Thread: "Obamanation."

When A U.S. President IS Muslim Brotherhood

Walid Shoebat 17 hours ago

A short but explosive video of former CIA Director James Woolsey in 2006 has been introduced into evidence at the trial of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his officers. In that video, Woolsey advocates the removal of Middle Eastern dictators, even mentioning Mubarak by name while strongly implying that after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the U.S. would seek similar regime changes in Libya, Syria and elsewhere to make the Saudis and Mubarak 'nervous.'

If you've ever beaten your head against the wall trying to figure out the post-9/11 strategy of the U.S. and why we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq instead of confronting Saudi Arabia directly, the video below might help explain the thinking. It was relayed to us by a reliable Middle Eastern source who has been monitoring the court proceedings (note Arabic subtitles for trial):



Under such a plan, what fills the vacuum? As we learned in 2011 and 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood did. For perspective, it must be underscored that the 19 hijackers that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were members of the Muslim Brotherhood; they were financed by the Saudis. Any strategy that involves a dog fight between the Saudis and the Brotherhood in the Middle East ignores Brotherhood beneficiaries in the U.S. and Turkey.
Since the Brotherhood seeks the destruction of the United States, any scenario that puts them in control of a country is unacceptable. Curiously, as the Brotherhood was ascending to power in Egypt, former U.S. President George W. Bush penned a pro-Arab spring op-ed.
Assuming the strategy espoused by Woolsey during the Bush administration might work, an even more important contingency doesn't appear to have been considered. Specifically, what happens when the U.S. elects a President who is in league with the Muslim Brotherhood?
To be fair, at the time of that video, it had been 11 years since Woolsey was the CIA Director. Perhaps he's even changed his view in the eight years since but the fact that what he advocated then is very similar to what we've recently seen could make it much more relevant. As Shoebat.com has previously pointed out, the Bush administration – as well as the 9/11 commission – appeared to cover up for and protect the Saudis, despite the latter's complicity in the attacks. Even more curious was Bush's decision to embrace Muslim Brotherhood front groups after 9/11.
Doing so was an extremely gross miscalculation.
Applying Woolsey's calculus to all of that could eventually lead to a U.S. alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East. Instead of a policy that called for confronting the Saudis head-on, Woolsey implied doing so covertly, presumably through proxies and agitators. As it turns out, in Egypt, the Brotherhood benefited.
A trial taking place in Egypt right now could be revealing the Obama administration's sinister involvement in the removal of Hosni Mubarak from power in 2011, which paved the way for the election of the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Mursi as President. Within a year, it was Mursi who was removed, but what happened in the interim is coming to light.

Trial of Hosni Mubarak
Consider the recent testimony of Gen. Adly Fayed, former Interior Minister for public security. According to Fayed's testimony, the U.S. embassy reported no fewer than four vehicles being stolen on January 28, 2011. These vehicles were then used to instigate riots and run people over. It strains credulity to believe that the U.S. embassy in Cairo did not have these vehicles secured.
A CNN report at the time included video footage of a U.S. diplomatic vehicle recklessly running over people. In that report, it was stressed that the Embassy insisted the vehicles were stolen. However, in issuing his report, Anderson Cooper made a very bizarre, contradictory and convoluted statement that actually lends credibility to Fayed's testimony. Here is what Cooper said at the end of the clip below (damning claim in bold):

"The U.S. Embassy as you've said has said that a number of their vans were stolen. That's about all we know. It doesn't seem to make sense. The U.S. Embassy was basically on lock down on that day so the idea that there would have been U.S. personnel driving around seems highly unlikely so there seems no reason not to believe the idea that these vans were stolen."

There you have it. Cooper said the idea that the vehicles were stolen doesn't make sense because the embassy was on "lockdown". How do vehicles get 'stolen' from an Embassy on "lockdown"? He then confusingly used that premise to justify the claims the vehicles were stolen. It appears Mr. Cooper may have inadvertently made an excellent point. The rest of that quote is simply incoherent. Watch for yourself:

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/08/u-...AZL6SXE9zHb.99

65 Former Lobbyists Currently in Obama Administration

AP





BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 18, 2014 9:21 am

There are 65 current members of the Obama administration that were formerly registered to lobby the federal government, according to a Washington Post analysis.

The number of lobbyists working for the administration does not seem to fit with an administration that pledged to “close the revolving door” in its ethics statement.

But this is the Obama administration, which trumpeted its anti-lobbyist position in an ethics statement on its transition Web site. “Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence,” one header reads, right above “Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers.” It’s an administration that quickly announced no lobbyists would be allowed to serve on advisory panels — a policy that survived until this week, after a legal challenge.

In an organization the size of the administration, 65 people isn’t a terribly large number. And the lofty rhetoric of the titles on the new administration’s ethics page lie above more subtle proposed reforms. Regardless, it’s worth taking candidate Barack Obama at his word when he said, in a February 2008 speech, that lobbyists “won’t drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.” Or in June 2007, when he said that Americans “want real reform, and they’re tired of the lobbyists standing in the way.” Precisely how many lobbyists you can have in place without such obstruction wasn’t made clear.

This is not a new development, as a majority of those lobbyists were with the administration from the beginning.

Most of the people with lobbying experience who are currently serving with the administration have been there from the beginning. Thirty-six of the 65 joined the administration in 2009; only 6 of those currently with the administration joined in Obama’s second term. [...]
It’s just that this is not quite the picture that Obama offered voters in 2008.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/65-fo...dministration/

WND EXCLUSIVE

Children crossing border: 'Obama will take care of us'

Border Patrol vet says immigrants 'coached' on how to game system
Published: 07/27/2014 at 8:05 PM Jerome R. Corsi About Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Who Really Killed Kennedy?"




McALLEN, Texas – In an exclusive interview with WND and Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, a 13-year Border Patrol veteran revealed many in the recent surge of illegal immigrants, including unaccompanied minors, are coming prepared to game the U.S. immigration system, even repeating the mantra, “Obama will take care of us.”

“I don’t usually get into the political part of it,” explained Chris Cabrera, now a vice president in the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307, “but I find it odd that their whole thing is, ‘We are going to get amnesty when we get here. Where is my permiso? Where is my permission to go north so I can get my medical care and my schooling and all that? President Obama is going to take care of us and make sure we’re all OK.’
“Whether it’s the adults or the young kids, one thing we consistently hear is, ‘Obama will take care of us,’” Cabrera said.
Does Barack Obama WANT to be impeached? Sound off in the WND Poll.
He also suggested the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors illegally entering the United States appear to have been coached on what to say when they cross the border.
“The ‘magic words’ are something along the lines of ‘asylum,’ or ‘political asylum’ or to say ‘fighting in my home country,’” Cabrera said. “They know these words … because we can’t send them home, because it’s too dangerous back there.”
The only way to stop the flow of illegal immigration and child smuggling across the border, he said, is to eliminate the entitlement mentality with a return to strict, border enforcement.
“What needs to be done is 100-percent detention and 100-percent removal,” Cabrera said.

Watch video of Stockman’s interview with Cabrera and the situation at the U.S. border below:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/children-...h68xK0jylEv.30

Cabrera’s comments backed up statements made earlier in the week by Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who told a national TV audience the children were coming through Mexico from Central America by Obama’s “invitation.”
“I think we’re overlooking the obvious here,” Inhofe told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday. “I went down and talked to these kids. … These kids were here in this country at the invitation of the president. I think everyone knows it, nobody says it.”
Todd asked Ihhofe to clarify his comments.
“[Through] his DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, [Obama] is making it sound as if, ‘Come here, we’ll take care of you,’ and they all believe this,” Ihhofe said. “I talked to them individually, and I speak enough Spanish that I could do this. All of them were programmed to say that they had relatives here, they’re invited to come up here, they’re going to stay here – at the same time the HHS says, ‘We’re not going to send them back.’ So long as they have that assurance, more are coming in.”

Watch the interview with Inhofe below:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/children-...h68xK0jylEv.30

Cabrera also confirmed to Stockman an earlier WND story revealing no biometric identification measures are taken on illegal immigrant minors detained at the border, not even fingerprints, allowing them to easily be lost within the U.S. once processed.
“It’s always been a policy within the Border Patrol,” he said. “Those 14 years old or younger are considered children, and no photographs are taken of them, and that’s how it’s always been.”
Cabrera continued to explain that the difference today is the number of unaccompanied minors the Border Patrol is detaining coming across the border illegally.
Chris Cabrera, in action during Border Patrol drug bust

“We’ve never had the number of unaccompanied children like this crossing the border illegally and just turning themselves in, like we’re seeing now,” he said.
Cabrera also indicated that the paperwork required for each immigrant is “very long and involved.” It takes a Border Patrol agent between two-and-a-half to three hours, sometimes even four hours per person.
“When you start multiplying three hours times 1,200 to 1,500 persons in custody, it’s just overwhelming,” he said. “The McAllen Border Patrol station has hit in the recent past 1,500 a day, and sector-wide, from Rio Grande City to Brownsville, we’ve seen up to 3,500 [immigrants] a day.”
He confirmed FEMA agents are now involved, working with the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, of the Department of Homeland Security to relocate the unaccompanied minors to detention centers.
“Once we finish the processing, the unaccompanied minors are handed over to ICE,” he said. “But now FEMA has stepped in, along with the Americorps young men and women especially working with the younger children. The Coast Guard is assisting too, using some of their aircraft to transport them around the country.”
Cabrera acknowledged a change in policy in which the detained illegal immigrant unaccompanied minors are being shipped out of Border Patrol detention facility in vans, instead of buses, “to keep it under the radar and maintain a lower profile.”
WND inquired where the Central American unaccompanied minors who entered the country illegally were being shipped after they left the Border Patrol facility.
“Previously, four or five years ago, the Border Patrol very heavily scrutinized where detained illegal agents were being sent after being processed by us into the United States,” he explained. “I believe now it’s so crowded and overrun that nobody in the Border Patrol has the time or the resources to do it. Some are taken to another Border Patrol processing center and from there to a detention center. Some are taken to buses and trains and let go, but from there nobody really knows where they go.”
He did indicate that detained, illegal immigrant, unaccompanied minors must have some tie to a family member or family friend to be released by ICE into the U.S.
“We can’t release a 12-year-old or a 14-year-old on his or her own recognizance, but the checks going into determining how close a relative or even if the person is a relative don’t seem to me to be sufficiently rigorous,” Cabrera said.
He was especially concerned for the children being released into the open population.
“If you are going to release a child, we ought to know if the person we are relying upon is not a pedophile or a criminal,” Cabrera insisted. “You have to be 100-percent sure, because if something happens to this kid, and we released him to that person, we are responsible for it. This is a child. They are emotionally fragile and physically fragile and anything can happen to them.”
Cabrera explained that usually the children coming across the Rio Grande carry with them some written information designed to be handed over to the Border Patrol identifying relatives currently living in the United States.
“Usually they will have all their personal information written on a piece of paper,” he said. “They will have a backup in their wallet, or in their shoe, or sewn into their clothes. Some of them will write it on the back of their belt, so they know the information won’t get lost. And when they get apprehended, they know to tell the Border Patrol processing agent, ‘Here, this is where I am going. This is my mother, my father, my brother, my sister,’ so they can call and try to make contact.”
Cabrera acknowledged the difficulty of verifying the personal family information.
“We don’t know who wrote that paper, obviously,” he said. “We have no way of verifying who this supposed family really is, and as a Border Patrol agent, we never even see this person come in because the unaccompanied minor is going to be picked up by that family member in the United States somewhere or other down the line.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/children-...RR8hsGiWTmp.99


This President is an abomination..

Another Obama Speech

August 18, 2014

By Sara Noble

Mr. Obama spoke about Iraq during his Monday presser. He said the Iraqis and Kurds took back Mosul dam. There will be a humanitarian coalition to help people in need in Iraq. He seems overly confidant in the impact of Al-Maliki stepping down. Maliki is almost irrelevant. There will be no mission creep, he assumes us.

About Missouri, he said there will be a civil rights investigation by the FBI. There will be meetings with community leaders.

Eric Holder will travel to Ferguson.

He said most of the people are protesting peacefully. He understands the anger, but violence and looting only raises tensions. There is no excuse for overreactions by police.

He said we are a nation of laws. You could have fooled me.

We mustn’t holler at each other.

Obama said we need to listen, unite, understand, blah, blah, blah.

He barely rewrote his last speech.

Obama likely arranged to come back in the middle of his vacation to look like he’s doing something.

He’s going to review the purchasing of military equipment by police forces. He’s always reviewing.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/another-obama-speech/


This man is an obamanation to this Country and needs to be removed...

Obama Doesn't Want to Tip the Scales of Justice (Like He Did with Skip Gates, Trayvon Martin and Lois Lerner?)

August 19, 2014
Windows Media



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'll tell you what. Let's listen to some Obama sound bites here. Let's just see. Start here at number two. This is yesterday afternoon in Washington, at the White House. The president came back from vacation. Oh, try this. People have been asking, "Why did he come back? Why did he come back to Washington from the Vineyard just for three days? What's the point? Just to meet Biden? Why couldn't they have had Biden go to the Vineyard?"
Nobody in the Vineyard wants Biden there.
"Oh. Well, he's gotta meet with people in Iraq and so forth?"
He could do that over in the Vineyard.
Try this. By returning to Washington for three days, the guy buys another, an additional week of vacation. So this two-weeker becomes three. He was originally scheduled to return to Washington at the end of this week, and that would put him in Washington, well, over Labor Day or whatever. Nobody's in Washington over Labor Day. So what do you bet...? Let's just see if I'll be right.
What do you bet that Obama extends the family vacation another week for total of three, using this three-day break in Washington as an excuse or justification or whatever for, "Hey, he came back to work, so he's is gonna be gone an additional week just to make up for the time he lost"? Anyway, we'll see if that happens.
Late yesterday in Washington at La Casa Blanca, Obama make a statement to press about the unrest in St. Louis. Ann Compton with a question. "Sending the attorney general to Ferguson, that's a step, Mr. President. Has anyone there asked you or have you considered going yourself? Is there more that you personally can do, not just for Ferguson, but for communities that might also feel that kind of tension and see it erupt in the way it has?"
See? It happens all over! Isn't it amazing? Right now you can't find another Ferguson, Missouri, outside of Chicago and Detroit. You can't find one, except in Chicago and Detroit it's black-on-black crime. I'm sorry. You can't find another Ferguson. There isn't another Ferguson, and you look at this question, "Mr. President, don't you think if you could go to Ferguson you could control some of these other similar events?"
There aren't any, Ann! Ferguson stands alone. There isn't another Ferguson anywhere.
But look at this question. "Is there more that you personally can do not just for Ferguson but for communities that might also feel this kind of tension and see it erupt the way it has in Ferguson." Mind you... See, folks, there are all kinds of communities out there and they're effervescing at this very moment, and they're about to boil over! The tension between the cops and the black people, it just isn't working, and there's about to be an explosion!
Ferguson after Ferguson after Ferguson!
Except there isn't.
So the question is: Don't you think you'd better go to Ferguson, show these other communities that you care? The question alone makes my point. The question's, "Mr. President, why don't you get involved? Okay, send Holder, great. But why don't you do something?" The impression being left is that he is not involved, he's not doing anything, he doesn't know what's going on. He needs to do and so he needs to go there. Here's what he said.
OBAMA: I have to be very careful about not prejudging these events before, uh, investigations, uh, are completed. Uh, because, uh, although, uh, these are, you know, issues of local jurisdiction --
RUSH: Oh.
OBAMA: -- or the DOJ works for me and when they're conducting investigation, I've gotta make sure that I don't look like I'm putting my thumb on the scales one way or the other.
RUSH: Really? You mean like here in 2009?
OBAMA 2009: I don't know, not having been there, and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police, uh, acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.
RUSH: Stop the tape. Wait a minute! He just said that he not gonna prejudge this stuff; that he can't. He's president so he can't prejudge these events until the investigations are completed. He can't do that. Like the Skip Gates case where he called the police officer stupid and essentially proclaimed Gates innocent before all the facts were in? That led to the beer summit. How about this one? March 23, 2012. Here's the president once again not prejudging, not getting involved 'til the investigation is complete.
OBAMA 2012: My main message is, uh, to the parents of, uh, Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he's looked like Trayvon Martin. And, you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are gonna take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we're gonna get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
RUSH: Yeah. Right. Gonna get to bottom. Right, right. And then there was this interview on Fox before the Super Bowl earlier this year.
OBAMA: No.

O'REILLY: No?
OBAMA: No. There were some -- there were some bonehead decisions.
O'REILLY: Bonehead decisions.
OBAMA: Out of a --
O'REILLY: But no mass corruption?
OBAMA: Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgen of corruption.
RUSH: Wow. So here's a guy who says yesterday he's not gonna get involved. He can't go there. He can't prejudge this -- it's too important -- 'til all the facts are in, 'til the investigation's complete, which, by the way, is going to take months. You people in Ferguson had better batten down and hunker down, 'cause this is gonna take months. By design. Here's a guy prejudging everything up until Ferguson. Now he's got to back off, not get involved.
END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...nd_lois_lerner

Obama’s Secret Congress

Published on: August 19, 2014


With Congress in a proverbial “stand still,” Obama has, basically, created a “legislative branch” of his own behind closed doors, out of the public view, in order to enact government policies through executive order to “fix” problems ranging from immigration to tax laws. According to The New York Times, “Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy, and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists.” This pseudo-legislative branch has included an array of lawmakers, experts and business leaders “for a wide range of perspectives to inform his plans for executive action.” So far, there have been more than 20 meetings this summer of what administration officials call “listening sessions” outside of the public view, with officials refusing to “discuss the sessions in detail because the conversations were private.”

Obama has convened a “private, confidential, pseudo-legislative branch” to draft laws, through executive fiat, affecting the entire country, and no US citizen has the right to know what is going on, since the conversations are private.

For all of those who support the unconstitutional lawsuit, how do you like this maneuver? You can’t complain about the unconstitutionality of these actions – or any action, for that matter – by Obama, when you support an unconstitutional action by Congress in the form of a lawsuit. Hypocrisy has not only been a virtue of the left, but has proven to be a virtue of pseudo-conservatives as well.

According to White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman, “The president has been clear that he will use all of the tools at his disposal, working with Congress where they are willing, but also taking action on his own when they aren’t. As part of this process, the administration has engaged a wide range of stakeholders, and has solicited input from groups and individuals representing a diverse set of views.”

Did Obama include any average Joe Blow, man from the street, stakeholder in any of his “listening sessions?” Probably not, which basically negates a representative government. If any of this involves more government dipping into the taxpayer wallet, there was no representation of the people since one can hardly call lobbyists, experts and business leaders as “representatives.” Lawmakers are not necessarily the same as duly elected representatives of the people. Besides, any member of Congress who participates is not necessarily representative of the entire citizenry, if attending as a “lawmaker.”
Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College, has studied the consequences of executive action. Rudalevige told The New York Times, “The executive branch is not set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is. The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they’re going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them.”

Rudalevige added that those who have an “in” will collaborate with the White House and agencies to get their priorities met, while those who are on the “out” will have to resort to the legal process to challenge Obama’s executive action after it has been taken.

A case in point stems from an executive order issued by Obama last month that “would block companies with a history of workplace violations from receiving federal contracts.” Geoff Burr, vice president of federal affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, stated this action has prompted his group to consider litigation proceedings against the administration. Associated Builders and Contractors consists of a group of companies whose members do 60 percent of federal construction work.

Those on the “out” that would have to resort to litigation means groups like Associated Builders and Contractors. It does not mean Republicans, Conservatives or any group in Congress.

Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions has spoken out against Obama’s “listening sessions,” telling the New York Times, “It is chilling to consider now that these groups, frustrated in their aims by our constitutional system of government, are plotting with the Obama administration to collect their spoils by executive fiat.”

Plotting behind closed doors to enact law without the representation of the people via Congress has trumpeted the claim of dictatorship, echoing the sound of tyranny.

What has become just as frightening as dictatorial action by Obama are the individuals, like Scott Corley, who actually look for “legal ways” for the president to enact law via executive order. Corley is a lobbyist for a coalition of Silicon Valley companies called Complete America. The coalition has sought relief for foreign-born technology workers; these could be legal or illegal.

“We’ve been talking to them about what we believe they can do while we wait for Congress to act,” Corley told a reporter with the New York Times. “We’ve looked where the legal authority exists, and we’ve found lots of ways in which the administration can move forward.”

Many groups have turned to “policy experts,” urging them to compose essays that provide Obama with the legal justification for law enacted via executive fiat. One such expert, former Obama Treasury official turned Harvard Law School professor Stephen Shay, wrote an article that made the case for removing tax incentives “now benefiting companies that move overseas.” Professor Shay wrote an article that appeared in the July edition of the trade journal, Tax Notes, asserting the president’s team had broad authority to act without congressional approval. Even if you agree with the tax incentive removal for companies overseas, the removal of that incentive, according to the Constitution, rests with the legislative branch, not the executive.

And, it has not been only lobby and special interest groups or businesses either that have bombarded the Obama administration with their “wish lists.” Democratic members of Congress have submitted their “wish list requests” to Obama, as well. In fact, you can bet Senator Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA) has requested some action in relation to gun control similar to her March request for an executive order to ban “the import of assault and military style weapons.”

Once support for a violation of the Constitution occurs in one area, it opens the door for violations to occur regarding any part of the Constitution, including an amendment that specifically states “shall not be infringed.” Remember the statement made by Obama after winning the 2012 election – “this is what the people want.” The Democratic Congress railroaded Obamacare down the throat of Americans without one single Republican vote in violation of the Constitution. How many Americans cheered exuberantly? The point has been made sufficiently; however, some Americans are so dense, they miss the point in seeing that support for the unconstitutional health care law is the same as the support for the unconstitutional lawsuit being brought forth by Boehner. Support for unconstitutionality is support for unconstitutionality…period. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to support and which parts to ignore is “being Obama.”

As previously stated in other articles, the Constitution has been trashed, with regard to the function of the branches of government, and Obama has placed it on the White House bathroom tissue roll. By allowing Obama to usurp the powers of legislation, Congress has paved the way for increasing unlawful action by the out of control president.

Along with his “federal police force,” Obama has now created his own “private legislative body” to do the job of Congress. Just like unconstitutional alphabet agencies that enact pseudo-law through regulation, this body will be drafting potential law for executive fiat. Since the Constitution has been trashed and is now being used as toilet paper, what law does this violate? Unfortunately, there is no supreme law as far as Washington and this administration are concerned. To them, no law is being violated, and “experts” have provided the administration with “legal justification” for these actions.

This is the new “transformed” America full of “hope and change” – an Obama America, brought to you by a complicit Congress and a portion of America that supports unconstitutionality. What is the remedy for Obama creating a private legislative body and enacting a law unilaterally? All ideas are welcome, as it’s obvious the Supreme Law of the Land means little to some, which is why there is now government by dictatorial action.

Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

About the Author: Suzanne Hamner Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...wST4CIC7E0b.99


These secret meetings are traitorous actions by our Government officials. These people involved are working against our Constitution and and damaging our Country, they need to be held accountable for their collusion and or treasonous actions, now who will do it????

Answer to America’s Dilemma: Remembering The Price Paid for Her Freedoms

Published on: August 19, 2014


There are men and women in the thousands who have fought, bled and died to give us the freedoms we now possess. They are six feet underground. The truth of the matter is, these veterans fought, bled and died fighting against the ideologies the American people are tolerating through this current administration. If the American people were truly thankful for their freedoms, they would not tolerate crime in their representatives whatsoever (Article II, Section 4, of the U.S Constitution).

Currently, we are out on tour in California doing television, radio, tea parties, etc. During my last tea-party event in Southern California, I noticed a reoccurring theme going throughout the speakers: what the left is doing, what the socialist are doing, what the Democrats are doing and what the immoral are doing (which by the way are all one in the same). And as usual, when I had the opportunity to do my best in setting the record straight, by using the Bible and our founding documents, I had to ask the audience: “How many Constitutions do we have?” They replied, “One!” I then said, “If there is one Constitution, then why are you complaining about what the left is doing? For if everyone here were doing the right thing all of the time, there would be no left to complain about!” Everyone seemed to agree.

President Harry Truman said, “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.”

One of America’s founding presidents, John Adams, stated concerning the two-party system, “There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other.”
When the tea party was talking of the left, and the socialists, the Democrats and the immoral, I said that I did not know that our representatives had the right to break the laws of our Constitutional republic, which God gave (Exodus 18:21). I said, “When you are talking of the left, socialists, the Democrats and the immoral, you need begin to call them out for who and for what they really are, namely, criminals!” (1 John 3:1
Friends, government’s purpose is to “ensure our rights,” rights God gave (Declaration of Independence), not to strip them away under another party name or party guise.

What it really comes to is this: If you really knew the price paid for your freedoms (John 3:16), you would live to magnify the laws our veterans died to give us. “Justice is the guardian of Liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17). We are not going to have liberty without justice (Isaiah 42:1-4). And until you know what the law says through our founding documents, and until you know what that law says in God’s Word (Exodus 20), you cannot bring forth judgment to establish righteousness, peace and resolve!

“We the people” need to begin to magnify the law against all that would attempt to desecrate the sacrifice given (Romans 3:31). This is not going to happen until you see what was sacrificed on your behalf to give you what it is that you have. Herein lies the heart of the issue.
Friends, God gave His Law because He loves, and we can see this through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, which covered sin, through His blood, to establish His Law toward (maybe “against” would be a better word here) sin. If I am born of God, then I am, by His spirit (John 3:3, Romans 5:5), going to love what He loves and am going to hate what He hates. And I am not going to love my brothers and sisters the way that I should until I first love God with my whole heart, soul, mind and strength (1 John 5:2, Hebrews 1:8-9, Hebrews 10:16). And I am not going to love God until I see that He first loved me through His Son’s sacrifice (2 Corinthians 5:15, 1 John 4:19).

Are you thankful for the sacrifice that has been given on your behalf, my friends? If you are, you can rest assured that you will not tolerate what offends God! And what offends God? That which put Christ on the cross. What put Christ on that cross? Sins men have committed! And what is sin? The transgression of Gods Law! And what did love do to cover man’s transgression? Love sacrificed by Christ fighting, bleeding and dying on Calvary to redeem men through His blood back unto the Father (John 15:13).

So, if we as a people see the price paid for our freedoms, there will be no room to tolerate anything that would attempt to desecrate that which God gave through His Son Jesus Christ (in the Spiritual), or in what men have died to give us through their sacrifice (in the natural).
Until America sees the price paid for their freedoms, they will not live for what men have died to give!
Herein lies the resolve.




Think the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case was bad? You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean. Help in his lawsuit against them. Stand for America and get your free gift.

Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter

bout the Author: Bradlee Dean

Bradlee Dean is an ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer, talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, and speaks on college and high school campuses in churches, and headlines for patriot events across the country. Bradlee Dean's ministry is You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. Follow Bradlee Dean on Twitter and Like Him on Facebook.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...qpVHYHkmPiT.99



Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...qpVHYHkmPiT.99

Washington Criminals: Slavery begins with the Religion of Ignorance

Published on: August 19, 2014

“A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the RIGHTS which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Goodness gracious, America – what is it going to take for the American people to bring forth justice against an administration that is willfully and purposely tearing down the Constitution of the United States? Of course, we know that this is nothing but an attempt by the current administration to recreate our country in the image that looks just like themselves … lawless!
What sort of men and woman are behind these unconstitutional and unlawful schemes being perpetrated against the American people on a daily basis?
And let me ask you, what kind of a message is it when those who have been entrusted to represent “we the people” can no longer be trusted? Thirteen percent (Gallup) of the American people say that they have confidence in Congress as an institution.
Capitol Hill Blue did some research on Congress, and here is what they found:

• 111 members of the House and Senate have run at least two businesses that went bankrupt, often-leaving business partners and creditors holding the bag.
• 79 of them have credit reports so bad that they can’t get an American Express card on their own (but as members of Congress, they get a government-issued American Express card without a credit check).
• 64 have personal and financial problems so serious that they would be denied security clearances by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy if they had to apply through normal channels (but, again, as members of Congress they get such clearances simply because they fooled enough people to get elected).
• 31 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse in either criminal or civil proceedings.
• 33 have driving-while-intoxicated arrests on their driving records (34, if you include President George W. Bush, but he never served in Congress).
• 24 are or have been defendants in various lawsuits, ranging from bad debts, disputes with business partners or other civil matters.
• Nine members of Congress have been accused of writing bad checks, even after the scandal several years ago, which resulted in closure of the informal House bank that routinely allowed members to overdraw their accounts without penalty.
• 17 have drug-related arrests in their backgrounds, six for shoplifting, five for fraud, four for assault and one for criminal trespass.

These are the ones that were caught, and this was in 2005!
Because they were not held accountable for their crimes back then, they have today become more emboldened to continue down the same lawless road.
People in this country need to understand that criminals mock society’s laws. America’s compassion is a weakness that its enemies do not and will not share. Criminals thrive on the indulgences of society’s understandings. The corrupt depend upon your ignorance of the Constitution and its enumerated laws. Until America calls those that break the laws “criminals,” nothing is going to change (Isaiah 51:4).
The days are getting darker, you might say, but remember, when you live in darkness, the only light that you have is truth. So turn the lights up and expose the darkness. It would do us all well, America, to stick to the light that not only exposes but also refuses the darkness (Ephesians 5:11).
Daniel Webster rightly said,

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. … Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”

“Study The Past/ History Tends to Repeat Itself”




Mask Off! The Mind of The Enemy Within”



Think the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case was bad? You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean. Help in his lawsuit against them. Stand for America and get your free gift.
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...LDoGhOscKfK.99

Obama Slammed for Golfing Minutes After Remarks on Foley Execution


by Fox News Insider // Aug 21 2014 // 9:49am

As seen on America's Newsroom


President Obama is being called out this morning for heading immediately to a golf course in Martha's Vineyard after speaking Wednesday afternoon about the gruesome beheading of American journalist James Foley by ISIS terrorists.

White House correspondents said the president was on the golf course a mere eight minutes after finishing his speech.

Even the New York Daily News is pointing this out, with many on social media highlighting the paper's cover:



Jonathan Wald ✔ @jonathanwald
Follow
Blistering @NYDailyNews front page. "Golf War" may just stick. Department of Optics, line 1. h/t @nycsouthpaw
8:19 PM - 20 Aug 2014


Karl Rove said this morning that Obama's words on Foley were "passionate" and appropriate, but noted that people are still asking today what
Obama's strategy is for destroying ISIS.

Bill Hemmer asked Rove for his reaction to the criticism over the president's golf outing, pointing out that George W. Bush also took heat for the amount of time he spent at his Texas ranch.

Rove, Bush's senior adviser in the White House, recalled that Bush once regretted delivering a statement about an attack on Israel while he was vacationing in New England.

"This really caused President Bush to examine his behavior in a time of war. And it ultimately caused him to decide to give up golf for the balance of his presidency because he just couldn't square the visual gap between having to make statements like the statements that President Obama had to make and being on the golf course," said Rove.

Rove said Obama's advisers "made a mistake" by not realizing how the timing of the golf game would look.

Hemmer asked for Rove's take on why the White House or the president himself didn't see that beforehand.

Rove argued that the White House has been making a lot of "gaffes" in recent months, though he isn't sure exactly why.

"I just think they're off their game. I don't know whether it's August. Maybe the White House staff needed a break. Maybe they're getting worn out. Maybe the communications mavens over there have just lost their mojo. But something recently the last couple of months has been going on with their ability to handle situations," said Rove.

Watch the full interview and give us your take: is criticism of the president for golfing justified?

video at link below

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/21...oley-execution


Oh like Karl Rove and George bush..."miss me yet" are just the best!!!!! I beg to differ on that note...They are just as bad as Obummer and they are very possibly worse than Obama at least we know how he hates our Country. They hid it...


And remember it is all at Taxpayer expense too, just who is he golfing with ever wonder??? Destroying ISIS, he doesn't plan to destroy them, it is us he wants to destroy!!!