Thread: "Obamanation."

Is It Wise For Obama To Send Thousands Of U.S. Troops Into The Ebola Death Zone?

Michael Snyder September 17, 2014

When there is a major problem somewhere in the world, Barack Obama loves to show that he is "doing something" by sending a contingent of U.S. troops to the affected area. But is it really wise for Obama to send thousands of young American men and women into the Ebola death zone? What are our troops going to do – shoot the virus? Of course not. The UN already has 6,000 uniformed peacekeepers in the region, and they are not doing much good. The truth is that this is a medical crisis that requires medical personnel. By sending thousands of troops into the heart of the Ebola pandemic, we make it much more likely that Ebola will be brought back to the United States. Obama should keep in mind that hundreds of health workers have become infected even though they wear protective gear and are trained to deal with Ebola patients. Our troops have not been trained to deal with Ebola patients and they probably will not be wearing full protective gear when dealing with the general population. But there are sick people among the general population that could pass Ebola to them.

It is absolutely imperative that we keep Ebola isolated to the areas that it is already affecting. The number of Ebola victims has doubled over the past month, and there are computer models that are projecting that millions of people could soon be sick if the virus continues to spread at this pace.
Putting medically untrained troops directly into the death zone seems like a very questionable thing to do. If a single one of them gets sick and brings the virus back home, it could turn out to be one of the most foolish things that Obama has ever done.
On Tuesday, Obama visited the CDC and finally admitted that this Ebola outbreak is "spiraling out of control" and that strong action needed to be taken immediately…

President Obama stressed his sense of urgency on Tuesday at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning that as America scurries to help West African nations grapple with the deadly Ebola epidemic, 'We can't dawdle on this one.'

Of course this is something that he should have done a month or two ago, but at least he is finally stepping up to the plate.
However, Obama continues to insist that the chance of an Ebola outbreak happening in the United States is "extremely low"…

'Our experts here at the CDC and across our government agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low,' Obama declared.
But he described a battery of new biosecurity measures, including toughened airport screening and a growing capacity for lab testing, that will help 'in the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores.'

He better be right about that.
One thing that Obama has correctly identified is the need to build a lot more treatment facilities for Ebola in the affected regions. Right now, all of the existing facilities are completely full and there are no empty beds left…

Countless taxis filled with families worried they've become infected with Ebola currently crisscross Monrovia in search of help.
They scour the Liberian capital, but not one clinic can take them in for treatment.
"Today, there is not one single bed available for the treatment of an Ebola patient in the entire country of Liberia," said Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization's director-general.
"As soon as a new Ebola treatment facility is opened, it immediately fills to overflowing with patients," the WHO said.

Obama's plan calls for building 17 new Ebola treatment facilities with approximately 100 beds each.
Needless to say, that is not going to get the job done. 1700 beds is going to be kind of like spitting into Niagara Falls if we actually do see hundreds of thousands of cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea by early next year.

But should we give Obama credit for trying to do something about this crisis even though he has waited far too long and his plan is not well thought out?
I am not so sure.
Meanwhile, the WHO said this week that the Ebola outbreak continues to grow "exponentially" and that a billion dollars may be needed to bring it under control.
And one U.S. health official told the U.S. Senate on Tuesday that if Ebola continues to spread like wildfire that we could be "dealing with it for years to come"…

"If we do not act now to stop Ebola, we could be dealing with it for years to come," said Beth Bell, director of the national center for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At a Senate hearing on Ebola, she noted that 100 CDC staff are working in West Africa and hundreds more are assisting from Atlanta. "The best way to protect the U.S. is to stop the outbreak in West Africa."

Most Americans still do not seem too concerned about this virus.
But this is not the bird flu. This is a disease that is killing more than half the people that it infects.
Dr. Kent Brantly, one of the American doctors that contracted the virus but eventually recovered, says that this is a crisis that we need to be taking very seriously…

"From the time I fell sick, just two months ago, the death toll has tripled," Brantly said, noting World Health Organization estimates of 5,000 cases, with about half of those patients dying from the virus. "In nine months down the road, we are looking at hundreds of thousands, not just in cases, but deaths."

So what do you think?
Is Obama responding appropriately to this crisis?
Is the world handling this outbreak well?
Source
Get my new book about the future of America: The Beginning of the End.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/wi...6MOhX46rHOd.99



Of course it is not wise but when does he do anything that is wise to protect America?????

38% of Americans Think Obama Has United The Country, The Rest Are Not Hallucinating

http://ow.ly/2NNiDQ


38% of Americans Think Obama Has United The Country, The Rest Are Not Hallucinating
ow.ly

Topics for today’s episode of NewsBusted: – President Obama – USA.GOV – Jay Carney – HHS Department – Welfare Recipients – Talking Obama Doll – ISIS Social Media – Satanic Temple – Detroit – Let’s Move!

Don’t Say You Haven’t Been Warned about Barack Obama… Twice

Published on: September 20, 2014

It was early 2007 when I first began warning America about the individual who represents himself as Barack Hussein Obama being an anti-Western, anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic Marxist. In the following 18 months, a few of us managed to disseminate the deeply disturbing information we gleaned (which was readily available, if not widely reported) on the Democrat candidate.
Unfortunately, none of this did much in the face of the cult of personality and mass marketing that was used to sell this creature to the American electorate. Even Obama’s convicting so-called autobiographical work, Dreams From My Father, replete with bitter anti-Americanism and liberal racist dogma, didn’t do the trick, nor did revelations of his associations with domestic terrorists.
In the years since Obama’s election, of course, he has, in fact, manifested some of the darkest fears his detractors held, and we’ve learned even more about him.
We’ve learned he’s not who he says he is, if for no other reason than his birth certificate and Selective Service Registration were faked, and his Social Security number was purloined from another individual, as well as having been issued from a state in which Obama never resided.

We’ve learned that Obama had a bizarre and perverse upbringing, probably even more bizarre and perverse than the one to which he admits. At this juncture, I can safely say that the narrative of his birth and family of origin is certainly bogus; certain individuals represented therein either never existed, or had roles other than those in the official narrative. His background supporting material is lousy with lost, doctored, and forged documents, and altered photographs.
Surrounded by Marxists, atheists, black nationalists, domestic terrorists, and sundry low-level criminals, drug use, sexual deviance, and the general self-destructive hedonism of these characters pervaded Obama’s early life. As intimated in his own writing, it is likely that he was molested by (or had a consensual sexual relationship with) at least one pederast. Thus, during his career development (such as it was), association with subversives and lowlifes probably seemed perfectly normal.
We learned about the political roots of Obama, his associates, and mentors in Dinesh D’Souza’s film 2016: Obama’s America, which detailed the resentment that people of his ideological bent hold for European nations and America due to their foreign policy over the century or so, and the alleged “under-development” and economic exploitation of Third World nations.
We learned about Obama’s lifelong associations with radicals and Marxists who, as a matter of public record, possess a deep hatred for the entire paradigm of Western civilization, capitalism, and Christianity in particular. They also happen to idolize the twentieth-century’s most notorious tyrants and genocidal maniacs.
Given Obama’s actions while President, we’ve learned that he is at least an Islamist sympathizer, if not a closeted Muslim himself. In fact, it is quite probable that at least part of his higher education was directly funded by foreign Islamist operatives. Obama courted the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization whose stated goals include the ascendency of Islam in America), and has supported their agenda both overtly and covertly. Not only did he dismantle the anti-terrorism infrastructure of U.S. federal law enforcement and the Pentagon, but he insinuated Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives into sensitive areas of the federal government. He almost singlehandedly catalyzed the Arab Spring, which has led to the deaths of untold thousands across the Middle East and Africa, and in so doing has committed acts of treason against the United States of America.
Obama just got through selling Congress on yet another abysmal and nebulous plan to militarily support “vetted, moderate” forces in Syria (who have been fighting to topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for the last few years) in the White House’s new campaign against the terror group ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Unfortunately for the region, the U.S. economy, and our long-term security, lawmakers are either conveniently or imprudently overlooking that:

1. ISIS is an Obama creation,
2. All of the military aid America has supplied to the anti-Assad rebels to date is now in the hands of ISIS, and
3. There are in fact no “vetted, moderate” forces in Syria.

All of the anti-Assad forces work together regularly, and they’re all Islamists. Scratch the surface of a “moderate” Free Syrian Army soldier, and you’ll find a budding jihadi.
And they’re all using us – with Obama’s very willing assistance.
Obama’s key objective in this case remains to topple Assad, the last pillar of relative stability in the region. With Assad gone, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other virulent Islamist forces will dominate the region. However, in the wake of American outrage over the beheadings of two American journalists and with current threats to the homeland, American lawmakers – particularly Republicans – are loath to balk against the president’s ISIS strategy, however enfeebled such an effort may be, since Obama would almost surely blame them for any successful ISIS attacks against America.
At this very moment, despite the testimony of intelligence experts, local law enforcement, and physical evidence, the Obama administration continues to deny that ISIS forces are amassing south of our border with Mexico, and may already be in the United States.
Now, consider this, the most terrifying part of the picture…
In the framework of the twisted, bitter worldview embraced by Obama and his malevolent ideological kin, it stands to reason they would believe that the principal beneficiaries of America’s “crimes” – the American people – should be made to suffer, preferably as much as those whom America and its “co-conspirators” have allegedly exploited.
Right across our border, it appears that Obama now has just the tools to do this, with the help of craven Democrats employing the politics of immigration, and whorish Republicans capitulating to same.
Yet, despite this mountain range of evidence, it somehow remains incomprehensible, even to many Obama detractors who have all this information, that Obama’s actions reflect his intention. Perhaps it is because that in publicly acknowledging this intention, they would suddenly find themselves forced to act decisively against this saboteur, and that is something they are either too afraid to do, or unwilling to do – even if it means the loss of American lives on our own soil – and sometime very soon, I’d wager.
At present, Obama supporters, as well as elements of the liberal press, giggle, titter, and mince at the “absurdity” of the allegations that I and some of my colleagues are making in this area.
It does bear mentioning that these are the same people who giggled, tittered, and minced at the “absurdity” of allegations I put forth seven years ago regarding the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois.
Source
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...1WMFydiwtWS.99

ALK RADIO WATCH

HOW DO WE SECEDE FROM OBAMANATION?

Exclusive: Kathy Shaidle recaps hottest discussions on the air

September 26,2014
KATHY SHAIDLE

Michael Savage
“We all want to see ISIL wiped off the planet, so we all salute Obama’s air campaign,” Savage said to his audience this week. “However, he’s done it unconstitutionally.”

Dr. Savage explained his second objection to the president’s decision to deploy the U.S. armed forces in the region: If the White House succeeds in bringing down Assad, the power vacuum left behind will most likely be filled by someone even worse (Free audio).

Turning his attention to the home front, Dr. Savage said he envied the people of Scotland, who, while ultimately voting not to secede from the United Kingdom, “at least had a vote.”

“Do you have any hope that you could secede from Obama’s domination?” Savage asked his listeners. “There is no chance for us to secede from this liberal cretinism that has paralyzed this nation’s decency. And waiting in the wings are none other than Bill and Hillary Clinton again
"Can you believe this is the best America can do?” (Free audio).

Rush Limbaugh
The radio giant is fighting back against a campaign called “Stop Rush,” which is pressuring advertisers to stop buying airtime on Limbaugh’s program.
Limbaugh’s spokesman Brian Glicklich revealed that the so-called “grassroots campaign” actually consists of “just a small number of hardcore political activists founded by Angelo Carusone, EVP of Media Matters for America. It’s remarkably tiny. Only 10 Twitter users account for almost 70 percent of all StopRush tweets to advertisers, amplified by illicit software.”
On the air, Limbaugh mocked the “drive-by media’s” latest attempts to rally Americans behind a dubious cause: “Nearly 90 percent of Americans say they don’t care about all of this going on in the NFL. … Now, you have to understand. The drive-bys will look at this and they will chalk this up as total failure. The people that write the daily media narrative, that write the daily media soap opera measure their success by learning how much of the general population’s thinking on a subject they’re able to move or manipulate. And this is the second in a row that they’ve bombed out” (Free audio).

Aaron Klein
Investigative journalist Klein warns that Obama’s decision to send 3,000 U.S. military personnel to West Africa to combat Ebola could put Americans at risk of contracting the deadly illness at home. So why his he doing it? Klein explains that it’s all part of a “progressive” plan to turn the American military into “more of a social work organization” that will “fight global poverty, remedy ‘injustice,’ and bolster the United Nations.”
Klein also continues to focus on the Benghazi hearings and reveals new information that ties the State Department’s Benghazi security contractor to Iran-Contra and bolsters the case that Hillary Clinton misled the American public on what really happened.
PLUS: Activist and author Pamela Geller talks to Klein about her controversial anti-jihad New York City Transit ads (Free audio).

Mark Levin
Former IRS director Lois Lerner singled out Mark Levin this week in an interview with Politico. She insisted that leaked emails in which she and her husband calling conservative radio hosts in general – and Levin in particular – “crazies” and “a—holes,” were “taken entirely out of context.”
Levin responded at length on his show, insisting that contrary to Lerner’s bizarre assertion, he and his callers have never talked “about stockpiling food and guns to fight because Obama was going to run the country into the ground.”
“Maybe there’s some Internet shows that do this, maybe there’s a couple big mouths on the terrestrial radio or satellite that do this,” Levin said. “I don’t do this. I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe you should be armed, to defend your family, Obama or no Obama. But the idea that now somehow I and you were involved in, you know, starting this scandal is so preposterous.”
“Now, is it ironic at all that she’s talking to Politico but won’t talk to Congress?” Levin added. “That she pleads the Fifth? Does that sound like somebody who wants to tell the truth?”

Laura Ingraham
Ingraham caused a stir this week when she called an interview on MSNBC “annoying.” She complained about an interview with an illegal immigrant conducted by the network’s Jose Diaz-Balart, in which he also acted as the guest’s “Spanish-to-English translator.”
Calling the interview “painful,” Ingraham also balked at Diaz-Balart’s habit of switching from his usual American accent to a heavily Spanish one when pronouncing Spanish words (Free audio).
Her guests this week included a one-time Muslim Brotherhood operative, who told Ingraham that America has allowed too many “fundamentalists” to enter the country (Free audio).

Glenn Beck
Sadie Robinson of the TV series “Duck Dynasty” is now a contestant on “Dancing with the Stars,” and Beck says she is being singled out for criticism because of her family’s well-publicized Christian beliefs.
One judge had asked Robinson if her “dad OK with that routine? Because it was a little edgy and a little sexy.”
An exasperated Beck said that the teenager’s dancing was “nothing that you wouldn’t see anyplace else, and no one would ever question it” (Free audio).
Beck also wondered by Obama seemed to be trying to hide the fact that Syrian terrorists the president called “the Khorasan group” were actually “an al-Qaida splinter group.”
Said Beck: “The Pentagon claimed they have been watching Khorasan for a very long time, but it wasn’t too long ago that this administration said al-Qaida was decimated and on the run. But now they’re an imminent threat? It doesn’t add up, does it?” (Free audio).


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/how-do-we-secede-from-obamanation/#YBeCYhi3stg31iHa.99

"Presidentialism is significantly and strongly correlated with less political freedom."


It's the Presidency, Stupid
Reason

A conservative legal scholar's surprisingly convincing case against the Constitution.


It's the Presidency, Stupid

A conservative legal scholar's surprisingly convincing case against the Constitution.

Gene Healy from the October 2014 issue


The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America, by F.H. Buckley, Encounter Books, 319 pages, $27.99

• 8.05.14 12:00 pm

• Executive Power

Good luck making sense out of what Americans tell pollsters. According to the Pew Research Center, fewer than one in five of us trusts the federal government. Gallup says that nearly three-quarters of us consider our leviathan "the biggest threat to the country in the future." Yet by equally overwhelming margins, Gallup shows Americans agreeing that "the United States has a unique character because of its history and Constitution that sets it apart from other nations as the greatest in the world."
Apparently, we're disgusted and frightened by our government as it actually operates. And yet we're convinced that we've got the best system ever devised by man.
On both counts, no voting bloc is more convinced than American conservatives. Few go quite as far toward constitutional idolatry as former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, who earlier this year proclaimed that God "wrote the Constitution." But the superiority of our national charter, with its separation of powers and independently elected national executive, is an article of faith among conservatives.

So it's about time for some constitutional impiety on the right. F.H. Buckley answers the call in his bracing and important new book, The Once and Future King. Buckley, a professor of law at George Mason University and a senior editor at The American Spectator, is unmistakably conservative. But that doesn't stop him from pointing out that America isn't so damned exceptional—or from arguing that the revered Constitution has made key contributions to our national decline.
In the conventional narrative, Buckley writes, "our thanks [must] go to the Framers, who gave the country a presidential system that secured the blessings of liberty." A "nice story," he says, but one that "lacks the added advantage of accuracy."
First off, we're hardly "the freest country in the world." As Buckley points out, his native Canada beats the United States handily on most cross-country comparisons of political and economic liberty. In the latest edition of the Cato Institute's Economic Freedom of the World rankings, for example, we're an unexceptional 17th. Meanwhile, as Buckley points out, the Economist Intelligence Unit's "Democracy Index" ranks us as the 19th healthiest democracy in the world, "behind a group of mostly parliamentary countries, and not very far ahead of the 'flawed democracies.'"
There's a lesson there. While "an American is apt to think that his Constitution uniquely protects liberty," the truth "is almost exactly the reverse." In a series of regressions using Freedom House's international rankings, Buckley finds that "presidentialism is significantly and strongly correlated with less political freedom."
In this, Buckley builds on the work of the late political scientist Juan Linz, who in a pioneering 1990 article, "The Perils of Presidentialism," argued that presidential systems encourage cults of personality, foster instability, and are especially bad for developing countries. Subsequent studies have bolstered Linz's insights, showing that presidential systems are more prone to corruption than parliamentary systems, more likely to suffer catastrophic breakdowns, and more likely to degenerate into autocracies. The Once and Future King puts it succinctly: "there are a good many more presidents-for-life than prime-ministers-for-life." Maybe what's exceptional about the United States is that for more than 200 years we've "remained free while yet presidential."
Relatively free, that is. The American presidency, with its vast regulatory and national security powers, is, Buckley argues, rapidly degenerating into the "elective monarchy" that George Mason warned about at the Philadelphia Convention. Despite their parliamentary systems, our cousins in the Anglosphere also suffer from creeping "Crown Government"-"political power has been centralized in the executive branch of government in America, Britain, and Canada, like a virus that attacks different people, with different constitutions, in different countries at the same time," he writes.
But we've got it worse, thanks in large part to a system that makes us particularly susceptible to one-man rule. As Buckley sees it, "presidentialism fosters the rise of Crown government" in several distinct ways. Among them: It encourages executive messianism by making the head of government the head of state; it insulates the head of government from legislative accountability; and it makes him far harder to remove. On each of these points, The Once and Future King makes a compelling-and compellingly readable-case.

"The character of the presidency is such," the British journalist Henry Fairlie wrote in 1967, "that the majority of the people can be persuaded to look to it for a kind of leadership which no politician, in my opinion, should be allowed, let alone invited, to give. 'If people want a sense of purpose,' [former British Prime Minister] Harold Macmillan once said to me, 'they should get it from their archbishops.'"
Presidential regimes invite executive dominance by combining the roles of "head of state" and "head of government" in one figure. "As heads of government," Buckley writes, "presidents are the most powerful officials in their countries. As heads of state, they are also their countries' ceremonial leaders," and claim "the loyalty and respect of all patriots." Where parliamentary systems cleave off power from ceremony, presidential ones make the chief executive the living symbol of nationhood: the focal point of national hopes, dreams, fears, and occasionally fantasies. In February 2009, author Judith Warner took to her New York Times blog to confess that "the other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs." Warner's email inquiries revealed that "many women—not too surprisingly—were dreaming about sex with the president."
Buckley notes that "Britons tend not to chat with David Cameron in their dreams," which presumably rules out soapy frolicking as well. Nor do Brits tend to look to the prime minister for a sense of national purpose or as a cure for spiritual "malaise." Prime ministers are "more likely to be figures of fun…or the butt of slanging matches during Question Period in the House of Commons." Indeed, the parliamentary practice of Prime Minister's Questions, in which the chief executive is regularly and ruthlessly grilled by the opposition, goes a long way toward explaining why there's no such thing as the Cult of the Prime Minister.
Presidents can isolate themselves in a cocoon of sycophants, even putting protesters in "Free-Speech Zones," where their signs can't offend the liege. And the exaggerated ceremony of the office "tends to make criticism of a president seem like lese-majeste," as Justice Samuel Alito learned when he dared mouth the words "not true" while Obama was pummeling the Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union address.
"Thin-skinned and grandiose" characters do better in presidential regimes, Buckley writes, whereas "delusions of Gaullist grandeur are fatal for Prime Ministers." In the U.K., they have to face the music in person each week. The aforementioned Harold Macmillan admitted that the very prospect used to make him physically sick.
The prime minister's Question Time is but one facet of the superior executive accountability offered by parliamentary systems, Buckley argues. Such systems, he maintains, also do a better job of restraining executives' proclivity for launching wars.
It's a counterintuitive claim. In the U.K., warmaking is a royal prerogative exercised by the prime minster, and parliamentary approval is optional. In the U.S., Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the purse, which Jefferson looked to as an "effectual check to the Dog of war."

(Page 2 of 2)

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, Buckley shows, "the absence of the separation of powers in parliamentary regimes and the government's day-to-day accountability before the House of Commons make it far more difficult for a prime minister to disregard Parliament's wishes." Meanwhile, U.S. congressmen reliably punt on questions of war and peace and hardly ever object to funding wars they never approved.

Buckley over-eggs the pudding a bit when he writes that "if one really wants a militaristic government and imperialism, presidential regimes are the way to go." The British Empire managed well enough, having at one time or another made war on all but 22 countries around the world.
Even so, our countries' respective debates over whether to bomb Syria made for an instructive contrast. Last September, Secretary of State John Kerry kept insisting that "the president has the power" to wage war "no matter what Congress does." When the House of Commons rejected airstrikes, Kerry's counterpart across the pond simply said, "Parliament has spoken."
Finally, parliamentary systems do better on the ultimate question of accountability: They make it easier to "throw the bum out" if all else fails. "Prime ministers may be turfed out at any time by a majority in the House of Commons"; they can also be replaced by their party without bringing down the government. Presidents serve for fixed terms, and since we've never, in 225 years, successfully used the impeachment process to remove one, anyone who's not demonstrably crazy or catatonic gets to ride out his term. We're stuck with the guy, thanks to our peculiar system of separated powers.

That system isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's not even what the Framers wanted, Buckley argues. Madison's Virginia Plan featured an executive chosen by the legislature. The Framers repeatedly rejected the idea of a president elected by the people—that option failed in four separate votes in Philadelphia.
What they envisioned was something much closer to parliamentarianism. As the Convention drew to a close, most of the Framers thought they'd settled on a system where presidential selection would usually be thrown to the House, since, after Washington, they didn't expect "national candidates with countrywide support would emerge." It was only after the Convention that Madison became the "principal apologist" for the emerging system of strong separation of powers.
Buckley is relentless in cataloging that system's defects. It's made the executive the most dangerous branch, he writes, fostering one-man rule when "deadlocks produced by divided government…encourage a power-seeking president to disregard the legislature and rule by decree."
Still, is there anything that separationism is good for? It stands to reason that the lack of separated powers in parliamentary regimes makes it easier to get big, bad things done.
Buckley acknowledges the point, but counters that it's also easier to get them undone, and that with a fiscal apocalypse looming, reversibility is more important. That's a plausible thesis, but I'd have liked to see more actual evidence on how well parliamentary regimes do at repealing bad laws and programs.
Buckley also spends comparatively little time on the relationship between regime choice and size of government. He notes that in the 1990s, presidential regimes had lower per-capita spending than parliamentary ones, but "since then, the gap has narrowed considerably—and this is before the bill for Obamacare comes due." But the U.S. still spends less on average than other wealthy democracies, including most first-world parliamentary regimes. And as far as "the bill for Obamacare" goes: Without the separation of powers, there's little doubt the U.S. would have had nationalized health care long before 2009. As Yale's Theodore Marmor, a leading scholar on the politics of the welfare state, argued in Social Science & Medicine in 2011, if the U.S. "had a Westminster-style parliamentary system, it is likely that America would have adopted national health insurance over 60 years ago when President Harry Truman proposed it."
Some scholars have found that presidential systems' apparent advantage on government expenditures vanishes under close scrutiny. But even if the tradeoff is higher government spending in exchange for somewhat greater freedom and a more restrained and accountable chief executive, it's not a trade we have the power to make. "All of this is irreversible," Buckley warns the reader in the book's very first chapter. In the last chapter, he notes that it's "a bit late in the day to adopt the parliamentary form of government the Framers had wanted" before half-heartedly outlining a few reforms he admits won't solve the fundamental problem.
Nobody likes hearing that sort of thing. But personally, I value an accurate diagnosis even if it doesn't come with a magic cure-all. Buckley's Once and Future King makes a powerful case that we're even worse off than we thought.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute, author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power (Cato 200, and a columnist at the Washington Examiner.





http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/3...sidency-stupid

Originally Posted by Newmexican

ALK RADIO WATCH

HOW DO WE SECEDE FROM OBAMANATION?

Exclusive: Kathy Shaidle recaps hottest discussions on the air

September 26,2014
KATHY SHAIDLE

Michael Savage
“We all want to see ISIL wiped off the planet, so we all salute Obama’s air campaign,” Savage said to his audience this week. “However, he’s done it unconstitutionally.”

Dr. Savage explained his second objection to the president’s decision to deploy the U.S. armed forces in the region: If the White House succeeds in bringing down Assad, the power vacuum left behind will most likely be filled by someone even worse (Free audio).

Turning his attention to the home front, Dr. Savage said he envied the people of Scotland, who, while ultimately voting not to secede from the United Kingdom, “at least had a vote.”

“Do you have any hope that you could secede from Obama’s domination?” Savage asked his listeners. “There is no chance for us to secede from this liberal cretinism that has paralyzed this nation’s decency. And waiting in the wings are none other than Bill and Hillary Clinton again
"Can you believe this is the best America can do?” (Free audio).

Rush Limbaugh
The radio giant is fighting back against a campaign called “Stop Rush,” which is pressuring advertisers to stop buying airtime on Limbaugh’s program.
Limbaugh’s spokesman Brian Glicklich revealed that the so-called “grassroots campaign” actually consists of “just a small number of hardcore political activists founded by Angelo Carusone, EVP of Media Matters for America. It’s remarkably tiny. Only 10 Twitter users account for almost 70 percent of all StopRush tweets to advertisers, amplified by illicit software.”
On the air, Limbaugh mocked the “drive-by media’s” latest attempts to rally Americans behind a dubious cause: “Nearly 90 percent of Americans say they don’t care about all of this going on in the NFL. … Now, you have to understand. The drive-bys will look at this and they will chalk this up as total failure. The people that write the daily media narrative, that write the daily media soap opera measure their success by learning how much of the general population’s thinking on a subject they’re able to move or manipulate. And this is the second in a row that they’ve bombed out” (Free audio).

Aaron Klein
Investigative journalist Klein warns that Obama’s decision to send 3,000 U.S. military personnel to West Africa to combat Ebola could put Americans at risk of contracting the deadly illness at home. So why his he doing it? Klein explains that it’s all part of a “progressive” plan to turn the American military into “more of a social work organization” that will “fight global poverty, remedy ‘injustice,’ and bolster the United Nations.”
Klein also continues to focus on the Benghazi hearings and reveals new information that ties the State Department’s Benghazi security contractor to Iran-Contra and bolsters the case that Hillary Clinton misled the American public on what really happened.
PLUS: Activist and author Pamela Geller talks to Klein about her controversial anti-jihad New York City Transit ads (Free audio).

Mark Levin
Former IRS director Lois Lerner singled out Mark Levin this week in an interview with Politico. She insisted that leaked emails in which she and her husband calling conservative radio hosts in general – and Levin in particular – “crazies” and “a—holes,” were “taken entirely out of context.”
Levin responded at length on his show, insisting that contrary to Lerner’s bizarre assertion, he and his callers have never talked “about stockpiling food and guns to fight because Obama was going to run the country into the ground.”
“Maybe there’s some Internet shows that do this, maybe there’s a couple big mouths on the terrestrial radio or satellite that do this,” Levin said. “I don’t do this. I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe you should be armed, to defend your family, Obama or no Obama. But the idea that now somehow I and you were involved in, you know, starting this scandal is so preposterous.”
“Now, is it ironic at all that she’s talking to Politico but won’t talk to Congress?” Levin added. “That she pleads the Fifth? Does that sound like somebody who wants to tell the truth?”

Laura Ingraham
Ingraham caused a stir this week when she called an interview on MSNBC “annoying.” She complained about an interview with an illegal immigrant conducted by the network’s Jose Diaz-Balart, in which he also acted as the guest’s “Spanish-to-English translator.”
Calling the interview “painful,” Ingraham also balked at Diaz-Balart’s habit of switching from his usual American accent to a heavily Spanish one when pronouncing Spanish words (Free audio).
Her guests this week included a one-time Muslim Brotherhood operative, who told Ingraham that America has allowed too many “fundamentalists” to enter the country (Free audio).

Glenn Beck
Sadie Robinson of the TV series “Duck Dynasty” is now a contestant on “Dancing with the Stars,” and Beck says she is being singled out for criticism because of her family’s well-publicized Christian beliefs.
One judge had asked Robinson if her “dad OK with that routine? Because it was a little edgy and a little sexy.”
An exasperated Beck said that the teenager’s dancing was “nothing that you wouldn’t see anyplace else, and no one would ever question it” (Free audio).
Beck also wondered by Obama seemed to be trying to hide the fact that Syrian terrorists the president called “the Khorasan group” were actually “an al-Qaida splinter group.”
Said Beck: “The Pentagon claimed they have been watching Khorasan for a very long time, but it wasn’t too long ago that this administration said al-Qaida was decimated and on the run. But now they’re an imminent threat? It doesn’t add up, does it?” (Free audio).

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/how-do-we-secede-from-obamanation/#YBeCYhi3stg31iHa.99

I can't tell you how but I have thousands of reasons why!!!!! All I can say say if people wake up maybe!!! Here is a good starting list of why..




< >



Kathy Shaidle About | Email Kathy Shaidle is a blogging pioneer whose FiveFeetOfFury.com is now in its 12th year. Her most recent book – "The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada Crushes Freedom in the Name of Human Rights, and Why It Matters to Americans" – features an introduction by Rush Limbaugh guest host Mark Steyn.

Subscribe to feed

How do we secede from Obamanation?

Friday, September 26th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Michael Savage "We all want to see ISIL wiped off the planet, so we all salute Obama's air campaign," Savage said to his audience this week. "However, he's more…

Top host concludes Obama
'craziest man on earth'

Friday, September 19th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Michael Savage Top-rated radio host Dr. Michael Savage called President Obama "the craziest man on earth" after he announced his plan to send U.S. troops into African Ebola more…

Hell freezes over: Limbaugh
unloads on Republicans

Thursday, September 18th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Listeners have been asking Rush Limbaugh why he hasn't devoted much airtime to election-related polls or analyzing the Republican Party's chances of triumphing in the next election. Thursday, more…

Host's disgusted advice: 'Vote the bums in'

Friday, September 12th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Michael Savage Dr. Savage struck a pessimistic note this week, telling his audience, "We live in a dictatorship, make no mistake about it. It's one that's punctuated every more…

Obama reaches new levels of Twitter incompetence

Friday, September 5th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Rush Limbaugh was away all week. His guest hosts included bestselling author Mark Steyn. Steyn told the audience: "The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli is now in the hands more…

Savage: Feds arming for 'war on white people'

Friday, August 29th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Michael Savage Looking back on the nightly violence on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, Dr. Savage made a trenchant observation. For years now, he reminded his listeners, the more…

America on the brink of civil war?

Friday, August 22nd, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Michael Savage Prompted by increasingly troubling events at home and abroad, Michael Savage pushed his publisher to make his new book available for pre-order as soon as possible. more…

Top hosts weigh in on Robin Williams' suicide

Friday, August 15th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- [caption id="attachment_1144515" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Robin Williams[/caption] Michael Savage Dr. Savage called it one of the most important shows he's ever done, and that was certainly true for one more…

Savage explains why Obama really hates Putin

Friday, August 8th, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- Michael Savage Michael Savage rarely welcomes guests on his show, but this week, he brought on respected expert on Russia to try to explain Obama's motivations for provoking more…

Rush: Why is Obama bringing Ebola to U.S.?

Saturday, August 2nd, 2014 by Kathy Shaidle -- [caption id="attachment_1089345" align="aligncenter" width="600"] The Ebola virus under magnification[/caption] According to CNN, two Americans infected with the deadly and highly contagious Ebola virus are being flown from Liberia more…


WND Exclusive: U.S. ally blocking work with anti-ISIS army

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/author/kshaidle/#T6m4ApRQ4qJ6qR0V.99

	September 27, 2014

Obama Uses Tax Dollars to Construct White House Border Wall – Continues to Ignore US Southern Border

Published on: September 27, 2014


Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...2qCdZM2gHRG.99


The southern border of the US remains unsecured and illegal aliens invade our nation daily. Only certain portions of our southern border have a fence to deter invasion even after the 1986 promise to secure the border and never bring up amnesty again. Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, claim that a fence will do nothing to stop the “illegal immigrants” from crossing the border so basically slough off that suggestion. Their continued reasoning is “fences don’t work.” However, there is a fence around the White House to deter “invaders” from crossing along with hidden security and snipers that would deal with any intruders.

That fence around the White House has worked to keep out intruders, even though there have been a few instances of individuals clamoring over that fence to enter the grounds of the People’s House. In the most recent incident, an individual actually made it to the White House. It seems that the number of these authorized visitors are increasing, according to a report by the Daily Caller. In response to this violation of the White House “border,” our glorious dictator has taken swift action to keep out unwanted guests and visitors – he has “authorized” the construction of a wall around the White House to “secure the White House borders.” The new “wall” will not be as tall as the official perimeter fence but will span the entire border of the White House.

While only 3 ft. tall, the wall, along with the official White House gates, will form a strategic buffer zone; this area will not only slow persons attempting to gain access [to] the grounds, but will also allow officers patrolling the border to recognize and neutralize any unlawful entry-attempts.

Really? The king wannabe worries about visitors gaining access to the White House grounds “illegally” so his response is to build a wall with a buffer zone to “deter” illegal entry. Has he not heard that “fences don’t work?”

While the American public has been repeatedly told by politicians that a fence or wall cannot be constructed on the border since it would not deter illegal alien invasion, the dictator-in-chief ordered the building of a wall with a perimeter around the White House to keep out “illegal” visitors. Tax dollars will be spent to “secure the border of the White House” to deter unwanted guests and visitors to protect the DIC; but, nothing can be done to “secure the southern border of the United States” to deter illegal alien invasion to protect the American people and our nation. Talk about a hypocrite supreme!

This man will do whatever it takes to protect the White House grounds from being invaded and himself from possibly being harmed but refuses to protect this nation from invasion and the people from being harmed. He has spouted a welcome message to illegal aliens, including criminals, drug cartels and those who seek handouts, to come across our “open and unguarded” border. Criminal activity along our border towns has increased with sheriffs of the border counties petitioning the government for assistance while offering solutions to the continued crisis. The DIC has ordered the release of illegal alien criminals, dumped thousands of illegal alien invaders into our communities and cities, offered passports and social security numbers to these criminal crossers and allowed the spread of communicable diseases being brought into the country by these illegals.

The American public has been “told” that we must accept these “immigrants, migrants, ‘refugees'” or whatever politically correct term these Washington slugs want to apply to them because we are a nation of immigrants and celebrate multiculturalism. What the American public has been “told” has not been demonstrated in practice by the boy king. One could get violently nauseous thinking about all of this; but, one should be adamantly protesting and refusing to buy the dump trucks full of male cow manure being slung around by the Washington “rulers.”
How many times has it been said that a fence doesn’t keep people out? How many times has it been said fences are designed to keep people in? It is true a fence serves both those purposes and so does a wall. However, many have breached fences in order to escape from areas and to gain entry into areas.

China built the Great Wall to help secure its territory from invasion while Russia established the Berlin Wall to keep individuals from leaving. Both served the purpose for the intent for which it was built. In the case of the Berlin Wall, there were many who did escape and make it to the west; there were also many who died trying. What cannot be disputed is the fact that in both of these cases, the fence or wall was a part of a secure border plan. It is the intent surrounding the fence or wall that makes it either one of security or one of incarceration.

Are we to believe this “wall” authorized by the DIC has the purpose of “keeping people in?” Are we then to believe this authorized wall won’t keep people out? So far, the perimeter fence at the White House has served the purpose of deterring large numbers of individuals from violating the White House grounds. There have been no reports of hundreds of people jumping that fence. Why? It’s not only the fence but the security force that would pounce on the intruder that also prevents fence jumpers. The prompting of an additional wall around the People’s House has been initiated because of a few rogue individuals – a small number seen by the DIC as a large threat to his person and family.

Would not this same logic apply to the southern border – a fence plus a large security force to pounce on illegal alien invaders should the border be breached? Would not tens of thousands of individuals crossing illegally onto our grounds be considered a large threat to the American people and their families?

Obama, his ilk, Democrats and liberals may try to say this is a comparison of apples and oranges. It may well be in their eyes. However, an illegal invasion along the southern border is a threat to our nation and an unauthorized entry onto White House grounds is a threat to the occupant of the People’s House. The only difference has been the government or DIC response to an unauthorized entry of the White House grounds versus an illegal invasion of our nation.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/0...VKqD3FdzIyi.99

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Where to draw the line?

Over six and a half years ago, I wrote this piece drawing on the German experience and asking the question "Where to draw the line?" I subtitled it, "More along the line of grim thinking inspired by government misconduct in the Olofson case." I present it here because the question is still pointedly relevant, as another post that I plan for tomorrow will further demonstrate.

When the 23rd Regiment was finally back in Boston after the ordeal of April 19, adjutant Frederick Mackenzie wrote in his diary, "I believe the fact is, that General Gage was not only much deceived with respect to the quantity of military stores said to be collected at Concord, but had no conception the rebels would have opposed the King's troops in the manner they did." -- General John Galvin, The Minutemen, Pergamon-Brasseys, 1989, page 244.

Where to draw the line?

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Libertarian Wolfe made her famous observation above in the mid-nineties. Now here we are more than ten years later, even more isolated and politically disenfranchised, and we must ask the question: how far do we have to go to get past "awkward?"

History never exactly repeats itself and thus is an imperfect guide. Studying history "we see through a glass, darkly." Still, there are patterns in history that deserve our close attention, so we may better understand how to act in the present and to enable us to better predict the future. Through history, we understand that no idea, bad or good, ever truly dies. We are also shown that people, being human, repeat the mistakes of their ancestors, over and over again. Indeed, there is no one blinder than a historical amnesiac.

Flag of the Reichsbanner, the German military organization sworn to defend the Weimar Republic.

So when we consider the question suggested by Claire Wolfe, that is, when are we past the awkward stage and into the day of "shooting the bastards," we must consult history for examples to guide us. I offer firstly a lesson in waiting too long from William Sheridan Allen's outstanding study, The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town (Franklin Watts/Grolier, 1984):

And yet, one has to ask the question, what happened to those who had sworn resistance? What happened to the Reichsbanner, which had repeatedly asserted, in the years before Hitler came to power, that when the expected Nazi coup came they would be able to defend the Republic? In Northeim, at least, the Republic was destroyed without a single blow struck in its defense. The Reichsbanner, with all its plans for instant mobilization, had its members struck down one by one, its leaders imprisoned, beaten, hounded from their jobs and their homes without any resistance from the organization as a whole.

Perhaps the basic reason for this was that there was no Nazi coup d'etat. Instead there was a series of quasi-legal actions over a period of at least six months, no one of which by itself constituted a revolution, but the sum of which transformed Germany from a republic to a dictatorship. The problem was where to draw the line. But by the time that line could be clearly drawn, the revolution was a fait accompli, the potential organs of resistance had been individually smashed, and organized resistance was no longer possible. In short, the splendid organization was to no avail; in the actual course of events it was every man for himself. (Allen, p. 191)

The Reichsbanner parades past the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, 1929.

Even after reading Allen's work, I have often wondered why the German opposition just laid down without a fight. Back in the nineties, I was talking to Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and one of us (I recall it was him, he thinks it was me) made this observation: "If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had possessed a Mauser rifle, 20 rounds of 7.92mm ball and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would have been an obscure footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."

True enough, whoever said it. But as Grant Hammond observed about Colonel John Boyd's seminal theories of warfare:

"There is another trinity in Boyd’s strategic catechism as well. It is a concern for what he lumps together as moral-mental-physical aspects of opponents. Most definitions of war define them as contests in physical violence. Boyd sees them mainly as moral struggles won as much by mental as physical prowess. But he sees the complex—moral-mental-physical—as a single entity, a synthesis that can be broken down analytically but must be understood as a composite whole. It matches another Trinitarian composite, that of people first, ideas second and things third. This happens to be the opposite of the way most militaries approach problem solving by focusing on technology, platforms and weaponry first, ideas about their employment second and people—who are largely interchangeable and ultimately, are expendable—third. This way of thinking has little utility in Boyd’s Way and in fact, may be the seed of many a defeat." (Source: Grant T. Hammond, The Essential Boyd).

Many Americans, especially us small "r" republicans, take heart when we recall that the American citizenry possesses more small arms than most of the world's armies put together. And as Clausewitz observed, in military affairs quantity DOES have a quality all its own (just ask any Korean War veteran about his first experience with a Chinese human wave assault).

Still, as Napoleon insisted, "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." We cannot be protected by our possession of a hundred million rifles if we lack the will use them. Iraq was an armed society, yet the Saddam dictatorship had little trouble tyrannizing that country for decades. And it cannot be doubted that there are many American gunowners who would, at the first command of an American tyranny, turn in their weapons simply because they are "law-abiding" people who "don't want any trouble" -- simply because, in fact, they have forgotten what it is to be free. They have grown used to doing what the government tells them to do. And perhaps that was the problem with the Weimar republicans:

The Northeimer Reichsbanner itself was ready to fight in 1933. All it needed was an order from Berlin. Had it been given, Northeimer's Reichsbanner members would have carried out the tested plan they had worked on so long -- to obtain and distribute weapons and to crush the Nazis. But (the local Reichsbanner) would not act on its own. The leaders felt that single acts would come to grief, would possibly compromise the chance when it finally did come, and would, in any event, be a betrayal of discipline. They felt that their only hope was in common action, all together, all over the Reich. Hadn't (their national leaders) said that only a counterattack should be made? So they waited and prayed for the order to come, but it never did. And while they waited the Nazis began tracking them down, one by one. (Allen, p. 191)

The Germans, wholly indoctrinated in obeying orders, were incapable of acting without them. Because their would-be tyrants represented "the government" and cloaked their wolfish actions in "legal" sheepskin, because their own "leaders" could not or would not give the order, they all ended up in a concentration camp -- leaders and followers -- without ever having struck a blow. I am again reminded of Boyd's "moral-mental-physical" dynamic by this observation of Allen's:

"This situation, where even heroism was denied the men of the democratic Left, came about in no small measure because of the failure of the Social Democrats to understand the nature of Nazism. Just as their basic premise in the years before Hitler came to power was the erroneous assumption that the Nazis were essentially Putschists who could not possibly attract a mass following, so their basic premise after Hitler came to power was the equally erroneous assumption that his would be a government similar to the others of the Weimar period." (Ibid, p. 192)

Because of their inability to see the enemy for what he really was (and if ever there was an enemy who delighted in shouting his intentions to the rafters it was Hitler) they went straight from the "awkward stage" to the concentration camps without ever firing a shot.

Die Garde der Republik marching song of the Reichsbanner.

Thinking and Acting before Feeling

Now, contrast the behavior of the Germans to that of our Founding Fathers. This is best illustrated by reading Gordon S. Wood's The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 - 1787:

In the American Revolution, Wood wrote, "there was none of the legendary tyranny of history that had so often driven desperate people into rebellion. The Americans were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial shackles to throw off. In fact, the Americans knew they were probably freer and less burdened with cumbersome feudal and hierarchical restraints than any part of mankind in the eighteenth century. To its victims, the Tories, the Revolution was truly incomprehensible. Never in history, said Daniel Leonard, had there been so much rebellion with so 'little real cause.' . . . The objective social reality scarcely seemed capable of explaining a revolution . . .

As early as 1775 Edmund Burke had noted in the House of Commons that the colonists' intensive study of law and politics had made them acutely inquisitive and sensitive about their liberties. Where the people of other countries had invoked principles only after they had endured 'an actual grievance,' the Americans, said Burke, were anticipating their grievances and resorting to principles even before they actually suffered. 'They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.' The crucial question in the colonists' minds, wrote John Dickerson in 1768, was 'not, what evil HAS ACTUALLY ATTENDED particular measures -- but what evil, in the nature of things, IS LIKELY TO ATTEND them.' Because 'nations, in general, are not apt to THINK until they FEEL, . . .therefore nations in general have lost their liberty.' But not the Americans, as the Abbe Raynal observed. They were "an 'enlightened people' who knew their rights and the limits of power and who, unlike any people before them, aimed to think before they felt."

(Source: Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, UNC Press, 1969, pp. 3-5)

The Founders were people who believed in "preserving the spirit of resistance." To take Abbe Raynal's words to their conclusion, the Founders aimed to think AND act before they felt. Unlike the Germans, their "awkward stage" ended at Lexington green, and ultimately led to liberty.

In the light of recent events such as the Olofson case, it seems plain that our own "awkward stage" may be perilously close to drawing to an end. There are those who still insist that such unconstitutional outrages perpetrated under color of law deserve nothing more than verbal condemnation or further attempts at legal redress in a "justice" system rigged against us (as if these thugs pay attention to the law anyway). Used to inaction and afraid of even voicing the threat of justifiable self-defense, these timid souls, these "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots," would have us wait for true tyranny before acting.

This was not the way of the Founders. They understood that tyranny is best strangled in its unholy infancy, before it becomes a raging beast. They understood the threat, they prepared to meet it and, in the end, they defeated it. The Germans of the 1930s did not, and they were devoured.

I say we would do well to emulate the Founders rather than the Germans, to think and ACT before we feel, when it will be too late. This is important not only for those Americans who wish to remain free, but for those on the other side who unthinkingly seek to rob us of our freedoms and for those in the middle who (ignoring the Law of Unintended Consequences) sit idly by, content to watch the destruction of the American republic on television while thinking it has nothing to do with, and can have no effect upon, them.

If we small "r" republicans do nothing else, we should let the rogue elements of our own government know that in addition to outnumbering them, we still preserve the spirit of resistance, despite have been marginalized politically by the two major parties. Perhaps, if everyone understands that, the Redcoats (now wearing black raid gear) will not once again blunder and unknowingly march out from Boston into an unexpected but perfectly predictable butchery contest.

By our words, our preparations, our training and our actions we, the armed citizenry of the Republic of the United States of America, still have the opportunity to convince them of our unyielding determination to remain free. It may be our last best hope to preserve uninterrupted both our God-given liberties and the domestic peace we have come to love too much. While it is better to be "awkward" than to be dead, it is better still to die fighting than to be enslaved without a fight.

Just ask the Germans of the Weimar Republic.

So THINK and ACT before you FEEL. The Founders did.
Posted by Dutchman6 at 11:43 PM

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...-line.html?m=1




Our state leaders (cough ) don't want the sheeple to know they have the POWER of the 10th Amendment which allows your state Senators & Representatives ( gag ), to NULIFY most of obamas garbage.
If your state Reps & Senators didn't do their #duty and introduce a Bill nullifying any new Gun laws, or obamacare, Vote the traitors out in November.

#10thAmendment #state #PURGE #November 

How Obama Beheaded an Oklahoma Grandmother


We might just as well say that President Barack Obama beheaded Colleen Hufford, because through his actions, and especially the actions of the Obama Pentagon, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security, Alton Nolan, Mrs. Hufford's Islamist murderer, was given cover.





Obama Set to Allow Illegal Aliens to Join the U.S. Military

The idea that illegal aliens who meet the phony background checks taking place under DACA have somehow been “vetted” and are fit to serve in the United States military defies our experience in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ft. Hood.





IMPEACH OBAMA!

Click Here to See Just
HOW MANY IMPEACHABLE
CRIMES OBAMA COMMITTED!

RICHARD VIGUERIE is HIRING!

Obama: "I Got Bad Intelligence Regarding ISIS"

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/ob...egarding-isis/



Obama: "I Got Bad Intelligence Regarding ISIS" - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
Obama: "I Got Bad Intelligence Regarding ISIS"


Liar Lair pants of Fire!!! Don't I wish!!!