Christopher Lasseter: Only Eyewitness To Breitbart’s Death Vanishes

The only eyewitness to the sudden death of conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, Christopher Lasseter, has seemed to disappear. A private investigator has been unable to locate the 26-year-old Lasseter.

Christopher Lasseter is the eyewitness who claims to have seen Andrew Breitbart drop to the sidewalk in front of a restaurant. His disappearance now adds to the mystery surrounding Breitbart’s March 1 death.

In addition to Lasseter’s disappearance, on the day that Los Angeles County coroner released Breitbart’s autopsy report, one of their photographic technicians suddenly died.

What was most troubling about Andrew Breitbart’s death was that just weeks before he had claimed, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D. C., that he was going to vet Barack Obama with new video from Obama’s college days on March 1, the very day he died.

Christopher Lasseter is no longer residing at his last known address in California, according to investigators. They were also unable to obtain any information about Lasseter concerning a landline or cell phone.

According to WND, the investigator, recruited by Ohio-based private investigator Susan Daniels, determined that at one time Lasseter had lived with his parents in Los Angeles, but after attempting a phone call to the residence he was greeted by a voice recording where not one of the names mentioned were either Lasseter’s parents or Lasseter himself.

One can only assume that Mr. Lasseter has desired to be out of the spotlight and avoid questioning. We are hopeful that there has been no foul play.

Christopher Lasseter, as an eyewitness, described Breitbart’s final moments as he said that when Andrew stepped on the curb he, “fell like a sack of potatoes.”

Lasseter was also a former Army medical corpsman and so he would be aware of what takes place when someone has a heart attack. He said he was most disturbed by Breitbart’s color, which he described as bright red, instead of what is commonly seen in heart attack victims, which is that they turn blue as they gasp for breath.

Ron Paul Takes Majority of Delegates In Maine & Nevada

While the news media continues to promote Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee, though he has yet to actually get the delegates to win the nomination in Tampa, Ron Paul, once again swept up the delegates in Maine and Nevada.

His supporters took control of the Maine Republican Convention and elected a majority slate.

The votes at the end of the two-day Maine convention had Paul coming away with 21 of the 24 delegates of the state that will go to the convention in Tampa, Fl.

According to Jim Azzola, Cumberland County coordinator for Ron Paul, “It’s a certainly significant victory.”

While Mitt Romney and his campaign say they do not view Paul as a threat to winning the nomination, they are careful to not say anything that will anger Paul’s supporters for fear that it would create a backlash against them. They are aware that they would need the Paul supporters should they receive the nomination.

Mike Dennehy, a former top aide to the 2008 McCain campaign, said, “I think he’s being very careful because he knows how important the Ron Paul voters are _ they obviously represent a very different dynamic. They are the most passionate and the most frustrated of any voters heading to the polls. And many of them are independents.”

Charles Cragin, a Romney supporter who lost his bid to chair the convention said, “They have so phenomenally screwed this up that they will go to Tampa and not be seated.” He claims that Paul supporters have violated the rules of procedure in Augusta and yet it has been the Romney campaign along with the RNC that have openly violated the RNC’s own rules.

John Carson, another Romney supporter said, “This is a split convention. The Paul supporters have had a successful process and should be congratulated on that. I think it’s important that the Romney camp and Paul camp come together and support a single candidate.”

In Nevada, Paul supporters organized gaining 22 of 25 delegates. While Mitt Romney took fifty percent of Nevada caucus goers in February, Paul took nineteen percent.

It seems Paul supporters couldn’t get their people turned out for the caucus, but according to veteran political columnist Jon Ralston, “They outmaneuvered the Nevada Romney people ever since and dominated the county conventions and this is the inevitable result. The question remains: To what end?”

While the media continues to point to these delegates as “bound” to Romney it has been made clear that the RNC rules will not allow delegates to be bound.

According to one Paul supporter, the caucuses were just, “a gauge of where everyone was at that moment in time. But this is the process we go through to determine the best candidate, and it doesn’t end until Florida.”

According to the Christian Science Monitor, “If most Republicans and pundits consider Mitt Romney the all-but-nominated champion to take on Barack Obama in this year’s presidential election, Rep. Paul’s army of enthusiastic and determined backers beg to differ. In fact, they’re not begging at all but pounding at the gates of conventional political thinking. All that’s missing are the torches and pitchforks.”

Barack Obama Drafted Memo to Blame Military if Bin Laden Mission Failed

According to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who appeared on Fox News’ ‘Hannity’ on Friday, Barack Obama drafted a memo to protect himself from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. This would have allowed Obama to then place the blame of the failure of the mission on General William H. McRaven.

Mukasey wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal this week.

He told Sean Hannity,

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.

Michael Mukasey then went on to contrast Barack Obama’s “blame game” with Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. In doing so he contrasted the way Barack Obama calculates to take credit for himself and place blame on others.

When it came to Lincoln and the failures attributed to General George McClellan and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Lincoln took the blame stating, “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower was very similar. In the famous statement penned before the Normandy invasion, in anticipation of failure, Eisenhower wrote, “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Once the invasion had been successful, Eisenhower didn’t take credit, but rather gave credit where it was due. “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes. I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.”

Look how far we have come from the days when a man took responsibility for his decisions instead of blaming others.

Obama Impersonator Steve Bridges Death: ‘Natural Causes’

The Los Angeles Times describes impersonator Steve Bridges as the actor who impersonated President George W. Bush. Most recently, Bridges impersonated President Obama. Bridges was 48 and is said to have died of “natural causes.” It’s strange that two young men — Andrew Breitbart and Bridges — both died from “natural causes” and both were associated with President Obama in some way.

Ron Paul Grabs Delegates As RNC Presumes a Nominee

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is in a panic and seems to be violating its own rules presuming Mitt Romney will be the nominee. However, even with the efforts of both the RNC and Mitt Romney, it is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who is cleaning up in terms of delegates at the state level.

As brought out by Fox News affiliate reporter Ben Swann, not only is the national media content with the idea that Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, but so is the RNC. But there is still a primary going on and Romney does not yet have the nomination.

According to Rule 11, Section A The Rules of the Republican Party states:

The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from 14 of 41 the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing deadline for that office. In those states where state law establishes a nonpartisan primary in which Republican candidates could participate, but in which the general election may not include a Republican candidate, the candidate endorsed by a convention held under the authority of the state Republican Party shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the Republican nominee.

The RNC is doing the exact opposite. The RNC chairman announced just last week, “Governor Romney’s strong performance and delegate count at this stage of the primary process has made him our party’s presumptive nominee. In order to maximize our efforts I have directed my staff at the RNC to open lines of communication with the Romney campaign.”

The RNC is not supposed to be doing this until they have a nominee and have “prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from 14 of 41 the state involved.”

Romney demonstrates the violation of the rule as well on his website. The screenshot was taken today and if you will notice it says in the lower right hand corner, “Already hit your limit? If you’ve given the maximum of $2,500 for the primary and $2,500 for the general election to Romney for President, you can still give to the Romney Victory fund, our joint fundraising committee with the Republican National Committee by clicking here.”

So if you have hit your limit of $2500 in contributions to the Romney campaign, you can still give to Romney via the Republican National Committee. This is in direct violation of RNC Rule 11, Section A as they are not to, “contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing deadline for that office.”

Furthermore, the reason they don’t have a nominee yet, is because there is still a race for the GOP presidential nominee. It is, despite what the media has been saying, still a two man race. Texas Congressman Ron Paul is still running, has millions to spend, and is actually winning the delegates in the states. Paul has not only won Iowa and Minnesota with a majority of delegates and he is expected to do incredibly well in Maine, Washington State, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Nevada, but this past week, some incredible things took place.

In Louisiana there were a 150 delegates at the district level who will move on to the state level where they will elect 46 delegates to the national convention. Louisiana has bound delegates. On Saturday 111 of the 150 district delegates were for Ron Paul.

Also on Saturday in Mitt Romney’s home state of Massachusetts had its own Congressional delegate caucus. They chose 19 delegates to go to the convention. Sixteen of those nineteen are Ron Paul supporters.

Now the conventional wisdom has been that the bound delegates are to vote for the winner of the state in the first round of voting. Should a nominee not be selected, they are then free to vote from whomever they wish.

However, the thing the Ron Paul campaign has picked up on is Rule 38 of the Republican National Convention Rules for 2008 and 2010.

“No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.”

This allows for all those delegates to vote for Ron Paul and this is what his campaign has been pushing for the entire time. It is also the reason the GOP establishment has gone after him from the very beginning. Paul’s campaign is a true blue grassroots effort.

Someone needs to tell this to the GOP strategists though. Taylor Griffin, a GOP strategist at the Washington, D.C.-based Hamilton Place Strategies said, “The bottom line is any attempt to gather more delegates (for Paul) is not likely to yield success. The only person it’s going to help is Barack Obama.” Apparently Mr. Griffin is unaware of Rule 38 and the fact that Paul is picking up the majority of delegates.

Mitt Romney is not as close to having the delegates needed to be the nominee as the media or the GOP would have us believe. In fact, he may be losing the race for the nomination. Since last week Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have possibly lost 62 combined delegates.

Apparently all this has the RNC alarmed as it seems they are wanting to stop the Paul campaign from getting delegates in Nevada on Saturday, according to a report.

With the mainstream media reporting “bound” delegate numbers only and not dealing with Rule 38 and Ron Paul picking up a majority of delegates, there is no doubt that the nominee will be determined at the convention and not before, unless the RNC starts changing its rules mid-game and it seems they are willing to ignore some already.

So what does all of this mean? It means the GOP primary really just started!

Obama Bullys Fundraise For A ‘Savage’

The Obama Administration has put its full support behind the “It Gets Better” project, even devoting a specific section of the WhiteHouse.gov website to the Project.

That’s right the people’s website, along with the occupant of the White House is openly endorsing homosexuality as normal. You’ll recall that the “It Gets Better” project is led by openly homosexual Dan Savage and as I reported the other day, Mr. Savage is one of the biggest bullies. In fact, if you don’t think so and you think Mr. Savage is just this nice guy, please watch this video. I’m not going to even embed it here as it is so perverse and full of hate. But just note the way Dan goes after Rick Santorum, even attacking the man’s name with disgusting perverted definitions. If that isn’t bullying, I don’t know what is.

So why is the Obama administration backing such a vulgar, perverted bully? Well, just like most liberals they want to push an agenda. The WhiteHouse.gov website brings up several links involving “It Gets Better.”

In June 2011, Savage and his partner attended the White House and got nice and cozy with Vice-President Joe Biden, as well as, others.

So now it appears that the Obama administration is perfectly ok with not only homosexuality, but it’s ok with promoting the biggest bully from fraudulent anti-bully campaign.

In case you are one that supports homosexuality and teaching in schools that it is ok and normal and should be accepted, Dan Savage is a man who is pushing for that type of “education” to be taught to your children. Is this what you really want? Do you really want this man allowed to push his deviant agenda, which is not anti-bullying, but is really an all out attack on the family, marriage, human sexuality, God, the Bible and the values that most people in our land would hold dear.

Ron Paul Steals Spotlight From Mitt Romney In Home State

While many believe that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee this year, it has been very interesting to watch over the past week as Texas Congressman Ron Paul has won several states in the delegation process leading many to ask if there is more to come, and could there be a brokered convention. In Romney’s home state of Massachusetts Paul clearly stole his thunder and stepped into the spotlight once again.

Though Mitt Romney had assembled a team of delegates to support him at the nominating convention in Tampa, that didn’t exactly pan out the way he thought it would. When the Republicans in Massachusetts, the state that Romney formerly governed, went to their caucuses, they didn’t elect Romney’s choices, but rather went after Ron Paul’s.

According to the Boston Globe, less than half of the twenty-seven delegates chosen by Romney actually won, including some big names.

While the media continues to black out Ron Paul, including the fact that they will not even mention that the GOP race right now is actually still a two man race, not a one man race, the Paul campaign continues forward, keeping its eye on the ball and that is what it has always done. The Campaign for Liberty has always said the message is most important and the strategy is in the delegation process.

Ron Paul picked up 16 delegate slots out of 19 in the Massachusetts congressional district selection processes.

It appears many of the delegates from Massachusetts have the same sentiments as this Marine veteran below:

Dan Savage: Example Of The Hypocritical, Intolerant, Hate Speech Of Homosexuals

In our society today it is an amazing thing in which we find the militant homosexual community calling for special rights, talking about tolerance, accusing others who disagree with their choice of lifestyle and perversion of the God ordained means of sexuality and marriage. Yet on the other hand they are the ones who are most hypocritical and intolerant.

One such example is Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project. His “project” is a campaign of anti-bullying of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgendered) teens. Apparently, his anti-bullying though does not work when it comes to Christians who believe the Bible. There seems to be an “open season” to bully those that believe the Bible. While he demands that others, specifically Bible believing Christians, stop bullying those engaged in the perverse lifestyle of homosexuality, lesbianism, transgender, and bi-sexuality, he has no problem in bullying them.

At a speech he delivered at the National High School Journalism Conference, sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association, Mr. Savage just could not tame his tongue and demonstrated why militant homosexuals should not be taken seriously when they cry about being bullied, when they cry “intolerance” and when they cry “hate speech”. With that said, homosexuality itself should be taken very seriously as it has very serious implications, both temporal and eternal.

Dan Savage’s remarks were so unprofessional and so full of hate and mockery that upwards of 100 students got up and walked out. In fact, Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California said that the speech was not about anti-bullying, but “turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

Tuttle went on to say that the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.

According to one 17 year old girl who was in attendance, “The first thing he told the audience was, ‘I hope you’re all using birth control. He said there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong. Right after that, he said we can ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

As many students got up and walked out, Savage heckled them and said they were “pansy-assed.” Now you let a Bible believing Christian speak of the sin of homosexuality in a setting like that and you will hear the cries of the depraved homosexual community, along with those who stand with them, cry for arrests for “hate speech.” Somehow, truth is intolerable, while lies and sexual perversion are supposed to be tolerable.

“You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible,” Savage said as other students cheered. “It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back.”

So, in this one sentence what we find out is that Dan Savage and his organization are nothing more than flaming hypocrites. They claim to be an anti-bullying organization, while at the same time taking an opportunity given to them to bully others.

Savage, following the “lecture” said, “But I have a right to defend myself and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.” The problem was no one was attacking him. I for one would clearly say that Mr. Savage has the right to defend himself should he be attacked by anyone, but that was not taking place here. In fact, the only one attacking was Mr. Savage. He was not defending. He was on the offense, and yet here he is, like a good liberal, playing the victim. He doesn’t want to be responsible for his actions, but he wants to blame others.

I can tell you what would have taken place at the school I attended if a person like Dan Savage had taken to the stage: He would have been removed as soon as he began such comments. In fact, at the school I attended neither he, nor anyone from his organization would have been allowed to attend because it would have been recognized that they were sexual deviants who were seeking to warp the minds of young impressionable people. It seems those days are long gone in some areas of our country and we should desire to have them return once again.

Was Andrew Breitbart’s Coroner Michael Cormier Poisoned To Death?

Michael Cormier spent his life determining how people died. Now, his colleagues are trying to determine the cause of the death of a coroner may have been involved with the case of Andrew Breitbart.

While the Los Angeles County Coroner’s department is waiting for a toxicology report to return to determine the exact cause, LA Police Department Lt. Alan Hamilton says, “At this point we haven’t ruled out foul play. It is one of the things being considered. We are waiting for the coroner’s results.”

What is eerily strange in this instance is that Cormier died on the very day of the release of the cause of death of Andrew Breitbart by the LA County Coroner.

According to Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV, “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”

Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.

All this does is fuel the speculation that something sinister is taking place. Just days after Andrew Breitbart’s untimely death, Barack Obama impersonator Steve Bridges died of ‘natural causes’ and now we have another death of a coroner on the same day of the release of the Breitbart Autopsy Report.

Ron Paul Will Be On The Ballot In Tampa

According to Fox News, it is “inevitable” that Ron Paul will be on the ballot in Tampa.

It seems as always that the media has not covered well those things it should and have over-covered things it shouldn’t, such as the Trayvon Martin case. They do this because news for the most part these days is entertainment. It is not true journalism.

However, the truth is coming out as we knew it would. Remember all that mess that went on in Iowa and how the GOP were scared to death Ron Paul was going to win and said if he did win to pay attention to who came in second? Remember how they moved the counting of the votes to a secret location because they were advised of potential “voter fraud”? Remember how the state was called for Romney, then weeks later it was called for Santorum? All those people have egg on their face now.

Ron Paul and his campaign told us back then they owned the delegates and it appears now the media is finally getting around to telling the truth about it. Paul will take the majority of delegates from Iowa. He has won the state.

In addition to that, Paul will also win Minnesota. It is also very likely he will will Maine and Nevada and possibly Missouri and Colorado.

This will give him at least five states and maybe more that he has won, which would allow him to be placed on the ballot in Tampa.

Still, in all of this the media continues to ignore him in the main. Yes, they made this announcement, but it was only because they had to. It was news, but immediately they go back to Mitt Romney stating how he will be the nominee. Well wait a minute. Romney is being given way more delegates by the numbers than he actually has at this point. Those delegates have not been given just yet.

It is presumptive of the news outlets to state what they have stated. According to their numbers, Paul isn’t even close to what he actually has.

So while the mainstream media, and sadly even those who are not mainstream continue to tell us that Romney is the nominee, for now it appears that there is a contender to that nomination who is debt free, truly conservative, bears a record that goes with that and has run his campaign with truth and integrity. Ron Paul will be ready to rumble in Tampa come August.

Barack Obama Is No Ronald Reagan

In recent days Barack Obama has tried to make himself out to be the re-incarnation of Ronald Wilson Reagan. He did this at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building when he tried to speak about the “Buffet Rule” and everyone paying their fair share in mid-April.

This isn’t the first time that Barack Obama has thought of himself as a previous President. He has invoked FDR and Teddy Roosevelt as well, but on the person of Ronald Reagan he could not be more wrong.

The entire worldview of Barack Obama is vastly different to that of Ronald Reagan. Reagan had the best interest of America in mind when he set out to give tax cuts and seek to insure America’s security. I grant that there were some things that happened in his administration that I do not agree with, but overall his policies were American, not anti-American.

Barack Obama has felt the need to run around the world and apologize to everyone under the sun for the very existence of America. He does not have America’s interests at heart. He has his own.

In contrast, who can forget Ronald Reagan’s famous speech where he didn’t apologize for America or what it stood for, but instead declared “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!” Who could forget how he won the Cold War without firing a shot, or shut up the mouth of Libyan dictator named Muammar Gaddafi with a single bombing?

One instance in which we can see just how vastly different both of these Presidents are is to look at what they did when they assumed office. Reagan came in after the Carter administration and inherited a complete foreign and domestic mess. In fact, Jimmy Carter was considered one of our worst Presidents. I say “was considered” because Barack Obama has far surpassed Carter in terms of being the worst President.

I’ll grant that we were having foreign problems before Obama took office. I’ll also grant that the economy was down, but Barack Obama sat and told the people of America that if he did not get this thing done, and by that he meant the economy, then it was a one-term proposition. In fact, he claimed we would see results of his economic stimulus within a year!

Well ladies and gentlemen, he has failed and not just failed, but failed miserably. Just compare Ronald Reagan’s policy of really letting America run itself and giving people more of their money and Barack Obama’s policy of spending taxpayer money on stupid schemes and slush funds that went belly up, producing nothing but debt and deficits.

Just look at a comparable difference between the Reagan numbers in 1983-84 and the Obama numbers of 2011-12. They speak for themselves.

1983/84 2011/12
Economic Growth Jan-March 1983/2011 0.3 2.3
April-June 1983/2011 5.1 0.4
July-Sept 1983/2011 9.3 1.3
Oct-Dec 1983/2011 8.1 1.8
Jan-March 1984/2012 8.5 3.0
Job Growth Jan-March 1983/2011 320,000 576,000
April-June 1983/2011 931,000 389,000
July-Sept 1983/2011 1,224,000 383,000
Oct-Dec 1983/2011 979,000 492,000
Jan-March 1984/2012 1,201,000 635,000


Now remember, these numbers reflect 3 years into their first terms. Ronald Reagan inherited a far worse economic crisis than Barack Obama did. Reagan chose to push for American exceptionalism and letting people keep more of their money, while Barack Obama said that America had been bad boys and girls and needed to change to learn to play well with others and thus decided to not even adopt a budget and claim that spending our way out of debt was the way to go. In fact, the man still has not adopted a budget and continues to put our country at a great security risk by his out of control spending policies.

Keep in mind also when you look at the numbers that the population has risen 33% since 1984. There really is no comparison except to show the dismal failure of Obamanomics. Ronald Reagan knew how to create a vibrant economy and it didn’t happen with government. It happened with American citizens being allowed to keep and spend their own money the way they thought best. Barack Obama thought it was best to spend the American citizen’s money the way he thought best and we see where that has gotten us.

Barack Obama said if he couldn’t get it done he should be a one term President. Let’s hold him to that and make it so.

Guantanamo Detainees Get New $750K Soccer Field

At a time when our nation faces record deficits and a lack of desire for a federal budget by the current administration, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are receiving a very expensive gift, courtesy of the U. S. taxpayers. Gitmo has just built a brand new soccer field at Camp 6 at a cost of $750,000.

The project began in April 2011 and is due to be finished this spring.

Apparently soccer is a very popular sport with the detainees there and so it seems the Obama administration is just fine with spending American taxpayers money to make sure everyone at Club Gitmo is happy.

Remember this is the detention camp for those who we have been told are ‘enemy combatants’. Yet these enemy combatants have access to the field about 20 hours a day.

Since the camps opened in 2002 only a half dozen cases have been prosecuted. Of those, four ended in plea agreements with minimal jail time.

Barack Obama said he wanted to close down Gitmo and yet it seems that the man is building it up, while at the same time wanting to offer sweetheart plea deals to the detainees.

For instance, Khan who is accused of leading attacks inside the U. S., including a plot to blow up gas stations is expected to cut a deal. This man was hand picked by September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and is also implicated in an assassination plot against former Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff and a car bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia in 2003.

Furthermore, Osama bin Laden’s personal cook and driver are spending less time in prison than Americans who have been prosecuted in federal courts on lesser charges.

Does any of this seem right? It sounds ominously unjust.

One Omar Khadr, who killed an American soldier in Afghanistan is half way through an eight year sentence at Guantanamo. It is rumored that he may even finish out his sentence in Canada.

Well you judge. Is the U.S. government dealing justly with these men?

On top of all of this, is it fair to the American people to put these people up in such a place, take our tax money and use it to build a three quarters of a million dollar soccer field? Is it fitting for a man who murdered an American soldier to only be given eight years?

I think most people would agree with me that spending this money for the detainees “enjoyment” is outrageous. What is even worse is that Americans, under the NDAA can be targeted for assassination by the Obama administration on the basis of the administration saying you are a terrorist, while those implicated in terrorism and the deaths of soldiers, who gave their lives, are cut deals.

Presidential Tax Returns: Refunds – Obama 24K, Romney 207K

Barack Obama released his 2011 tax returns last week. The total due to the Obamas, according to the IRS, is $24,515. His effective tax rate is 20.5 percent. It is not unusual for many presidential tax returns often come with large tax refunds.

In all fairness, is this a lot of money for a refund to a president and have other presidents gotten refund in the past? I certainly find the refund to be huge, but that is only because I don’t earn near the amount of money that Barack Obama does. But compared to the history of presidents, it’s not that huge.

For instance, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, received a refund of $61,451 in 2003. He only owed the IRS in his first and last year of office. In the first year (2001) he had to pay $4,030.

Let’s compare that with Barack Obama. In the previous two years he has had refunds totaling a little over $20,000. However, in 2007 he really took a hit and owed the IRS $1,059,826. Apparently the sales of his book brought that about.

As for presidents prior to George W. Bush, they all developed similar patterns in their taxes during their terms in office.

Bill Clinton received refunds every year, except for the year of his election (1992) in which he owed $4,085.

George H. W. Bush received refunds every year, except the year after his election (1989) in which he owed $3,228.

Even Ronald Reagan only paid the IRS once during his presidency to the tune of $124,582 in 1982.

So what does this mean for an election year? Well Mitt Romney has released his estimated 2011 tax returns and he’ll be receiving a refund of $207,818! Honestly, that is an amazing amount of money, but it is a very small percentage of what was actually made, which his Adjusted Gross Income was $20,901,075. In 2010 the story was very similar for Mr. Romney.

I am for any citizen using legal means to keep all the money they earn and apparently all the candidates on the GOP side along with Barack Obama have good tax advisors. This is one of the big issues of liberty. Keeping government’s hands off as much of our money as possible should be the goal of every American citizen, but sadly, what America has come to is that many Americans and many politicians want to take money from some citizens and give it to others.

There is no doubt that the media will be all over Mitt Romney for the massive money that he has earned and the huge refund he is receiving. In the end both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both making more than the average American and both are receiving back larger refunds than the average American. I for one don’t want to see anyone, including those running for office, pay anymore to the IRS than they have to.

One thing that must remain front and center is the fact that America has been known as the land of opportunity. We cannot continue to allow those who do well and are successful to be ridiculed simply because they did so. We should encourage more of that.

With that said, should Mitt Romney receive the nomination and defeat Barack Obama in November, there is no doubt that he would be receiving the largest refund check ever of any president since presidents began releasing their personal tax information.

DHS Ammo Hoarding Continues

At the end of last month I reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) awarded a bid for 450 million hollow point bullets to defense contractor ATK. This came just two years after awarding ammunition manufacturer Winchester a similar contract for 200 million .40 hollow points and a new bid for 175 million rounds of .223 ammo.

It seems that this is not enough for “Big Sis”, as the DHS has been nicknamed. Not only does DHS need millions of rounds in .40 hollow points and .223 along with bullet resistant booths, but now it has put out a bid for even more ammunition and this time it is specifically for multiple calibers and training. If you view the bid online it seems as if they are seeking to train their personnel in the use of firearms that would be most common in citizen’s homes.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) will be the recipient of this new ammunition once the contract has been awarded. There is no doubt that this is for training purposes. According to the bid, only 8450 rounds will be purchased and in various calibers from .22 to 30-06.

What is most interesting is that many have speculated that the previous orders were for “target practice”. The first thing to note is usually if one is practicing they will use full metal jackets or “target loads” as they are called, not hollow points. However, to be fair and give the benefit of the doubt, DHS may simply order one type of ammunition and not worry with whether it is a target load or a hollow point.

In either case, the question must be asked, “Why is DHS acquiring so much ammunition?” After all they are not the military. They are the Department of Homeland Security and as such they should not be those who are constantly having to be using their weapons. In fact, the use of their weapons should be a very rare thing. Certainly it should not be enough to warrant over half a billion rounds in two years.

Is there something that the American public is not being told about these ammunition acquirements? Why is it that DHS can place an order for millions of rounds of .40 hollow points and yet when you go to the store, they don’t carry many packages of the same rounds at all?

While I realize that ammunition needs to be purchased for law enforcement, it is the extent of the purchase that concerns me most, especially in light of the fact that DHS is not the US military.

In seeing what DHS has done in regards to TSA, along with their VIPR project and their ties to Eric Holder and Barack Obama and company, it doesn’t sit well with me at all. However, I’m sure anyone who reads this will definitely feel the homeland is more secure than ever knowing that a department that should not even exist is stockpiling more bullets than there are people in the United States.

Barack Obama’s Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate Is Forged

It appears the web is a buzz with information concerning the New Jersey court contest in regards to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. At the center of the controversy now is the fact that Barack Obama’s own lawyer has apparently conceded the fact that the document is a forgery.



According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot.”

She then went on to try and establish his eligibility by speaking of his political popularity, not legal qualification, in order to be a candidate!

Penbrook Johannson, editor for The Daily Pen wrote:

“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified. Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

So what this comes down to is legal tip toeing around the issue. Let me put it simply. Obama’s own lawyer admits that the birth certificate which was put out by the White House is irrelevant to his placement on th e ballot. The birth certificate does not prove Obama is not a “natural born” citizen since it is a forgery. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not made their case and Barack Obama should be left on the ballot. I’ll bet Mr. Bill “It depends on what is, is” Clinton was behind this bit of legal wrangling.

As far as I can see that makes it a bigger issue than just that of the State of New Jersey. This is most definitely a national issue. The President of the United States’ own lawyer has just stated unequivocally that the President knowingly put out a forged document and claimed it was his birth certificate. Ladies and gentlemen, why in the world then, is there no immediate cries for impeachment and more than that, charges of treason brought against Barack Hussein Obama?

I’ll tell you why. It’s an election year for one. Two you have a Democrat led Senate that will never vote to convict him. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it as their duty, but sadly the reality is that impeachment proceedings against a sitting President are purely political. However, I would hope that the Republican led Congress might get some brass ones and begin the proceedings anyway, letting people know they intend to carry out impeachment, even if Barack Obama is elected again and to encourage others to vote in those who are principled enough to uphold the Constitution, especially when it comes to a usurper in the Oval Office.

In a nut shell, the above is exactly why Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do not fear mocking the American people with their blatant forgery, lies and manipulation of the Constitution and the facts. In order to remove the man it would have to be done by force or by impeachment and impeachment will never happen with the way things are now. It is my opinion that since our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both enemies foreign and domestic, that they should be looking at the evidence and act accordingly.

UPDATE: Hill even argued that Mickey Mouse could be on New Jersey’s Presidential ballot!

Rocking Preacher Bradlee Dean Responds to Anti-homosexual & Abortion Allegations

Bradlee Dean, a pastor and musician based in Minnesota, has come under fire many times in the past several years from critics. These critics have lied about his anti-homosexual stand, his stand on abortion and recently a school assembly in which Mr. Dean dealt with the issue of abortion in regards to the Constitution.

Dean is the founder of You Can Run International. His words have often been twisted as saying that he is calling for the execution of homosexuals. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The media often takes words out of context and thus when they do they end up making someone say something they are not at all saying. Take for instance how Bradlee Dean simply pointed out that Muslims executed homosexuals according to law and spoke of how they had more morality than American Christians in that aspect of holding up what the Bible calls an abomination. He wasn’t calling for homosexuals to be executed. What he was saying is that America has failed to call homosexuality what it is: sin and an abomination before God.

By the way, for any homosexuals who might be reading this and think I or Bradlee are homophobes, let me ask you, do you even know what the word means? It means “fear of people”. Neither I or Bradlee are fearful of people. Nor are we fearful of homosexuals. However, do we fear the wrath of God upon our nation, just as it came to Sodom and Gomorrah? You betcha!

This is why Bradlee Dean’s message has been on that. It is not necessarily “anti-homosexuals,” but is a pro-family message. It is not “anti-abortion,” but pro-life. When you listen to the man speak, his words are filled with love, not hate. He genuinely desires for homosexuals to repent of their homosexuality. He genuinely desires that mothers would not murder their unborn children and he genuinely desires for people to know their Bible and their Constitution.

The mission purpose of You Can Run International is:

“To reshape America by re-directing the current and future generations both morally and spiritually through education, media, and the Judeo-Christian values found in our U.S. Constitution.”

The recent controversy was caught on video concerning Bradlee Dean’s teaching of the Constitution and inserting the issue of abortion in the midst of it. What follows is a series of videos and you can find more on YouTube concerning Bradlee Dean.

Before viewing the videos, which I highly recommend, notice that Dean and his band, Junkyard Prophet, had been at the school in question in Dunkerton, IA before and received praise from the principal there at the time, Jim Moeller.

Here is the clip where Dean addressed the Constitution and the issue of Abortion and was told to leave and the kids dismissed, but watch what happens:

Here is the portion of the presentation which covers infanticide, Planned Parenthood and the issue of abortion:

This shows how the media distorted things and how Mr. Dean set the record straight:

And finally at a community forum, the residents and students spoke out on behalf of Dean and his band:

This is a true American and I applaud his stand and his desire to help the youth of the country. We need more men and women like him who love people enough to confront them with truth. God bless Bradlee Dean.

“Hands On Originals” Keeps Hands Off Homosexual T-shirts

According to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, a homosexual group has filed a human rights complaint against a Lexington, KY t-shirt company because they refused to print t-shirts for a local homosexual rights organization. The company, “Hands On Originals”, is a well known company in the region. They declined to print the shirts for the city’s Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) because of their Christian convictions.

Well I say good for “Hands On Originals”! Matter of fact, for those in this audience who might like to have T-shirts done in the future, I suggest you give these guys a call and have them do it. Give them your support and business for standing up for their rights.

The attorney for the T-shirt printer, Jim Campbell, said that the attacks were out of line and I agree. Mr. Campbell is with the Alliance Defense Fund. He continued,

“No business owner should be forced to violate his conscience simply because someone demands it. The Constitution absolutely supports the rights of business owners to decline a request to support a message that conflicts with their deeply held convictions.”

I totally agree with him. This is the problem with the homosexual community. They say they just want to be left alone and treated as other people. Well here’s the thing, do you see “other people” printing up shirts for “Hetero-Sexual Pride”? Do you see other people making their sexual orientation how they define themselves? Do you see other people doing some of the things that the homosexual community does out in the open during their “Pride” parades? I don’t think so.

They mouth off that they don’t want government in their bedroom and yet when it comes to someone saying, “Hey I don’t agree with you, your lifestyle and your message”, they immediately want government involvement. Can you say hypocrite? I can. Hypocrites!

“Hands on Originals” will face an investigation according to Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission. Should the company be found guilty they could be subjected to fines.

While the company is facing a barrage of attacks, they seem to be as busy as ever, according to the young lady that answered the phone when I called. More than 2,000 people have joined a boycott movement on Facebook. another group is trying to buy the company’s mortgage so they can be evicted. Can you say hypocrites? Let me see if I have that last one down correctly. They are angry as Hell at the T-shirt printers for discriminating against sodomites, but they want to own their mortgage so they can evict them based on their discrimination which was on religious principles. Hello Lexington, KY? Does your law protect from religious discrimination? Apparently it doesn’t.

And to prove that, exhibit A: Lexington’s mayor is openly gay. He told the Lexington Herald-Leader, “People don’t have patience for this sort of attitude today.” No sir, people like you, don’t have patience. People like me and the majority of the country have plenty of patience for people of conscience and conviction. We aren’t panty waists like yourself (yes that was a pun).

Mayor Gray said that he fully supported the investigation. I’m sure he does. Just like all liberals he has no problem spending taxpayer dollars over something that should be painfully clear and easy without any investigation. The owner simply turned down business because of conscience and Lexington has a stupid law in place that protects sexual perverts over normal law abiding, God fearing citizens.

Gray went on to say, “I’m against discrimination, period. It’s bad for business and bad for the city.” Then Mayor Gray, if it’s bad for business then the market place will take care of people like “Hands On Originals”. As for your city, I’m guessing your open perversion is not doing anything good for the city of Lexington, at least not in my eyes. I plan on never visiting Lexington, KY as long as you are mayor and I’ll encourage those in this audience to boycott your city too.

Blaine Adamson, the managing owner of “Hands On Original” wrote in an op-ed for the Lexington Herald-Leader,

“I decided to pass on the opportunity because, as a Christian owner, I cannot in good conscience endorse groups or events that run counter to my convictions….[He] does not expect, or even ask, people to agree with my view. All I ask for people is to respect my right as an owner to not produce a product that is contrary to my principles.

Adamson called on people to stand up for the rights of small business owners not “to be forced into producing a product with a message that conflicts with their beliefs and consciences. Over the past 20 years, we have declined to produce several other products with different messages than the one at issue here because we disapproved of whatever message it was, and it never had anything to do with discrimination,” he wrote. “People reading this may disagree with my view on the current issue, but I hope they will join us in supporting our right to decline an order that promotes a view so contrary to our personal beliefs.”

I agree with Blaine and ma hopeful the community will get behind him and that his business will grow even more.

The obvious question in all of this is why would someone want to do business with someone that didn’t want your business? I’ll tell you why, all liberals are the same. It isn’t about business. It isn’t even about law. It’s about them shoving their morality on you. It’s about legislating that morality and enslaving you to it till you either go along with it or promote it.

Ron Paul Draws 5,200 – Media Blacks Out

GOP presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul continues to outdo his competition in terms of people who attend his rallies. In Wisconsin, his campaign drew a record 5,200 people! The question is, “Where was the media?”

The answer is the media is doing what they do best, ignoring the real issues. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to deal with real issues and take them on in a purely Constitutional manner. He really believes in limited government and personal responsibility.

Just prior to this turnout Ron Paul had 5000 show up for his speech in Illinois.

Some may say the blackout is because it is a foregone conclusion that Paul doesn’t have a chance. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is the media has been blacking him out since day one!

If you recall the John Stewart Show where Stewart pointed this out in a hilarious way after the Iowa straw poll.

What is worse is there was word of GOP panic that Ron Paul might actually win Iowa and they were going to have a secret place for counting the votes. We were told that if Paul won that we should only look at second place. Well, second place ended up being Rick Santorum. Wait! No, it was Mitt Romney, or was it? The fact is that in these GOP primaries there is just enough funny business to make us wonder what in the world is going on.

I ask you to take a quick look at this clip and tell me which GOP candidate has this kind of turn out when they come to town?

DHS Solicits For 450 Million Hollow Point Bullets

Recently it was announced that ATK was awarded a contract to provide up to 450 Million hollow point bullets to the Department of Homeland Security over the next five years. So what are all of those bullets for? Who does the Department of Homeland Security plan to be shooting at?

The following is an excerpt from the official press release about this deal between ATK and the Department of Homeland Security….

ATK announced that it is being awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) for .40 caliber ammunition. This contract features a base of 12 months, includes four option years, and will have a maximum volume of 450 million rounds.

ATK was the incumbent and won the contract with its HST bullet, which has proven itself in the field. The special hollow point effectively passes through a variety of barriers and holds its jacket in the toughest conditions. HST is engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.

“We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,” said Ron Johnson, President of ATK’s Security and Sporting group.

Business Insider also reports that DHS is looking to buy 175 million rifle ammunition rounds:

We’ve also learned that the Department has an open bid for a stockpile of rifle ammo. Listed on the federal business opportunities network, they’re looking for up to 175 million rounds of .233 caliber ammo to be exact. The 223 is almost exactly the same round used by NATO forces, the 5.56 x 45mm.

FBI Taught Agents to “Bend or Suspend the Law”

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has taught its agents in the past that they can “bend or suspend the law” as they are involved in the wiretapping of suspects. The agency has since said they really didn’t mean it.

They have since removed the instruction from their counterterrorism training curriculum, calling it an “imprecise” instruction. One has to wonder just why it was that they removed the material. Was it because they were caught teaching such things?

Many national security attorneys have said it is a good thing because it is a very serious thing to claim that they can twist the law in order to go after suspects is just wrong. I agree it is.

However, the larger picture is the fact that such statement even made it into a curriculum in training agents is disturbing. Once you have trained agents with this material, it becomes rather difficult to remove from their mindset, especially when those in charge promoted such criminal activity. Yes, it is criminal activity.

The response from the FBI is unsatisfactory as well. For them to pull the curriculum and claim it is simply an “imprecise” instruction is far from the truth. The fact is: It was completely wrong and illegal instruction. Someone should lose their job over such curriculum being implemented in the first place.

“Dismissing this statement as ‘imprecise’ is a rather unsatisfying response given the very precise lines Congress and the courts have repeatedly drawn between what is and is not permissible, even in counterterrorism cases, over the past decade,” Steve Vladeck, a national-security law professor at American University, says. “It might technically be true that the FBI has certain authorities when conducting counterterrorism investigations that the Constitution otherwise forbids, but that’s good only so far as it goes.”

When first contacted the FBI was unwilling to release the documents in question. However, the finally did release the document but failed to provide information as to who prepared the document; how long it was in circulation; and how many FBI agents, analysts and officials received its instruction.

Robert Chesney, a national-security expert at the University of Texas’ law school, said, “This certainly does not read as if a lawyer wrote it. Congress has given the FBI the authority to wiretap, collect business records, and gather other forms of information for intelligence purposes, subject to certain safeguards. It is a severe misstatement to refer to the exercise of these lawful authorities as ‘bending’ or ‘suspending’ the law; that mischaracterization runs the risk of both delegitimizing these lawful tools and, simultaneously, conveying to agents the mistaken impression that there might be some more general power to disobey the law during intelligence investigations.”

Though there was a six-month review of improper counterterrorism training by the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were absolutely no FBI officials that received disciplinary action.

And the government wonders why the American people don’t trust them.

Barack Obama: “After My Election I have More Flexibility”

During a speech that took place with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Barack Obama said that incoming President Vladimir Putin needed to give him “space” until “after my election I have more flexibility.”

The exchange between the two was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for the two leaders remarks.

What follows is what was said:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what Barack Obama meant by what he said, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes said, “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue – there always is – in both countries.”

On top of this a senior administration official said: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

Well that is all fine and dandy. We see just how concerned politicians are with themselves and their re-election versus actually doing their job. Of course I know there will be some who think that when Barack Obama says this will be his last election that he will somehow seek to do away with elections if he wins. He may attempt to do that. In fact, he may rig this election. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him.

However, I am concerned about the fact that we want to talk about missile reduction and a missile defense shield with an enemy like Russia. Make no mistake about it, Russia is not on our side. What we should have been doing all along is following the plan of Ronald Reagan and that was to basically make any missile attack obsolete and that was Reagan’s vision for what came to be termed “Star Wars”. It was to say to our enemies, “If you get a nuclear warhead and fire it at us, we’ll simply destroy it.”

As a close friend of mine said, “If you don’t make your product obsolete, your competition will”. Reagan sought to do that. He sought to make nuclear weapons obsolete as a threat by creating a strategic defense.

Barack Obama though wants to deplete America of her nuclear defenses without providing anything close to Reagan’s vision. I’ll guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected in November, then we are in for a very serious decline in our nation. There will be absolutely nothing for the man to lose and he won’t just be taking out our national defense, but he’ll be coming for our guns as well. Mark my words.

Barack Obama: “After My Election I have More Flexibility”

During a speech that took place with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Barack Obama said that incoming President Vladimir Putin needed to give him “space” until “after my election I have more flexibility.”

The exchange between the two was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for the two leaders remarks.

What follows is what was said:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what Barack Obama meant by what he said, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes said, “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue – there always is – in both countries.”

On top of this a senior administration official said: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

Well that is all fine and dandy. We see just how concerned politicians are with themselves and their re-election versus actually doing their job. Of course I know there will be some who think that when Barack Obama says this will be his last election that he will somehow seek to do away with elections if he wins. He may attempt to do that. In fact, he may rig this election. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him.

However, I am concerned about the fact that we want to talk about missile reduction and a missile defense shield with an enemy like Russia. Make no mistake about it, Russia is not on our side. What we should have been doing all along is following the plan of Ronald Reagan and that was to basically make any missile attack obsolete and that was Reagan’s vision for what came to be termed “Star Wars”. It was to say to our enemies, “If you get a nuclear warhead and fire it at us, we’ll simply destroy it.”

As a close friend of mine said, “If you don’t make your product obsolete, your competition will.” Reagan sought to do that. He sought to make nuclear weapons obsolete as a threat by creating a strategic defense.

Barack Obama though wants to deplete America of her nuclear defenses without providing anything close to Reagan’s vision. I’ll guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected in November, then we are in for a very serious decline in our nation. There will be absolutely nothing for the man to lose and he won’t just be taking out our national defense, but he’ll be coming for our guns as well. Mark my words.

Welfare Recipients Trading Food Stamps For Guns And Drugs

The US Welfare program has been a problem since its inception. It’s been reported that many federal welfare recipients are receiving food stamps and then trading them for cash to purchase weapons and drugs.

The USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong reported this information to Congress this month. She said, in her prepared remarks:

“In terms of fraud, we have seen many types of trafficking in SNAP benefits. By giving a recipient $50 in cash for $100 in benefits, an unscrupulous retailer can make a significant profit; recipients, of course, are then able to spend the cash however they like….In some cases, recipients have exchanged benefits for drugs, weapons, and other contraband. When trafficking occurs unchecked, families do not receive the intended nutritional assistance, and unscrupulous retailers profit at the expense of the American public.”

Ms. Fong continued, “[The Office of Inspector General] also has been looking at recipients who misrepresent themselves to receive benefits…Recently, OIG has conducted a series of audits of 10 States to assess how they used participant databases to identify potentially fraudulent recipients, and we have completed work in 5 States. Our analysis of the databases that States check as part of their role in ensuring recipient eligibility revealed that a total of 8,594 recipients in the 5 States were receiving potential improper payments. Some of these recipients were using the Social Security numbers of deceased individuals, or otherwise invalid Social Security numbers, while others were receiving benefits in more than one State. In total, we estimate that these recipients could be receiving about $1.1 million a month.”

What we were not told by Ms. Fong is were any arrests made. We were not told of any means of recouping the millions of dollars in fraud by these people. We were not told of the confiscation of their property in order to repay what they had stolen from taxpayers. Do you think we will see such enforcement of the law? I think not.

What makes all this worse is the staggering figure that is a part of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the USDA’s largest welfare program. There is a total of $75 billion annually spent on this program alone. The fiscal year of October 2011-September 2012 estimates that about 46.3 million people are receiving food stamps from the government which is significantly higher than the previous year of 30.8 million.

What are we to do? I believe in a “safety net”, but the safety net I’m thinking of has nothing to do with government. It has to do with family. It has to do with friends. It has to do with the Church of Jesus Christ and other organizations of charity. They must be willing to hold these people accountable and not provide for them if they are unwilling to work. As the Scriptures teach, ” If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Let government deal with these people who have defrauded the taxpayers and let them earn a living and pay back what they took.

Lindsey Graham: Shut Up! You Don’t Get A Lawyer!

The following short video was captured in Chester, SC at a GOP fish fry. The interviewer gave me permission to use this recording of Senator Lindsey Graham defending his statement on the Senate floor, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!” in reference to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Instead of clearing things up and actually doing what is right and saying, “You know, that was a stupid thing to say and on top of it unconstitutional just like the bill we passed,” Senator Lindsey Graham simply went on to defend his statement to the American people. We’ll note his explanation of what he meant by his statement.

First, Lindsey Graham said,

“When someone is captured and involved in an Al Qaeda attack on the country, they can be held as an enemy combatant, not a common criminal (emphasis mine). So if a guy went to Pakistan…..trained….came back….went to a mall and started shooting people, when you grab the guy, we should hold him as an enemy combatant, under the law of war.”

OK Senator Graham, first you are not even addressing the main issue. You are talking as if as soon as there is a mall shooting that it would be known that the guy has been trained to be an enemy combatant. Are you saying that our government would have that information on the fly as soon as it happened? If that is the case, then wouldn’t that make our government complicit in such an attack? If our government is stupid enough to track a man leaving the US to Pakistan, know who he is dealing with and training with and then allow him back in the States I think those who allow such are in fact part of the terrorist problem and they should be arrested and tried.

In either case, they are both criminal acts. You can call it enemy combatants but the reality is it is a crime. What if the person was not even affiliated with Al Qaeda? What if they were a white supremacist group that hid up in the mountains and came and did the same thing? Seems like you want to make Al Qaeda out to be the boogeyman, instead of realizing they are a monster created by the CIA. Also, just so you know, you guys are having a bit of trouble actually declaring war, so the use of the term enemy combatant

Only a full time politician would levy the phraseology “the law of war.” He has no concept of warfare and so I am not going to address that in this post.

Graham continues,

“and if he says, ‘I want my lawyer,’ no this is not a crime, this is an act of war we are investigating, but everybody captured under that circumstance will get to go to a judge, with habeas hearing and the judge would have to agree that the guy is an enemy combatant…”

You can be held under the Patriot Act without seeing a federal judge. You will be held simply because you are perceived as a threat and have committed a crime, oh I’m sorry, you are an enemy combatant, which technically if you do that on US soil is a crime against the citizens of the country, sort of like those in the House who passed the NDAA and the guy who signed it.

What is the most frightening part of any of this is Lindsey Graham seems to be oblivious as to how government actually works. He may think that it will keep a check on its power, but the natural tendency of government is to abuse its power. It is just its nature to do so.

I wonder if Lindsey Graham understands that American citizens can and will be targeted under the NDAA and claimed to be terrorists, not given due process and sent to prison or worse, all because they have been deemed to be a terrorist. Even by Graham’s own words, he is stating that the hypothetical person caught would already be known to have affiliations with terrorists. Again, would government be complicit in the terrorist’s actions? I think so.

Lindsey Graham said he didn’t want people who had just committed a terrorist attack to be told they could have a lawyer or be read Miranda rights. He said that everyone captured like this “could not be held without going before a federal judge.”

Yes they can Lindsey. It’s part of the Patriot Act which has morphed into NDAA. Hello? Under the Patriot Act a person can be detained for seven days and during that time the Attorney General must initiate removal (deportation) proceedings or charge the person with a crime. NDAA simply becomes more of the same extending the long arm of the law to it’s own citizens in a manner that this country has never seen before.

Senator Lindsey Graham and those like him who represent the people of their states should be standing for the Constitution and the rights of the people. Instead, they seek to remove the liberty and rights the Constitution is to provide. You may say, “Yes, Tim, but they are doing this only to the terrorists.” Really? You know this for sure? What if the federal government considered your political views a threat? What if then they took it a step further and said that they considered those views to be the views of new terrorists? They have said this about groups other than Al Qaeda including Christians, Constitutionalists, Ron Paul Supporters, those who talk too much about the Constitution and those who promote the Second Amendment. My fellow Americans, be on your guard against a tyrannical government.

Here’s Graham’s statement from the floor of the US Senate:

Obama Uses Osama Bin Laden In Re-election Film

A new “documentary” coming out tomorrow at the Obama website will feature the mythical story of how Osama Bin Laden was found, how the President made a very torturous decision about whether to go in and take him or not, and how in the end it was his decision and his alone that brought Bin Laden down.

This 17 minute Hollywood production is narrated by Tom Hanks. The teaser seen below has clips of Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton.

Also interesting about the video production is its director, Davis Guggenheim. Guggenheim was the man behind Al Gore’s infamous tall tale “An Inconvenient Truth” and also helped in the 2008 Obama campaign.

In the clip, Clinton says, ““He took the harder and more honorable path,…When I saw what had happened I thought to myself, I hope that’s the call I would’ve made”.

Vice President Biden continues, “The entire national security apparatus was in that room and the President turns to every principal in the room ‘what do you recommend I do?’ and they say ‘It’s a close call, Mr president’. As he walked out of the room it dawned on me: he’s all alone. This is his decision.” The shot is dramatic and well frankly it plays on the emotions of the viewer, but the well informed citizen knows better than all of any of this and knows the government lied to us about Osama Bin Laden.

We’re not sure just how deep the rabbit hole goes, but we do know from recently leaked emails that Osama Bin Laden was not buried at sea, but was in fact flown back to Dover, DE where he is said to have been cremated. It has been long said that Bin Laden has been dead for years.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steve R. Pieczenik, the man Tom Clancy based his famous Jack Ryan character on, claims to have seen Bin Laden in 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai and as a medical doctor stated,

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,”

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

Pieczenik also worked with Bin Laden, who was a CIA operative, in the 1980’s during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

The entire “documentary” that will be shown beginning tomorrow is completely Hollywood. It is not based in reality. It is based in the land known as propaganda and has one goal, the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.

Congressional Resolution: Impeachment of Barack Obama

The impeachment of President Barack Hussein Obama has begun. The new Congressional resolution filed Wednesday states that using offensive military force, without prior consent violates Congress’ express Constitutional power to declare war. This is exactly what President Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta was promoting the other day in the Appropriations Committee.

The Library of Congress has on file, as of March 7,2012 H. Con. Res. 107 which says,

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

After the Appropriations Committee session I wrote on just days ago, this was introduced.

Mr. Walter B. Jones (Rep. NC) put forth this resolution in preparation for a war in Iran. Why this is not being taken further in regards to the issue of Libya, one can only guess that the administration didn’t call it a “war”. It is possible however, that this will be used to bring charges against the President for the war in Libya and maybe even in Syria as well.


The Concurrent Resolution goes on to state:

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

This is nothing more than the first stepping stone of impeachment proceedings. The Obama administration is proud and will thoroughly disregard this and launch its war campaign anyway against Iran and is so arrogant that he won’t approach them for authorization, just like he didn’t do in Libya and just like it is doing in Syria.

When this happens, citizens need to be prepared. This administration cannot be trusted. There is no telling what will happen. In fact, I have said for several months that we are probably closer to something catastrophic happening on our own soil as a result of government, not terrorists, than anything Iran would do, but it’s quite possible, even likely it would be blamed on Iran.

Fellow Patriots keep your eyes open and be alert!

First Amendment Right To Protest Government Deemed Illegal

So you were thinking of exercising your First Amendment right to protest your government in the nation’s capitol? Well think again. It quite possibly could be considered illegal and you would be charged with a federal crime according to the new law signed this week.

I wrote previously on how the House and Senate had passed HR 347, which is a simply written (only two pages) bill that, in essence, would stop any protest that was deemed to:

“impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;”

Furthermore, the bill states,

“knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;”

So this bill has been signed into law by President Obama this past Thursday, just days after it’s passing in the Congress.

Because of the vagueness of the law, it is quite possible that it can apply not only in the capital but also anywhere in the country where official government business is going on and we can all see how the politicians who don’t want to deal with protesters could claim government business is being conducted anywhere that they are at.

The utter ambiguity of the law and the flippant means by which we have seen the D.C. Police handle protest matters in the past leads to some serious considerations as to anyone feeling safe to protest their government over grievances.

This is exactly what the politicians want. They want the people scared. They want them to fear the government. My friends, as Judge Andrew Napolitano said,

“When people fear the government, that’s tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that is freedom.”

They fear what we are able to do, which is call them out and demand that they stop interfering in our lives. They don’t want to hear that, and even if we gather with signs and protest quietly on the White House lawn or the steps of the Supreme Court, they will use every twisted line of this new law, which is a violation of the First Amendment, to infringe upon our rights.

You could be charged with a federal crime for entering a building you didn’t know was restricted! You could face federal charges for showing up and protesting quietly outside the White House or Congress simply because they deemed that you were somehow disrupting or impeding government business.

Our founding fathers knew of such tyranny. The Bill of Rights they laid out were things the federal government was not at liberty to remove by conflicting laws just because they wanted to. This law, as well as those who supported it, is a violation of the Constitution. It, along with many others like it that have been signed into law are taking from the American people more and more liberty.

America has been in the slow heated water for several decades now. It is beginning to boil and most don’t even know it, nor do they care.

One commenter on HR 347, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund said, “[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn’t supported by the facts,…This has always been a bad law.” She tries to lay to rest the claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

The problem is that when a person says, “It won’t hurt the Constitution or violate your rights,” and then there is a “BUT,” you know it is doing exactly what they just said it wouldn’t do. It is an unnecessary law. Verheyden-Hilliard says it is to make prosecution easier by removing the word “willingly” from the previous law and simply going with knowingly. See? It’s all about keeping things in the favor of government.

Bottom line, while the law is not “new” it does give more authority to authorities. In fact, under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars. The thing is since it’s “secret service” one doesn’t always know where they are or what area is theirs. Thus the dilemma for a law abiding citizen simply wanting to peacefully protest their government, which technically was what the First Amendment was about in the first place: political speech.

But don’t worry, this is the least of concerns as the President can now arrest you if you get to close to his front yard, have you assassinated on American soil if they deem you a threat or indefinitely detain you if the government says you are a terrorist. After all we can trust government can’t we?

In case you want to contact those who voted for the bill, you can find your representative from the House here and the Senate here.

Leon Panetta: International Coalition Trumps Constitution

As I write this I am furious, furious at the audacity of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. First the sickening statements the man made on 60 minutes in regards to assassinating US citizens and now the video that comes out with him before the Armed Services committee.

Let me set it up. Senator Jeff Sessions was questioning General Dempsey at first and asked him point blank about what law the military serves under. The General replied with three things.

1) At the consent of a foreign government (by invitation).

2) National Self Defense which is a “clear criteria”.

3) International Legal Basis.

Uh oh!

There is no other authority appealed to in the US Constitution. This General has forgotten his place and Sessions calls him on it. He pointed out that the legal basis is not NATO or the UN.

He then turns to Panetta, who quite honestly I loathe to even look at after the 60 minutes interview. It is a sickening thing when in America those in leadership positions would advocate a complete disdain for the Constitution and decide behind closed doors which Americans to kill and which ones not to because they “think” they are terrorists, without due process and without evidence.

Panetta’s answer, though sad, was almost laughable as he stated that the United States should seek International legal basis for war, like we did in Libya. Now I’m with Sessions in all of this and Sessions made it quite clear that Congress was not and has never been approached on the issue of the military being used in Libya.

Furthermore, I would point out that we were in league with Al Qaeda. Now, that alone should tell us something. Those in government who passed the NDAA and the President who signed it clearly stated that those involved with Al Qaeda were considered terrorists. Can we not safely assume that the President and Leon Panetta and anyone involved in the Libyan fiasco were working with terrorists? Again, where is the outrage among the American people over this? Where are the calls for impeachment and the rightful punishment under OUR law for traitors? Where is it?

Sessions tries again. I think he is just astonished to the point that he cannot believe his ears of what is being said. He asks Panetta if the DOD can set up a “no fly zone” in Syria without Congressional approval and Panetta just will not answer the question but sidesteps it to say he would seek international approval and then decide if he “wants” to get permission from Congress.

My fellow Americans, Panetta and Obama do not have that privilege under our law to do that. They are to expressed get permission from Congress. That is the point Mr. Sessions is making. Panetta is showing his disdain for the Constitution and quite frankly we all know Obama despises it, though he will give lip service to it.

When asked what legal basis there would be for such an operation, Panetta said that NATO and UN resolutions were a legal basis. Those are not legal basis. We’ve been going down this road a while with Bush 2 and now we are seeing it full force with the current occupant of the Oval Office. International law DOES NOT trump the Constitution. It just doesn’t and anyone who thinks differently who has taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution is thinking in a manner that is contrary to their oath. Those who actually act on it, such as Mr. Panetta and Mr. Obama are in clear violation of the Constitution and should be called on it and dealt with as traitors by those who have the authority to do so.

They have spat upon the Constitution. They willfully and knowingly reject the law of our land in favor of something else. They try and do this as Panetta stated near the end by saying that the Constitution only applied to National Defense, not to International coalitions.

Now it’s out in the open and even Sessions, though stunned and astonished, isn’t calling it what it is: Treason against the Constitution and treason against the American people. If they are willing to do that and we allow it, then I ask what will keep an “international authority” from bringing war crime charges against our leaders and soldiers just like they did at Nuremberg? Our representatives need to get some backbone and deal with these people and reign them in before it is too late, but it seems many have been content to merge at least 2 branches of government into one and give up the balance of power. God help us!

TSA Blog Indirectly Admits Scanners $1 Billion Fraud

A video that has gone viral on the web where engineer Jon Corbett, of the popular blog TSA out of our pants, demonstrates just how easy it is to defeat the TSA scanners at the airport, is being met with ridicule by the TSA. The blog can only come out and attack Mr. Corbett rather than actually deal with the information presented. In doing so, they are admitting the flaw, and in essence admitting to the American public that they just wasted $1 Billion of YOUR money to “keep you safe” from the supposed boogeymen terrorists.

The blogger, one Bob Burns, says that Mr. Corbett is just “some guy” and that the video is a “crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures.” It was not an attempt to allegedly show anything. It was an ACTUAL demonstration of how to defeat,very simply I might add, the TSA screening process. Hey Bob! your pants are down!

Bob then goes on to say, “For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology’s detection capability in detail.” Of course Bob. This sounds like the infamous “can’t disclose information due to national security” that always comes up when people demand answers from their government. The fact that the TSA would announce “obvious security reasons” is enough to make one fall from their chair hysterically laughing because it is obvious to anyone who watched the video that there is no security at all. There are perverts and theifs within the TSA. That is your security!

Bob does want to try and reassure everyone though, “however TSA conducts extensive testing of all screening technologies in the laboratory and at airports prior to rolling them out to the entire field.” OK, so you guys did “extensive testing” and either you are incompetent regarding the very easy method that Mr. Corbett used to blow by your scanners, not once, but twice, or you knew it and let it go. Either way it demonstrates the TSA doesn’t know the first thing about security. They are simply a power grab, a jack booted organization that should be dismantled and the people of America given their liberties back while flying.

Blogger Bob writes, “Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs.” Oh Bob let’s not forget, it’s good for checking out hot chicks too! And those drugs you are finding, who is getting those? What about the cash being confiscated from citizens? Let’s go beyond that to the sexual assaults on people, the humiliation of nursing mothers and elderly women. Yeah, yeah keep trying to justify the perversion that is the TSA. We see right through it, unlike your scanners.

Bob ends his blog stating, “With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all.” Then he immediately says, “However, our nation’s aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports.” OK Bob? You just contradicted yourself. You claimed that you have never claimed it’s the end all be all and then right on top of that you said the airports are “much safer” with the deployment of the imaging technology. You can’t have it both ways. The real danger in all of this is the TSA criminally violating the American people’s 4th Amendment rights. BTW, Bob this is what that says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Every TSA agent, because they are part of the federal government is knowingly violating this Constitutional right and those that employee them are violating this Constitutional right. Back in the 18th and 19th century this would be called treason against the people. Today it is called “keeping us safe”. When will Americans wake up from the fluoridated stupor and demand that the TSA be disbanded and vote out the same bureaucrats that continue to install such things? Furthermore when are we going to hold these people criminally responsible?

Bob and the TSA want us to think the machines are safe even though their radiation levels are extremely high, but they also want you to know that if the scanners don’t solve the problem, then there is always the latex glove inspection, hopefully sanitized for their pleasure. I mean for your protection.

In essence blogger Bob did nothing to refute Mr. Corbett’s demonstration of their asinine system. By replying the way he did, he demonstrated nothing of what the TSA affirms and gave a great amount of credit to Mr. Corbett’s video.