The Horrific Muslim Infiltration Of Britain

Wake up Americans.... we are on their list to be taken over or eliminated !!

Gulf of 57 States

"If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don’t do that, those ships are going to go someplace else.  And we’ll lose jobs.  Businesses won’t locate here."  President Barack Obama 8/6/13

Uh, the smartest man in the world? Imagine if Bush or Palin had made this mistake and what the media reaction would have been. None of these ports are on the Gulf.

America, Is the "Union Down" ?

THE FLAG CODE

Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10 

As amended by P.L. 344, 94th Congress

Approved July 7, 1976

§ 176. Respect for flag: No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

It was 11pm on Independence Day in Pittsburg, KS. There were 4th of July sounds of missiles, firecrackers, rockets exploding in the air and many flashes of light over the tree lines. And as my wife and I sat on our screened back porch in our quiet safe small town neighborhood, my thoughts turned back to what the people of revolutionary days when those sounds that were heard in the dark. In those days, actual weapons were being fired and American men and women dying on our soil to gain the freedoms that most of us take for granted.

What they struggled, fought and died for, we forget to easily and just assume that we will always have it. We wake up in the morning and have the freedom to explore, make money, produce art, speak freely yet we abuse those rights by forgetting what they cost. Too often we don't speak or don't stand because we are afraid of what someone else might think or say. My friends this nation is in trouble.

We have massive debt that we will NEVER be able to get out from under. More people are on poverty than in the history of this nation. The work force is getting smaller and smaller. Inflation is causing prices to go up and quality and quantity to go down. We are giving billions of dollars we do not have to Islamic extremest factions in the middle east. We are a more divided country. Politicians are corrupt liars that do not serve the will of the people but the will of the dollar. Those in politics that are honest and firm in their beliefs (aka Ted Cruz) are labeled as right wing wacko tea baggers. We get more upset about what Paula Dean said years ago than we get about the lies told by the President, Secretary of State and the UN Ambassador about what really happened in Benghazi. We have a Secretary of State that boldly scolds when asked for the truth lashes out "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!". We have politicians in Texas putting in a catheter so she can filibuster a bill that want to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks. Not to ban it completely but ban it only after 5 MONTHS. This list could  go on and on...

And while all of this is happening, God and religious faith is locked out of our schools, and town squares and our television. We have become so out of our minds that a baseball team that put a small cross in the dirt on the pitchers mound to honor one of their great losses, is ordered to remove it. My friends, this nation IS in distress and we sail along like nothing is wrong and we sit in the corner silenced. Wake up America. I know that sounds so cliche and is so over used but we seriously need to wake up.

The video below is from Glen Becks show in Utah on July 6. Hidden meaning? I don't think it's hidden at all. We are a nation in distress. Freedom is in distress. To the soldiers "raising" the flag it is normal, but for us watching, there is distress. Maybe we should all begin to hang our flags upside down? Please watch this, not only is it a beautiful version of "America The Beautiful" but it's almost a sad beauty based on the state of our nation today.

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

―Dietrich Bonhoeffer

It is not a sign of disrespect but simple a sign of distress.

America is Arming Evil ?

We are in  trouble. President Obama announced last week that we are arming the Syrian rebels. Putin and Russia are on the other side. Neither side is OUR side. We must wake up. It was discovered that one of the rebels recently killed an enemy, cut his chest open and ATE the heart. Putin on Monday confirmed this story as an example of why they are not supporting the rebels, but we are. You will never see this clip he shows on the other networks, either they are blind or corrupt.

Please watch this video, Beck explains why both the Dems and Repubs supporting this move, are WRONG on this. We should stay out of this.... not a Beck fan? Get over it.... what if he is RIGHT ? Warning GRAPHIC !

OBAMA ADMIN ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER

THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER

Report No. 1: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Obama Administration DOJ’s Expansive View of Federal Power By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

The Obama Administration, through its Department of Justice, has repeatedly advocated a radical theory of sweeping federal power. The Administration’s view of federal power is so extreme that, since January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected DOJ’s arguments for more federal power six times. Notably, four Justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents denied the Obama Administration’s overreaches—President Obama picked two of them himself. As Ilya Shapiro noted in The Wall Street Journal on June 5, 2012, “When the administration can’t get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of law, that’s a sign there’s something wrong its constitutional vision.” If Obama’s Department of Justice were successful in its cases the federal government would have the power to:   Attach GPSs to a citizen’s vehicle to monitor his movements, without having any cause to believe that a person has committed a crime (United States v. Jones); Deprive landowners of the right to challenge potential government fines as high as $75,000 per day and take away their ability have a hearing to challenge those fines (Sackett v. EPA); Interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC); Override state law whenever the President desires. (Arizona v. United States); Dramatically extend statutes of limitations to impose penalties for acts committed decades ago. (Gabelli v. SEC); and Destroy private property without paying just compensation. (Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States).
   
The arguments advanced in these cases demonstrate an astonishing view of federal power on behalf of the Obama Administration, worthy of further examination. If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the President’s whims, bring debilitating lawsuits against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person’s private property without just compensation. Luckily, we do not have to live in that America. The framers of our Constitution created the separation of powers to ensure that judicial power checks executive power. And, the U.S. Supreme Court did just that when it unanimously rejected the Obama Administration ’s farreaching positions in these six cases decided in just over the past year. Below are summaries of those six cases: United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEKS POWER TO ELECTRONICALLY TRACK AMERICANS WITHOUT CAUSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT In United States v. Jones, DOJ attempted to secure carte blanche authority to monitor the public movements of anyone, at any time, without providing any reason at all. DOJ sought the right for the government to attach a Global Position System device to a vehicle and monitor its movements without cause, unsuccessfully arguing that the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure, does not extend to electronic tracking devices. The President’s lawyers stated that the information collected by a GPS system is already in public view and a person should not expect it to be private. Thus, according to DOJ, police could attach a GPS to a car and monitor its movements in public without a search warrant or any cause to believe a crime would be committed. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled DOJ’s Orwellian position—all nine Justices agreed that a search occurs when police attach a GPS to a car and monitor its movements.

Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTS TO SEVERELY CURTAIL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT GIVING CITIZENS PROCESS TO CHALLENGE EPA

In Sackett v. EPA, DOJ sought to prevent a landowner from challenging Environmental Protection Agency orders and fines. The EPA’s Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of pollutants into “the waters of the United States,” was at the center of this dispute. If EPA believes someone is violating this provision, the agency can issue an administrative order requiring the property owner to remedy the problem, and then file a lawsuit if the owner doesn’t comply with the order. And, when EPA issues a compliance order and then prevails in a subsequent lawsuit, the property owner can be fined up to $75,000 per day. The Sacketts owned a 2/3-acre residential lot in Idaho, where they wanted to build their dream home. The lot was north of a lake, but separated from the lake by several lots that already had buildings on them. Before constructing their new home, the Sacketts filled part of their lot with dirt and rock, prompting the EPA to claim the Sacketts forced pollutants into the nearby waterway. EPA stated the Sackett’s property was within its jurisdiction because it was “adjacent” to “navigable water.” EPA then issued a compliance order to the Sacketts, directing them to restore the lot, give EPA access to the lot, and provide EPA with records about the property. The Sacketts wanted to challenge EPA’s order as exceeding its authority, especially since they were facing potential fines of $75,000 per day. They asked EPA for a hearing and EPA denied the request. The Sacketts then filed a lawsuit against the EPA in federal district court. But, DOJ argued that the Sacketts could not challenge the EPA’s compliance order until EPA filed a lawsuit against the Sacketts to enforce the order. According to DOJ, “EPA’s discretion to determine when and whether suit should be filed, and its ability to use the compliance-order mechanism for its intended purpose, would be substantially undermined if compliance-order recipients could immediately hale the agency into court.” DOJ effectively wanted to put the Sacketts into a Catch-22: either the Sacketts complied with the EPA order, or they faced fines of up to $75,000 per day while waiting for EPA to sue. The Court unanimously rejected DOJ’s outlandish argument. The opinion observed that “the Sacketts cannot initiate [a civil action brought by EPA], and each day they wait for the agency to drop the hammer, they accrue, by the Government’s telling, an additional $75,000 in potential liability.” The Court went on to state, “it is hard for the Government to defend its claim that the issuance of the compliance order was just ‘a step in the deliberative process’ when the agency rejected the Sacketts’ attempt to obtain a hearing and when the next step will either be taken by the Sacketts (if they comply with the order) or will involve judicial, not administrative, deliberation (if the EPA brings an enforcement action).” If DOJ had won its case, the EPA would be able to extort settlements from Americans who don’t have the ability to challenge these orders while they face fines of up to $75,000 per day. Thankfully, the Court stopped DOJ in its tracks.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO DENY CHURCH’S RIGHT TO SELECT MINISTERS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT

In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, DOJ argued it had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers, a plain violation of the First Amendment. In one stunning exchange with Justice Elena Kagan, a DOJ lawyer explained the administration’s thinking. Justice Kagan asked, “Do you believe, Ms. Kruger, that a church has a right that’s grounded in the Free Exercise Clause and/or the Establishment Clause to institutional autonomy with respect to its employees?” The DOJ lawyer replied, “We don’t see that line of church autonomy principles in the Religious Clause jurisprudence as such.” Justice Kagan—who was nominated by President Obama and had served as his former Solicitor General—later remarked that it was “amazing” that DOJ believed that “neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause has anything to say about a church’s relationship with its own employees.” Indeed. The Court’s opinion unanimously rejected DOJ’s cramped reading of the First Amendment and recognized the ministerial exception. Hosanna-Tabor explicitly stated, “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers.”

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO DISPLACE STATE LAW ANY TIME THE PRESIDENT DECLARES ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES In Arizona v. United States DOJ tried to take away states’ rights to create their own laws on the basis that the federal government had different law enforcement priorities. Even though the Court did hold that federal law preempted three out of four of Arizona’s immigration laws at issue in the case, no Justice accepted DOJ’s theory that mere federal enforcement priorities—as opposed to federal statutes passed by Congress or regulations enacted by federal agencies after public participation—trumped state law Under the Supremacy Clause, a state law can be preempted when a state law is in “conflict with federal law” on the basis that “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility” or the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” In Arizona v. United States, DOJ tried to concoct a new form of preemption: “federal enforcement-discretion preemption.” Meaning, when government has discretion to choose whether to enforce certain federal laws, the states are categorically prohibited from enacting their own laws as a backup mechanism for enforcing existing federal laws.

None of the Justices accepted DOJ’s far-reaching argument. The majority found three of the four challenged state laws preempted, but on the basis that existing congressional statutes—not executive enforcement priorities—preempted these state laws. All three dissenting Justices similarly rejected DOJ’s enforcement-priority theory of federal preemption as well. Had the Court accepted DOJ’s new theory of preemption, the federal government would have drastically expanded its authority to wipe out state law based on the whims of the executive branch.

Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT POWER TO PUNISH CITIZENS In Gabelli v. SEC, DOJ argued it had the discretion to impose severe penalties on Americans based on events that happened years, or even decades, earlier. The Investments Advisers Act of 1940 authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek civil penalties against an investment adviser who defrauds a client. But the SEC must generally do so under the statute of limitations provision that applies to many other government penalties. This statute of limitations requires the government to bring a civil enforcement action “within five years from the date when the claim first accrued.” In this case, DOJ argued that the “discovery rule” exception should apply – that is, this five-year statute of limitations should not begin to run until the government discovered, or could have reasonably discovered, the alleged fraud. The Court found that DOJ’s invocation of the discovery rule was misplaced. Gabelli said “we have never applied the discovery rule in this context, where the plaintiff is not a defrauded victim seeking recompense, but is instead the Government bringing an enforcement action for civil penalties.” The Court also posited that the government “is not like an individual victim who relies on apparent injury to learn of a wrong,” but is rather constantly investigating potential violations with “many legal tools at hand to aid in that pursuit.” Additionally, it noted government suits “involve penalties, which go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers” and that “the SEC as enforcer is a far cry from the defrauded victim the discovery rule evolved to protect.” Had DOJ prevailed, the federal government would have gained significant new authority to punish citizens by manipulating the intention of a law intended to protect defrauded citizens, not government regulatory agencies. Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511 (2012): OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO VIOLATE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTIONS

In Arkansas Fish & Game Commission, DOJ attempted to take property away from citizens without just compensation. The case begins with a decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release water from a dam at a slower than usual rate. This gave downstream farmers a longer harvest time, but it also resulted in an extended period of flooding for a particular wildlife and hunting preserve that is used a timber resource. The owners of the preserve sued the federal government, alleging a temporary taking of their property without just compensation. The trial court found that “the Corps’ deviations caused six consecutive years of substantially increased flooding,” which resulted in a temporary taking that destroyed or degraded “18 million board feet of timber.” DOJ argued that the government should be able to flood land, on a temporary basis, and not pay property owners just compensation for damage caused by the flooding. But the Court unanimously scuttled DOJ’s theory and found no reason to create a “temporary-flooding exception” to the Takings Clause. In fact, the Court said the parade-of-horribles argument advanced by DOJ was overblown: Time and again in Taking Clause cases, the Court has heard the prophecy that recognizing a just compensation claim would unduly impede the government’s ability to act in the public interest. We have rejected this argument when deployed to urge blanket exemptions from the Fifth Amendment’s instruction. While we recognize the importance of the public interests the Government advances in this case, we do not see them as categorically different from the interests at stake in myriad other Takings Clause cases. If the Court accepted DOJ’s arguments, the federal government would have the ability to tamper with a private citizen’s property without paying just compensation. The Takings Clause, on its face, rejects this position, which is precisely why the Supreme Court unanimously denied DOJ’s effort to expand federal authority at the expense of individual rights. * * *

When President Obama’s own Supreme Court nominees join their colleagues in unanimously rejecting the Administration’s call for broader federal power six times in just over one year, the inescapable conclusion is that the Obama Administration’s view of federal power knows virtually no bounds.
6

Facebook Detox

I am going on a Facebook detox. Through the election I hoped that posting occasional links and thoughts would be my way of getting the truth to people that may not see it any other way. Obviously the election did not turn out the way I had hoped but that is the way America is. The vote is a powerful tool and I believe that it will be again in 2014, 2016 and beyond.

I've been accused of being a racist nazi, a "dick" and other evil accusations and hateful thoughts. Life is too short, yet goes on rather we are happy or not. I am tired. Tired of feeling like I have been misunderstood and disliked by people that are either family or claim to be friends. All I want is an open dialogue but that has to go both ways. Recently I do not comment on posts or links that I would like to discuss because of previous experience that usually turns out bad. I learned a long time ago that two stone walls arguing will never convince the other to move.

Then why go down that road. I ask myself that question everyday and today after reading a particularly one sided and biased column, my boil over point was reached. I will miss the info from companies and websites that informed me but I can get that info in other places.

It is very exhausting and deflating to be constantly bombarded with messages about how people with your beliefs are wrong, stupid or hateful when I know deep in my soul that it is not true. I am a proud American. Proud of American and Christian beliefs and traditions. Proud of the free market and all of the good it has done for the world. Capitalism has done more for the poor and oppressed than any other system. Look around the world.... show me where communism has worked and not resulted in the deaths of millions.

America is and will be the light of the world, IF we let HIM be the light of the world once again.

God Bless America and it's people.

We Can't Afford It

During the White House Press Conference Dec 6, 2012 the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this....

"The president of the United States will not sign a bill that extends tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, or for those making more than $250,000 a year. This is an issue that the American people understand, they are very clear about, and -- if public surveys are to be believed -- are supportive of the president on. We can't afford it." 

We can't afford it? Did he really phrase it that way? Interesting because I don't know about your family or your business but in our family, if we "can't afford it" we don't buy it. Well in the governments case, you don't spend it. Or they shouldn't spend it. But that is water under the bridge. But even in that analogy you do what you can do stop the water that will will soon wash out the bridge. When the water flow (out of control spending) is stopped you can look at reinforcing the bridge to make it stronger for the future. But all the progressives want to do is build another bridge on top of the old one, just a little but higher. Now that makes a LOT of sense doesn't it.

Like I said in a previous post, the President wants to take 1.6 trillion dollars out of the private sector and buy things that the government deems necessary. Meanwhile, the water keeps coming and coming without decline and in fact continues to rise. About all of that spending, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT". You might say, well the rich can afford it, they are not paying their fair share... give me a number on what you think qualifies as "fair share". I have been looking for a Democrat to stand up and tell us what meets the fair share level? I believe that the top 5% of taxpayers, cover about 70% of the total revenues as it is now.... you want that higher? What is fair about that. Just because someone has it does NOT give the government the right to TAKE it from them.

I don't see a good solution to this for the Republicans in the short term because all the President needs to do is call their bluff and it we fall after leaving the cliff, the Democrats and their lapdog media will blame it on the Republicans because they took the side of fat cats over the middle class. And if the Republicans cave and give in to tax rate increases, they can forget about EVER getting a tax cut again because this will be used as an example to throw water on the fire for cutting taxes.

The real problem is that both sides are just offering band aid solutions when a serious enema is required to totally cleanse the Washington of the crap the politicians have been serving up to ALL Americans for well over two decades now.

We can't afford it.


.