As I read the curiosities of folks concerning Obama’s actions I am continually amazed at the surprise and horror that folks arrive at for their observations.
Didn’t you all know the direction of Obama as he said them before he was elected?
Did you not realize his thinking hinged on the fact that he didn’t think that the constitution favored the power of the federal government enough? You didn’t know that fact?
Why do you suppose he wanted these changes? Well that is simple enough, he wanted more power for wealth redistribution. What did you think that meant?
What you don’t clearly see for what is coming is the removal of liberty from individuals by taking power in the machinery of the federal government moves us closer to a one world governance. Doesn’t this make sense?
When you see our wealth going to third world nations don’t you realize that our control is lowered while the third world nation is elevated?
When you see a diminishing of or military does it occur to you that it becomes easier for us to be subjugated to others’ will?
Oh wait I see why it is you haven’t come to know this: You digest what the media wants you to know.
Don’t you realize that the media who sold us Obama is interested in broadcasting to more viewers. If they go from a national broadcasting position to an international position what happens? More ratings and more money!
Obama would love for nothing more than to deliver the authority of te US Government to a Global Authority where he and his cronies could control the world.
None of this makes sense to you? Why does the Obama Administration want to undo, both the first and second amendments of the constitution?
He wants to get rid of God and Guns… Isn’t that clear? Without God’s authority he becomes God. Without guns nobody stands in his way.
Did Americans go to sleep one night and wake up critically thinking challenged? When did it become a good idea to participate in something like #OWS.
Those desiring what Obama intended to do are clearly dangerous people because of their weak-minded manner of understanding the responsibility of freedom.
Who in their right mind thinks Obama has any clue as how to meet a payroll? Since when did a community organizer understand and master the intricacies of profitable investing?
Since when did a non practicing lawyer ever be a good choice for a capital defense argument.
Most folks who wanted Obama, wanted him because they didn’t use their critical thinking apparatus.
What they did use is their desire function or emotive need.
I have no time for folks that demand fairness in governance. I value equal opportunity, not affirmative action.
If you are surprised at what Obama has been doing, then maybe the problem isn’t Obama.
He has done all he said he was going to do.
Maybe the problem is you and your habits of listening to the whores in media that want greater profits worldwide for selling you the biggest package of nonsense sold since the days of the wonder lotions pimped in the old days of western frontier days.
I knew what Obama was all about and he hasn’t surprised me one bit. Self proclaimed smart Americans have surprised me though. I don’t consider anyone to be smart who sided with Utopian thinking or the motivations of Obama.
What we are seeing is the real Obama without his Teleprompter. We are hearing his real thoughts and feelings about America and what it was that made this the Greatest Nation the World has ever known.
WE BUILT THIS COUNTRY MR. PRESIDENT AND WE SURE AS HELL WILL NOT LET YOU DESTROY IT
What we are seeing is the real Obama without his Teleprompter. We are hearing his real thoughts and feelings about America and what it was that made this the Greatest Nation the World has ever known.
One can only Hope that America is beginning to Get the Picture
Vote November 6th and bring a friend along with you
The Picture of a Bikini-Clad Israeli with an M-16 Is Making the Rounds Again — Here are the Theories About It
An M-16 is not something you would expect to see on a public beach — let alone strapped onto a bikini-wearing woman. But a photo depicting just this on a crowded Tel Aviv shoreline has gone viral if for nothing else than its unusual combination.
The photo began circulating on the Web all the way back in May and still continues to make its rounds. Gizmodo, Redditt and Haaretz picked up on the image early on, while the New York Daily News, the Daily Mail, Israel Insider and YNet Newsare a few examples of how the story of the unknown, bikini-clad and w
The New York Daily News reports the photo was viewed 650,000 times in only one day. Headlines have included “Hot Chick With Gun Occupies Internet,“ ”Bad*** Chicks In Israel Don’t Go To the Beach Without Their Assault Rifles,“ and ”They really are dangerous curves: Heavily armed and bikini-clad female Israeli soldiers ‘mingle’ with beachgoers”.
Haaretz reported first seeing the image on Facebook with the caption “Only in Israel.” At the time of Haaretz’s coverage of the story, the photo had more than 500 “shares” and more than 1,500 “likes” on the social media site. Now, the photo has been shared nearly 800 times and has nearly 2,000 likes.
Allison Kaplan Sommer, who wrote the blog post on Haaretz ,said she is fascinated by the stir the photo has caused on the Internet, but acknowledges in a way it actually makes practical sense. Here’s some of what she wrote:
I’ve been quite fascinated by the fascination. Bikini pictures aren’t uncommon, and neither are pictures of gun. But put them together and you’ve got everyone’s attention. The combination of exposed female body and deadly weaponry must tap into some deep-seated male fantasy world. Even when fully clad, there seems to be a major Internet fetish for Israeli female soldiers. A quick Google search will prove me right. There may be other countries with women in the military – including the United States, but the consequences of Israel’s universal military service is that, when the entire female population goes to the army at age 18, each cohort is going to include a certain percentage of really hot women.
But still, a bikini and a gun?
To an Israeli, the photo makes perfectly practical sense. When soldiers take their weapon off military premises, they must guard it closely and keep it on their person, at all times. Having one’s weapon stolen is harshly punished with time in military prison a given. I’ve heard male soldiers on leave refer to their gun as their ‘wife,’ so constant is the companionship. We’re used to seeing guns in all kinds of places – propped up next to the guy sitting next to us in a coffeeshop, or in a university classroom, and of course, slung over the shoulders of women soldiers, including women soldiers.
Of course, they usually tend to be wearing their uniforms at the time.
Sommers also calls to mind the potential that the gun could have been photoshopped onto the woman in this image.
YNet News points out the photo has been reported on across the globe, including on Indian, Italian and Spanish websites.
During the hearing March 8th of this year Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”
The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.
“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,”a defense official told CNN.
However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.
Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”
Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.
Chairman Hillary Clinton at United Nations on Gun Control
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox attended a meeting at United Nations headquarters in July to send a simple, unequivocal message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate your Right to Keep and Bear Arms: An international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that in any way, shape or form affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is completely unacceptable.
In his address to conference participants from around the world, LaPierre made it clear that NRA will accept no compromise on this critical issue.
“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution,” he said. “Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth and self-destiny. We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community.”
In 2009, at the behest of the Obama administration, the United States joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. The resolution establishes an international conference to be held next year, at which leaders from countries around the world—many of which have deplorable human rights records—will draw up an international treaty designed to severely restrict or even outright ban your right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm.
In reversing President George W. Bush’s opposition to U.N. mandated global gun control, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standard. …”
NRA has alerted American gun owners to be on guard against this ticking time bomb for years. NRA-ILA was the first group to be officially recognized by the U.N. as a “non-governmental organization” determined to protect the freedoms of American gun owners, hunters and shooters. The threat to those freedoms posed by an international Arms Trade Treaty has gained steam under the current administration.
President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the U.N. claim that the only purpose of the ATT is to fight terrorism and international crime syndicates. Americans should not be fooled.
In speaking out for the nation’s gun owners, LaPierre warned that, “Those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them. … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.”
Dissecting the U.N. blueprint, LaPierre concluded that:
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms. ’But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade;
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.’ Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping and firearm tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name;
• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.’ But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.”
LaPierre demanded that proposals affecting civilian firearm ownership that are woven throughout the ATT must be completely removed from the scope of any international agreement, saying, “On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedoms.”
There can be no question that what is taking shape at the U.N. is an all-out attack on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners. U.N. bureaucrats have focused intensely on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers regarding firearms and ammunition. Nowhere are there provisions about respecting citizens’ rights of self-defense, privacy, property, due process or observing personal freedoms of any kind.
International gun-ban activists have demanded ATT provisions that would force America to license firearm owners, severely restrict all firearm purchases, destroy firearms deemed “unauthorized,” ban commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and join an international gun registry.
While a treaty can’t override the Second Amendment, it can become the law of the land either directly—equal to any law passed by Congress—or through implementing legislation. Even if a treaty isn’t ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate, it never dies, and can still affect your rights. The U.S. Senate could take a signed treaty off the shelf and vote to ratify it 10, 20 or 50 years from now—as we know from experience. Just two years ago, NRA fought a push to consider a 1997 Organization of American States (OAS) gun control treaty in the Senate. Although the U.S. never ratified that treaty, the Clinton administration used it as an excuse to restrict exports of gun parts and accessories to Canada.
In a 2010 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Hillary Clinton’s Under Secretary for Arms Control told the audience: “We will work between now and the U.N. Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty, and we’ll need your help in achieving it. We have made that a fundamental policy commitment.”
So you can bet that if President Obama wins a second term he’ll move full-speed ahead for Senate ratification and implementation of the ATT’s mandates.
Obama and Clinton have spent their entire careers demonizing American gun owners and doing everything in their power to make firearm ownership more expensive, more difficult and, in many cases, illegal. Now they want to unleash the U.N. gun-ban axis on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
It’s time for all Americans to sound the alarm on this treacherous assault on U.S. sovereignty and join the NRA in this all-out fight to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator and due to all humankind.
In all of this, as the full measure of the Obama administration’s sell-out of our nation unfolds, NRA members must stand united to prevent and reverse the damage the administration’s “change” is inflicting on American freedom and our sovereignty.
To read the full text of Wayne’s speech before the U.N. and get the latest news on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, go to: www.nraila.org/unArmsTradeTreaty.
We Will Hunt ‘Pink A**es’ Down, ‘Kill ’Em, Dig ‘Em Up & Kill ‘Em Again & Again & Again!’
“That’s our brother, brother General Taco!” the New Black Panther radio host announced.
General T.A.C.O. (Taking All Capitalists Out) of the New Black Panther Party had some less than encouraging words for white people this week. Mr. Taco, speaking on NBPP Radio on Sunday, decided to let white America know that the NBPP will “hunt” their “pink asses down.” Hunting white people down will serve to accomplish General Taco’s other stated goal of “destroying white supremacy and capitalism.”
Gen. Taco also justifies his killing of white people because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment“ on black men and women in order to ”exterminate” them.
But simply hunting and killing the white person does not satisfy Mr. Taco:
“Once [white people] die, we should dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, bury ‘em, dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, and again, and again!”
The must-hear audio on the Link below [content warning for language]
A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.
Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.
The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch previously sued the DOJ in federal court regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to information surrounding the New Black Panthers case. As a result of the lawsuit, the group was able to obtain a number of withheld documents and are now suing the DOJ for attorney’s fees, the Washington Examiner reports. More importantly, as a result of their motion, a federal judge ruled against the DOJ.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court JudgeReggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.”
…
“In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
Following a brief investigation into the 2008 New Black Panthers Case, the Department of Justice filed charges. However, the Panthers didn’t respond and a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the defendants.
Enter Obama.
Shortly after he became president, the DOJ quickly backpedaled and the charges against three of the New Black Panther party members were dropped and a fourth was let off with a restraining order.
Watch the video of the New Black Panther party members holding a billy club and intimidating voters outside Philadelphia polling station here:
What is it with these Democrats? Walking out on a Congressional Vote because of Politics Race?
If Eric Holder were White they would have stayed and Voted him in Contempt of Congress
What ever happened to their Oath of Office not to mention where is the ethics they were elected to uphold?
The Plain and Simple Fact is they walked out because Eric Holder is Black
These Elected Officials have violated their Oath of Office and need to be doing the job they were elected to do.
Just having a Congressional Black Caucus is Racist in and of itself. Could you imagine what would happen if a proposal was made to have a Congressional “White” Caucus?
