“There are 70 Republicans now in congress that we sent there,” Glenn said. “They’re standing up this week and they’re about to be slaughtered.”

“I think there will be five people in Washington this week on Wednesday because it’s, you know, it’s a Wednesday. It’s in the middle of the week. Who does this? It’s costing me a fortune to be able to get the TV and everybody up there to be able to ‑‑ to be able to just cover it, let alone speak up there. I’m flying a few of my pastors and my priests and my rabbi friends up with me for an announcement with the Black‑Robe Regiment. That’s not something I want to do. Last thing I want to do is get back on an airplane and travel up to Washington D.C. and stand there and be a part of that.”

“There are many things I don’t believe in anymore, and Washington is one of them. And I despise that city now. Because it has just become a symbol of corruption to me, a symbol of grotesque growth, where the rest of us are suffering in the rest of the country,” he said.

“But I will go and stand, and I ask you to do the same.”

Glenn has not asked people to attend an event like this in Washington, D.C. since Restoring Honor on August 28, 2010.

Later in the show, Glenn explained why he thought it was so important to be in D.C. for this event:

We’re not different. We’re not different than each other. We’re in different places. Our country is at stake. We’re not enemies of each other. We’re actually winning.

The president’s poll numbers with the youth down in a month 17%. Why? Don’t trust anyone over 30. They see through it. They see. Finally they see this guy is just as bad, if not worse than the last guy. Everything he has said to us is a lie. But time is running out because they’re also, the progressives on the Republicans and the democratic side, if we would spend less time arguing with each other on who’s better, the Republicans or the Democrats, and we would start talking about the real issues which is not conservative and liberal it is constitutionalist or progressive maybe we wouldn’t have had this problem. Maybe we wouldn’t have this problem because we’re not that far apart as people. But we have been used. By the global corporations, by the media, by those in power, by those elites, by those who think they know better, by those who look at the American people like cattle. I am not a cow. I am not a sheep. I am not on your farm. You are not my rancher. You are not, definitely not my shepherd. I do not answer to your voice. I only answer to one voice.

The American people have been betrayed and have betrayed ourselves, through our apathy and through our willingness to give other people the responsibility. I’m sorry, but the responsibility, I’ve been told a million times you can’t run faster than a man has strength. Well, God, give me strength. And when I see somebody else step up to the plate, I will so gladly go away. When I see somebody else say “I’m going to do it” and they have the opportunity to do it and the means to do it, I will so gladly give it to them. You can have my F’in’ company. You can have it. I don’t care! Show up! I don’t see anybody.

I thought of this last week. Somebody said… about Martin Luther King. And they said, what about Martin Luther King’s lifestyle? Because Martin Luther King, he was dicey with women and everything else. Yeah, he was. That shows you how desperate God gets sometimes. That shows you how weak we are sometimes. Because I know all the good guys. All the good guys were probably saying, “I don’t want all that trouble. I don’t want to give all this up. I don’t want to no, cause too much, it will cause too much of a hassle, it will cause this, it will cause that.” And so he gets down to the list and finally he’s got to go to somebody who’s a philanderer, finally he’s got to go a guy who’s an alcoholic, finally he’s got to go to somebody who doesn’t know their ass from their elbow, but they’ll stand up! Boy, you want to talk about making weak things strong, here we are, gang. Don’t tell me about how we’ve got to be positive. I understand we have to be positive, with you we also have to be realists. “Hey, let’s be positive. Let’s make sure that everybody knows we’re all going to make it.” No. We’re on the Titanic. Not all of us are going to make it. And unless you have some urgency, we’re all going to die. We’re all gonna die. How’s that one? Play some music. Play some music once everybody’s in the boats. Play some music. If you can play some music and help people get into the boats in a rational way, great. Play some music. But if you’re playing some music just to make everybody, like, “relax, everything is good,” it’s not good. The boat’s sinking.

We’re all in this together. We’re all in this together. We really are. And we will make it as long as we have each other. As long as we don’t tear each other apart.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that  prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a  registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration  law.

Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to  submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonia  Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.

The court was considering the legality of Arizona’s requirement that  prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a  registration form produced under the federal “motor voter” registration law. The  9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act  of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition  200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their  citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork  requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of  litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead  counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.

“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to  register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which  they live,” she said.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal  government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has  broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and  Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating  such legislation.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s  ruling.

The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters  in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine  whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.

Opponents of Arizona’s law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups  such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they’ve counted more  than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered  before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months  after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were  Latino.

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee  for Civil Rights Under Law, called the decision a victory. “The court has  reaffirmed the essential American right to register to vote for federal election  without the burdens of state voter suppression measures,” she said.

But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal  immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona  voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to  illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before  voting.

The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration,  requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a  driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law — the one  at issue before the court — requires states to allow would-be voters to fill  out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of  perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200,  Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S.  birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will  reject the federal registration application form.

While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional  identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear  that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval  of the federal government and the federal courts.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a  state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the  government on that request back to court.  Other states have already done  so, Scalia said.

The Election Assistance Commission “recently approved a state-specific  instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver’s  license, ID card or Social Security number to attach additional documentation to  the completed federal form,” Scalia said.

The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/supreme-court-arizona-citizenship-proof-law-illegal/#ixzz2WVP2bESl

We have been hearing for weeks now that the Republican Establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner have cooked up an Amnesty Deal. A Deal that will be surreptitiously enacted in the House and Senate such that the final Conference Bill will be passed in the Senate by the Democrat Majority and in the House by a mix of all Democrats and Republican Establishment defectors who will be well rewarded by being allowed to retain their Committee Chairmanships’.

The Deal came into the open on the Glenn Beck show when modern-day Patriots Representatives Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas) along with 67 other stalwarts determined that they could not go along with the deception and decided to risk their careers in a showdown with Boehner.  Read more here Now that the deception has been made public, Speaker Boehner is saying that he doesn’t “intend” to push a bill that violates Republican Party “principles.”

Don’t be deceived by the Boehner’s latest ruse.  He fully intends to implement the Deal, unless “We the People”, take back our government. We have to have patience.  We are now engaged in a battle for survival for our way of life. If you value the future for your children and grandchildren, then you must become engaged and stick it out as long as it takes to convince our political class that we have had it and it is Speaker Boehner and the Republicans that defect that will bear the angst of the citizenry.

Remember first and foremost that these 70 brave souls have placed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line for us. We must in turn protect their backs from the administrators of this deception, both now and the future.  We cannot allow the retribution that was delivered to Colonel Allen West to befall any of our brave patriots.

On June 19th you will have an opportunity to stand up against Amnesty and all the other reprehensible scandals that have rocked your faith  in our government by joining  Representatives Michele Bachmann , Steve King  and Louie Gohmert, in front of the U.S. Capital. If you can’t be there physically, you can use the occasion to call your Representatives and Senators as well as to voice  support for the 70 Representatives’  who are demanding that the Speaker honor the  Hastert Rule that requires  support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.

Our way of life has been gradually under attack and sometimes we may feel that there is nothing that we can do. However, our Constitution gives the power to the people and we must make it clear to all our elected Representatives that we will exercise that power to rid our country once and for all from Amnesty, that promises to bankrupt our nation, from surveillance that threatens our Personal Liberty, and from corrupt, anti-Constitutional officials and bureaucrats that threaten our life, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness.

The Black Leadership Alliance To Have a rally July 15 in Washington DC More info to come!!
Wake Up America Your Freedom At Risk!

Samantha Power: The Hand That Rocks A Nation

NoisyRoom.net
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton I have written on Samantha Power before and you can see our research on her here at KeyWiki.org. Power, who is married to Barack Obama’s long-time friend and ex-Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, is an intense enemy to Israel as is her husband. She is an apologist for America and shares with Obama a desire to see America cut down to size. I want to start off by giving you a bit of insight into Power’s viewpoints.

In 2002, Harry Kreisler, Director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley conducted an interview with Samantha Power, asking her the following question:

“Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?”

Power responded:

“What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called “Sharafat.” I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.”

Tom Hayden wrote an article for The Rag Blog on March 30, 2011 on Samantha Power, “Obama’s ‘humanitarian hawk’: Samantha Power goes to war”:

Power has made a remarkable career recovery since calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” during the 2008 presidential primaries. She resigned from the Obama campaign after that comment, but has returned to become a special assistant to the president and member of his National Security Council.

Over a long conversation with Power in December 2003, I was struck by the generational factor in her thinking. If she had experienced Vietnam in her early twenties, I felt, she would have joined the radical left, suspicious always of American power. But as an Irish internationalist witnessing death and destruction in the former Yugoslavia, she wondered how the United States could be neutral. She strongly favored the American intervention and air war that followed.

I asked whether she would have favored the Clinton administration sending combat troops to battle the Serbs, a scenario which was in the works when Russia pulled its support from Belgrade, effectively ending that war. I didn’t get an answer, only the promise of “a long conversation” in the future.

Power generalized from her Balkans experience to become an advocate of American and NATO military intervention in humanitarian crises, a position which became known as being a “humanitarian hawk.” She began to see war as an instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values.

“The United States must also be prepared to risk the lives of its soldiers” to stop the threat of genocide, she wrote. She condemned Western “appeasement” of dictators. She believed that “the battle to stop genocide has been repeatedly lost in the realm of domestic politics.” In her mind, domestic concerns like discrimination and unemployment are secondary to foreign policy crises, a common attitude in the national security circles she was entering.

Samantha Power is a staunch advocate of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and she is directly responsible for what happened in Libya. She is closely tied to George Soros and his worldviews. Obama has just named Power as the new Ambassador to the United Nations, where she will be at the helm of doing monstrous damage on a global scale.

From Bloomberg:

She played a role, along with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and other NSC advisers, in convincing Obama to push for a UN Security Council resolution to authorize a coalition military force to protect Libyan civilians. Other administration figures were concerned about the effectiveness of a no-fly zone and differences within NATO over what Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned would be a “big operation.” [...]

Power, who sought the limelight as a writer and public intellectual, has learned to be a behind-the-scenes policymaker over the past two years, associates say.

Melanie Phillips says we should all be frightened of Samantha Power and she is right. Using the mantle of a human rights activist, Power is exactly the opposite. Claiming the moral highroad of protecting all, she will issue in breathtaking tyranny. She would happily oversee the destruction of Israel, while furthering the Caliphate and a Progressive (Marxist) planetary rule. She will institute “justice” with warfare and death. Samantha Power rides a pale horse indeed. She grovels to our enemies, promotes the slaughter of our allies and places America’s neck on the Islamic chopping block.

Rush Limbaugh said that the appointment of Samantha Power was a big “F. You” to the American people. He’s right. Obama’s mask is coming off and his totalitarian face is bearing down on us. Where is the outrage at her appointment? Has no one in America’s leadership the integrity and fortitude to speak out against this travesty? So far, just one… Ted Cruz — who might just be President one day. He’d have my vote:

Never shy about his views, Cruz bluntly questioned a series of statements Power has made, including a 2003 essay in which she called for the U.S. to institute a “doctrine of the mea culpa” to enhance credibility.

“No nation has spilled more blood or sacrificed more for the freedom of others than ours, and yet Ms. Power has publicly embraces the need for America to continue apologizing to the world for perceived transgressions, going so far as to explicitly urge ‘instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa’,” Cruz said in a written statement.

Samantha Power wields the hand that rocks a nation and the geopolitical landscape across the planet. In the name of peace, she will usher in Armageddon if allowed to. Welcome to Obama’s Coup D’etat, Gramsci style.

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Administration Is Leading a ‘Coup d’Etat’ to ‘Take Over This Country’

 

Your email:

 

Senate will hold first vote on Gang of 8′s amnesty bill on

Tuesday June 11 at 2:15 p.m

A group of law enforcement officers and officials from across the nation have co-written a letter to all Members of Congress warning them that the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill would endanger public safety if it is passed.

Please send a fax to your U.S. Senators and Representative and urge them to read the letter and oppose the bill.

Find your Senator’s phone number here

You can read the letter below.

——

Dear Esteemed Members of Congress,

We write to you today as a diverse group of both law enforcement officers and representatives to express our deep concerns regarding immigration bill S. 744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” which is currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee. S. 744 will profoundly impact the security of the country, our nation’s communities, and the people we as law enforcement officers are sworn to protect.

Driven by mere speculation that S. 744 may be enacted by Congress, illegal border crossings have spiked dramatically. Thousands of unaccompanied children, runaways and families now attempt to illegally enter the United States in hope s of receiving legalization. This trend will surely continue after enactment as S. 744 provides no commitment of stronger border enforcement for at least five to ten years following the initial legalization phase. Thousands will be victimized or perish as they attempt the treacherous crossing into the United States in hopes of attaining legal status. Cut off dates established in S. 744 will mean little to those in other countries who are unfamiliar with the 867 page bill. Without a strategy of border security first, S. 744 will only draw more illegal immigrants into the United States resulting in unnecessary harm to many.

Border security is also critical to preventing criminal elements and national security threats from entering the United States. Perh aps at no time in our nation’s history is border security more important to maintaining public safety than it is now. Unfortunately, S. 744 provides no guarantee of increased border security. Instead, it relinquishes Congress’ authority to establish border security measures to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which will then develop its own unilateral border security plan. DHS is then permitted to measure its own successes and failures after implementing that plan. Clearly recognizing the high probability that this approach will fail and DHS will not develop a successful border security plan, S. 744 establishes a commission to review security at the border five years after the plan has been implemented (if the Secretary decides such a commission is needed). But the powerless commission will have only the authority to make recommendations on how to achieve border security. Those recommendations may very well be ignored by DHS. It is important to note that S. 744 dissolves the commission 30 days after it makes its recommendations to the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Congress. S. 744 also grants the Secretary the authority to unilaterally determine the amount of border fencing that will be constructed, which could result in litt le or no fencing being built. In summary, S. 744 appears to provide no tangible provisions for increased border security.

S. 744 also does not address current failures of interior enforcement that will render any legislation ineffective, regardless of it s provisions. Currently, ICE officers cannot arrest or remove most illegal immigrants they come in contact with, even if officers believe those individuals present a risk to public safety. To avoid offending special interests, ICE officers are also prohibited from making street arrests, and are also prohibited from arresting illegal immigrants who are public charges or who violate laws involving fraudulent documents. ICE officers are under orders to wait until immigration violators commit and are convicted of criminal offenses and placed in jail by state authorities before they can act in their capacity as Federal immigration officers and make an arrest. Even though illegal entry and visa overstay violations account for the majority of the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, DHS and ICE have directed ICE officers not to enforce the laws related to these offenses.

Congress can and must take decisive steps to limit the discretion of political appointees and empower ICE and CBP to perform their respective missions and enforce the laws enacted by Congress. Rather than limiting the power of those political appointees within DHS, S. 744 provides them with nearly unlimited discretion, which will serve only to further cripple the law enforcement missions of these agencies.

Further, S. 744 establishes a biographic (instead of biometric) exit system that has already proven easy to circumvent and not worthy of investment. S. 744 limits the exit system to air and sea ports and doe s not expand the program to include monitoring of the nation’s land borders. This will not provide adequate coverage and security to the nation’s ports of entry and will result in identifying only a fraction of the visa violators unlawfully present in the United States. Even if an effective biometric exit system is eventually established, the size of the ICE workforce is too small to effectively utilize it. With only 5,000 ICE immigration officers nationwide – a force smaller than many police departments – ICE lacks the resources to locate and apprehend visa violators identified by the new exit system, rendering the system useless. S. 744 does not provide for any guaranteed increase in the number of ICE immigration officers.

Prior to the completion of any new enforcement mechanisms, S. 744 creates a new legal status for illegal immigrants, known as Registered Provisional Immigrant status (RPI), which forgives previous Federal immigration violations. However, Section 2101 of S. 744 also explicitly opens th is legal status to those with long criminal records, gang affiliations, felony arrests, and those with multiple misdemeanor criminal convictions. Furthermore, S. 744 allows criminal aliens to continue to commit and be convicted of criminal offenses after r eceiving provisional legal status, as long as the individual’s convictions remain below the eligibility threshold.

For instance, the Secretary of DHS must waive misdemeanor criminal convictions for purposes of determining an illegal immigrant’s eli gibility for RPI status. In many states, misdemeanor crimes include serious offenses such as assault, assault of a law enforcement officer, vehicular homicide, possession of drug manufacturing equipment, unlawful placing or discharging of an explosive devi ce, DUI, and sex offenses.

Section 3701 of S. 744 states that illegal immigrants who are members of street gangs – most of which are heavily involved in criminal activity and violent crimes in the communities and areas we police – simply have to claim tha t they renounce their gang affiliation in order to obtain a waiver that would make them admissible to the U.S., and potentially eligible for legalization and eventual citizenship. We anticipate, as should Congress, that many gang members will falsely clai m to renounce their association with criminal street gangs to obtain legal status and continue engaging in unlawful conduct in the United States.

Section 2101 of S. 744 states that illegal immigrants who have committed document fraud, made false statement s to authorities, and have absconded from court – ordered removal hearings are all eligible to apply for legal status.

Section 2101 of S. 744 directs DHS to ignore convictions under state laws that mirror federal laws on crimes such as human smuggling, harb oring, trafficking, and gang crimes when approving applications for legalization.

This same section also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security virtually unlimited discretion to waive any manner of crimes that would otherwise make an individual ineligi ble for legal status –– for such expansive reasons as family unity, humanitarian purposes or what the Secretary believes is in the public interest. At least two of these standards appear undefined by S. 744 or current law, providing political appointees wi th broad authority to establish their own definitions of these terms and pardon criminal acts under almost any circumstance.

The bill provides that individuals who have overstayed visas are eligible for RPI and citizenship. As we have learned from the 9/11 Commission, more vigorous policing of visa violators is an essential component of national security. S. 744 provides legal status to an estimated 4.5 million visa overstays, including recent arrivals and document forgers. S. 744 lacks effective secur ity measures for screening existing and future visa violators.

The bill states that individuals who have previously been deported or otherwise removed from the country are ineligible to apply for legal status. However, the Secretary is given the “sole and unreviewable discretion” to waive that ineligibility for large classes of qualifying aliens.

Section 2101 of S. 744 prohibits detention and removal of any person claiming eligibility for legalization under S. 744 without requirement to provide proof of e ligibility or application.

While business groups, activists, and other special interests were closely involved in the drafting of S. 744, law enforcement personnel were excluded from those meetings. Immigration officers and state and local law enforcement working directly within the nation’s broken immigration system were prohibited from providing input. As a result, the legislation before us may have many satisfactory components for powerful lobbying groups and other special interests, but on the subjects of public safety, border security, and interior enforcement, this legislation fails. It is a dramatic step in the wrong direction.

The degree to which this legislation tolerates both past and future criminal activities ensures legalization and a path to citizenship for many criminal aliens and gang members currently residing in the United States. Additionally, S.744 fails to provide for necessary cooperation between agencies and ignores many of the current problems that are inimical to the proper enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.

For example, ICE officers are currently directed by DHS to allow adult inmates in jails to lie about their “DREAMer” status in order to avoid immigration arrest. As a result, inmates are permitted to simply w alk out of jails without being required to provide proof of eligibility for “DREAMer” status and without any investigation by ICE. ICE officers report overhearing inmates coaching one another on how to lie to ICE officers about having “DREAMer” status to avoid arrest, yet ICE officers are still powerless to arrest them. These revelations should alarm every member of Congress, and indeed, every American. If this legislation were enacted tomorrow, ICE officers would continue to be powerless to effectively enforce our nation’s laws and provide for public safety as S. 744 does nothing to end these dangerous agency and department level directives. DHS will most certainly continue to issue these types of directives which will continue to deteriorate the ability of ICE to provide for public safety and national security.

We therefore conclude that this legislation fails to meet the needs of the law enforcement community and would, in fact, be a significant barrier to the creation of a safe and lawful system of i mmigration.

We thank you for hearing our concerns and would be eager to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Chris Crane, President National ICE Council

Zack Taylor, Chairman National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBO)

Sheriff Sam Page Rockingham County NC/Vice Co – Chair National Sheriffs Association Border Security and Immigrations Committee

Sheriff David M. Carpenter Lincoln County, NC

Sheriff Andy Stokes Davie County, NC

Sheriff Rick Burris Stanly County, NC

Sheriff Eddie Cathey Union County, NC

Sheriff Prentis Benston Bladen County, NC

Sheriff Darryl Liverman Tyrrell County, NC

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins Frederick County, Maryland

Sheriff Vic Davis Clay County, NC

Sheriff James Ross Washington County, NC

Sheriff Todd Garrison Dona Ana County, New Mexico/Chairman Southwest Border Sheriffs Coalition

Sheriff Paul Babeu Pinal County, Arizona

Sheriff Terry Johnson Alamance County, NC

Sheriff Matt Murray Curry County, NC

Sheriff Todd Martin Monroe County, PA

Sheriff Thomas Hodgson Bristol County, Massachusetts

Monica L. Shank, Executive Secretary Guadalupe County Sheriff’s Office, NM

Sheriff Carolyn B. Welsh Chester County, PA

Sheriff Curtis A. Cochran Swain County, NC

Sheriff Clinton “C.J.” Walters Bradford County, PA

Sheriff Dan Gibbs Martin County, NC

Sheriff Jeffrey C. Krieg Elk County, PA

Sheriff Larry Rollins Harnett Co. N.C.

Sheriff Eric Foy Venango County, PA

Sheriff Tracy L. Carter Lee County, NC

Sheriff Kenneth L. Klakamp Warren County, Pennsylvania

Sheriff Dewey Jones Person County, NC

Sheriff Oscar O. Cowen, Jr. Starke County, IN

Sheriff Ronald B. Bruce Hinsdale County, Colorado

Richard Valdemar, Sgt. LASD (Ret.) , Gang Expert

He has divided Americans by use of divisive “Class Warfare “rhetoric in an effort to weaken or destroy our historic Institutions. His oratory pits rich against poor, young against old, and races against each other. He disses Personal Responsibility in favor of Government Control. .

A Federal court ruled that his Recess Appointments are ILLEGAL, yet he has not removed the appointees nor has the Attorney General or Congress moved to enforce the Court Order.

The armed Radical Black Panthers blocked a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 Presidential Election, and were found guilty by a federal judge. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, neither arrested them nor took them into custody as was required by the Federal Court. It’s just another case of protecting your base by selective enforcement of Federal Law. A belief that both Obama and Holder share.

We now have an Attorney General, charged with being the Chief Law Enforcer Officer in the Federal Government, that has lied to Congressional Committees on two separate occasions. Once over “Fast and Furious”, wherein he had to return to the Committee and retract his statement, and now another lie over his personally approving a subpoena for Fox News telephone records after “Judge Shopping” to get a Federal District Judge to agree to the flagrantly unconstitutional order.

Yes, we have change! Barack Hussein Obama and his handpicked Consigliore Erick Holder have moved our country from a Republic into a virtual Communist Dictatorship. We have citizens afraid of their government institutions, witnesses told to hush up or loose their pensions or worse. Whistle blowers that are attacked, not provided with counsel and threatened.

We have also learned during this Administration that our Champions of Liberty, Freedom and the Constitution as members of the loyal opposition have been attacked and denigrated not only from without but also from within. Champions like Lt. Col. Allen West, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Rand Paul.

We have come to understand that the Political Class on both sides of the aisle are more concerned with their Party and reelection than they are with restoring our Constitution and American exceptionalism. Consequently, we cannot rely on either the Republican Leadership in the Senate headed by Mitch McConnell, nor the Leadership in the House headed by John Boehner, to bring our country back to its Founding Constitutional legal principles.

It is up to us, ‘We the People”, you and me to reign in these abuses of power on both sides of the aisle lest we find ourselves and future generations imprisoned by dictatorial regimes.

Thousands and Thousands of Associated Press Phone Calls Monitored by DO

The Associated Press scandal just keeps getting worse, and we haven’t even started yet. AP CEO Gary Pruitt informed staffers Wednesday that the Department of Justice monitored, not one, not twenty, but “thousands and thousands” of phone calls made by reporters and editors.

Associated Press president and chief executive Gary Pruitt told staff at a Wednesday town hall meeting that the phone records obtained by the government included “thousands and thousands” of calls in and out of the news organization, according to a staffer who attended.

Pruitt said Wednesday that the Obama administration acted as “judge, jury and executioner” in secretly obtaining the news organization’s records, a criticism he also leveled in a recent appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

During the town hall, Pruitt reiterated that the AP did not report on a CIA-thwarted terrorist plot in May 2012 out of national security concerns until sources indicated the Obama administration was going to announce it publicly.

Meanwhile, calls for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign are getting louder….from liberals. Over to you, Jonathan Turley:

The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press. Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process. This ignoble legacy was made possible by Democrats who would look at their shoes whenever the Obama administration was accused of constitutional abuses.

On Thursday, Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by … you guessed it … Eric Holder. He ordered Holder to meet with news media representatives to hear their “concerns” and report back to him. He sent his old sin eater for a confab with the very targets of the abusive surveillance. Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions.

The feeble response was the ultimate proof that these are Obama’s sins despite his effort to feign ignorance. It did not matter that Holder is the sin eater who has lost his stomach or that such mortal sins are not so easily digested. Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general.

You can bet this isn’t the end of this. We still don’t have the answer to the question: How many reporters from how many media outlets did DOJ monitor?

Drip drip.

See more at: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/29/thousands-and-thousands-of-associated-press-phone-calls-monitored-by-doj-n1608748

POLITICS

CONFUSION ERUPTS IN IRS HEARING AFTER LOIS LERNER TRIES TO PLEAD THE 5TH — WATCH IT ALL UNFOLD

The Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the political targeting scandal invoked her constitutional right not to answer lawmakers’ questions on Wednesday, but defiantly asserted that she has done nothing wrong — prompting confusion about how exactly she was using her right not to incriminate herself.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told Politico that Lois Lerner, who leads the IRS office that determines which organizations receive tax-exempt status, will be brought before his panel again.

Lerner was the first to publicly disclose earlier this month that the IRS gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups.

“I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee,” Lerner told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee members. “While I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I have been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject manner of this hearing.”

Lerner added that by asserting her right not to testify, “I know that some people will assume I have done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the protection I am invoking today.”

http://youtu.be/rxauVtK59xc

Issa noted during the hearing that because Lerner had asserted her innocence in her opening statement, “I believe you have not asserted your rights but have effectively waived your rights” and took her refusal to answer as a refusal to testify.

An incensed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) spoke up that Lerner should testify, agreeing that she already waived her constitutional privilege.

“You don’t get to tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examination. That’s not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement, she ought to stand here and answer our questions,” Gowdy said, earning applause from the audience.

http://youtu.be/2i_WconfaVM

Read more at:   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/22/i-have-not-done-anything-wrong-irs-official-invokes-5th-amendment-right/comment-page-2/

A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner

(Andrew Harrer/BLOOMBERG)

In the days since the Internal Revenue Service first disclosed that it had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, new information has emerged from both the Treasury inspector general’s report and congressional testimony Friday that calls into question key statements made by Lois G. Lerner, the IRS’s director of the exempt organizations division.

The clumsy way the IRS disclosed the issue, as well as Lerner’s press briefing by phone, were seen at the time as a public relations disaster. But even so, it is worth reviewing three key statements made by Lerner and comparing them to the facts that have since emerged.

“But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”

Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling led to increased interest in a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

At first glance, the inspector general’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.

But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.

Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis. (Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate.)

2009: 1745

2010: 1865

2011: 2540

In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

“I think you guys were reading the paper as much as I was. So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look.”

Here, Lerner suggests that she found out about this issue only when news reports appeared in February and March 2012 about tea party groups complaining that they were being targeted. But the IG timelineshows this claim to be false.

According the IG, Lerner had a briefing on the issue on June 29, 2011, in which she was told about the BOLO (“Be On the Look Out”) criteria that included words such as “tea party” or “patriots.” The report says she raised concerns about the wording and “instructed that the criteria be immediately revised.” She continued to be heavily involved in the issue in the months preceding the new reports, according to the timeline.

“I don’t believe anyone ever asked me that question before.”

This was Lerner’s excuse during the media call for why she had not publicly addressed the issue before.

But in congressional testimony Friday, outgoing acting director Steven T. Miller said he had talked with Lerner about arranging to make a statement at a May 10 conference sponsored by the American Bar Association, knowing that the IG report would soon be released.

Lerner then contacted a friend, Celia Roady, a tax attorney with the Washington firm Morgan Lewis, to get her to ask a question about the targeting, according to a statement by Roady on Friday. (Roady hadpreviously denied this was a planted question when asked directly by participants at the meeting.)

So Lerner was dissembling when she suggested that a simple well-aimed question prompted the disclosure.

In fact, just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner appeared before Congress and was asked by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) about the status of investigations into 501(c)(4) groups. She provided a bland answer about a questionnaire on the IRS Web site, failing to take the opportunity to disclose the results of the probe. (The clip is embedded below, with the question coming at 5:09.) Small wonder that Crowley is now calling for her to resign, saying that Lerner lied to him.

http://youtu.be/8kZABHzFa-4We gave the IRS the weekend to provide a response. A spokeswoman said the agency was not able to offer an explanation for Lerner’s remarks in time for our deadline

The Pinocchio Test

In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner’s misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS’s activities first came to light on May 10. But, taken together, it’s certainly enough to earn her four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Read more at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html

WBZ-TV’s Jon Keller confirmed the announcement Wednesday morning.

‘Sources close to Murray tell WBZ-TV Murray is poised to leave his office as early as today,” Keller said. “There is some speculation he has another position lined up.”

Murray last year, announced he would not run for governor.

He has been no stranger to controversy with ties to the Chelsea Housing Authority scandal and a serious car wreck in Sterling.

Stay with CBS Boston for the latest.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/lt-gov-tim-murray-to-resign/

“We write to express our serious concerns regarding the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill, S. 744. We oppose this bill and urge you to vote against it when it comes to the Senate floor,” the letter to be released Tuesday and obtained by The Daily Caller reads. ”No matter how well intentioned, the Schumer-Rubio bill suffers from fundamental design flaws that make it unsalvageable. Many of us support various parts of the legislation, but the overall package is so unsatisfactory that the Senate would do better to start over from scratch.”

Signed by conservatives leaders and group representatives including radio host Laura Ingraham, Fox News personality Monica Crowley, Red State’s Erick Erickson, radio host Mark Levin, Hoover Institution’s Victor Davis Hanson, and The Daily Caller’s Mickey Kaus, the letter highlights a number of issues the signers have with the legislation including their concerns that the bill:

• Is bloated and unwieldy along the lines of Obamacare or Dodd-Frank;
• Cedes excessive control over immigration law to an administration that has repeatedly proven itself to be untrustworthy, even duplicitous;
• Legalizes millions of illegal immigrants before securing the borders, thus ensuring future illegal immigration;
• Rewards law breakers and punishes law enforcement, undermining the rule of law;
• Hurts American job-seekers, especially those with less education;
• Threatens to bankrupt our already strained entitlement system;
• Expands government by creating new bureaucracies, authorizing new spending, and calling for endless regulations;
• Contains dangerous loopholes that threaten national security;
• Is shot through with earmarks for politically connected interest groups;
• Overwhelms our immigration bureaucracy, guaranteeing widespread fraud.

The letter also argues that while immigration reform is important, the Senate’s immigration reform bill will only make matters worse.

“Reforming our immigration system is an important priority. But S.744 is such a defective measure that it would do more harm than good. We urge you to vote against it and against any cloture vote to bring up the bill. Only then can a constructive, measured debate take place on how to improve America’s immigration policy,” the letter reads.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/over-150-conservative-leaders-groups-sign-letter-opposing-gang-of-8-bill/#ixzz2Twd0LldL