preparation for the announcement of the grand jury verdict, local police forces have been training too.
Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that its time for the Ferguson protesters to find some other way to express their grievances.