UNREAL… Take a Look At the People Who Think It Is Perfectly OK for Barack Obama to Repeal the Bill of Rights
CLUELESS IN AMERICA …
There is ignorant, and then there is damn ignorant. Those folks in the video below would be the latter. The individuals interviewed actually agreed that it would be okay for Barack Obama to repeal the Bill of Rights as a response to dealing with ISIS and the radical terror threat. Are you serious? Some thought because Republicans and Democrats agreed to do this, it was a good thing as they finally agreed on something. Just how uninformed and stupid have some become in America? I guess the next question that should have been asked was if any of the respondents knew what the Bill of Rights was, or if they could name any of them?
Beachgoers in San Diego blithely agreed that President Barack Obama should be given the power to completely repeal the Bill of Rights in the name of fighting ISIS in another disturbing insight into the unthinking malaise of many Americans.
Told by media analyst and author Mark Dice that Obama had announced he was to repeal the Bill of Rights in order to “help make sure that we can keep everybody safe here in the homeland,” almost all the respondents agreed that eliminating constitutional rights was perfectly reasonable.
Asked, “Is that the right decision – should we get behind Obama to make sure the ISIS threat doesn’t rear its head here in America?,” one man responded, “Yeah I would agree with that,” before adding, “Only time will tell whether it’s the right or wrong decision,” agreeing with Dice that Obama’s political advisors “know what’s best”.
Posted January 27, 2015 by Scared Monkeys
2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Bizarre, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speach, Freedom of the Press, Imperial President, ISIS, Second Amendment, US Constitution, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 2 comments
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Speaks at the Iowa Freedom Summit … “Reigniting the Miracle of America” … We Need to Bring Together a Coalition of Americans Who Want to Believe Again in the “Miracle of America”.
SEN. TED CRUZ SPEAKS AT THE IOWA FREEDOM SUMMIT IN DES MOINES, IOWA …
Senator Ted Cruz, one of the few red blooded, true conservatives in the Republican party, wowed them this week at the Iowa Freedom. Cruz spoke of reigniting the Miracle of America. He asked how do we bring back the Miracle of America? Cruz answered his question by stating the following:
“Number one, we champion jobs and economic growth and opportunity. We bring back an environment where small businesses are growing, are creating opportunity and we get the senseless obstacles from Washington out of the way. That means tax reform, regulatory reform, it means sending the ‘locust’ of the EPA back to Washington. [...] And the most important regulatory reform we can do is repeal every word of Obamacare. We need tax reform and the most important tax reform we can do is to abolish the IRS. We need a simple flat tax that is fair that every Americans can fill his or hers taxes on a post card. There are 110,000 employees at the IRS. We need to padlock that building and put everyone of those 110,00 on our Southern border. I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, think about that for a second imagine you travel 1000′s of miles through Central America, through the heat, you’re swimming across the Rio Grande and the first thing you see is ten thousand IRS agents, you would turn around and go home too.
The second key to reigniting the Miracle of America is we need to defend our Constitutional rights. Every single one of them, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th, the 5th, the 10th Amendment. You know no liberty has been more under assault in recent years than religious liberty. Whether it is the Federal government going after Hobby Lobby, a Christian company, or going after the Little Sisters of the Poor. By the way, here is a real good rule of thumb, if you are litigating against nuns, as the Obama administration is, you probably have done something wrong. I am sorry to say one of the most graphic examples of the threat of religious liberty occurred in my home town of Houston. Where the city of Houston subpoenaed five pastors and demanded of those pastors that they hand over their sermons and hand over your sermon notes. [...] The heat and pressure was so great that the city folded under it and withdrew the subpoena.
Third, we need to restore Americans leadership in the world. Over the past six years we have seen the fruits of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy of receding from leadership in the word. Leading from behind does not work. Just a couple of weeks ago we were horrified at the terrorist attack in the streets of Paris. And then horrified again when 40 world leaders came in solidarity and yet missing from that rally graphically was the United States of America. You cannot fight and win a war on radical Islamic terrorism if you are unwilling to utter the words radical Islamic terrorism. [...] You know that Paris also illustrates that a big ocean doesn’t mean we are protected from radical Islamic terrorism. It is one of the reasons why I have joined Steve King and Chuck Grassley to introduce the ‘Expatriate Terrorist Act’ that says if an American citizen takes up arms with ISIS, he forfeits his or her citizenship.”
Must see Video …
This is a must watch VIDEO from probably the greatest Conservative and defender of the US Constitution of all elected politicians in Washington, DC today. He ended his speech by saying the following when it comes to the upcoming primary season, every person is going to tell you that they are the most Conservative person to ever walk. Cruz said, “talk is cheap” and the Word tells us, “that you shall know them by their fruit”.Cruz went on to say:
One of the most important roles of Americans and the people of Iowa will be to look each candidate in the eye and say, “don’t talk, show me”. Ted Crud went on to say, “if you say you support liberty, show me where you stood up and fought for it. If you say you support religious liberty, show me where you stood up and fought for it. If you say you oppose Obamacare show me where you stood up and fought against it. If you say you oppose the president’s Unconstitutional executive amnesty, show me where you stood up and fought. If you say you support life and marriage show me where you stood up and fought. If you say you’ll stand up to the Washington establishment, the career politicians of both parties, that have gotten us into this mess, show me where you have stood up and fought. If you say you oppose common core, show me where you have stood up and fought. And if you say you stand with our friend and ally the nation of Israel show me where you stood up and fought.
Together, we need to reassemble the Reagan coalition. We need to unify, we need to bring together conservative and evangelicals and libertarians and Republican women and Reagan Democrats and young people. We need to bring together a coalition of Americans who want to believe again in the “Miracle of America”.
Sen. Ted Cruz spoke of reigniting the “Miracle of America”.
- This country was built on an extraordinary miracle. The miracle of American began with a revolutionary idea, Our rights do not come from government, they come from God Almighty.
- This country was built on incredible opportunity … There has been no country in the history of the world that has allowed so many millions with nothing to come and seek the unlimited dreams of their potential.
- The miracle of American as been American exceptionalism. We are the clarion voice for freedom and we will back down to no face of tyranny.
Le Journal du Dimanche Poll: 42% of French Opposed to Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
And you wonder why Western Europe is considered to have already lost the war on terror to Islam?
In a recent poll by Le Journal du Dimanche, 57% of respondents stated that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ should continue to print cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad; however, an amazing 42% oppose Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of Muhammad. So I guess that these people do not believe in Je Suis Charlie Hebdo. With nearly 50% of French not believing in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, does anyone wonder why many believe that western Europe has lost the war against Islam? What else would you expect when you allow Muslim “free zones” within a sovereign country?
More than 4 in 10 French people believe Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t publish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, given that many Muslims find the images offensive, according to a recent poll by a French publication, published Sunday.
A survey conducted by Le Journal du Dimanche, a French weekly newspaper, presented participants with this information: “Some Muslims feel attacked or injured by the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.”
In the final tally of responses, 42% checked a box to indicate that the country should “consider these reactions and avoid publishing these cartoons,” while 57% of respondents checked “we should ignore these reactions and continue to publish such cartoons.” The remaining 1% checked “no opinion.”
Pope Francis Claims There Are Limitations on Freedom of Speech, ‘One Cannot Make Fun of Faith’ … REALLY?
POPE FRANCIS SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE FUN OF FAITH …
Following the radical Islam terror attack at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical newspaper that had made fun of the prophet Mohammad in the past, that left numerous dead, Pope Francis stated that there were limitations of freedom of speech and said, “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.” Really? SORRY PONTIFF, YOU COULD NOT BE ANY MORE WRONG. So let’s understand this, the Pope thinks that people do not have the right to make fun of religion? The Pontiff made his point by comparing it to if an individual cursed at his mother, that person would be punched. So is the Pope saying that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ brought this on themselves? Would he say the same about a rape victim?
A note to the Pontiff, blasphemy is offensive, cruel and pretty much wrong, but it is not illegal and does not warrant murder.That is what is supposed to separate Christianity from radical Islam. Sorry, but the very essence of freedom of speech is to defend the very words that you would disagree with, offend you and make your blood boil. Wasn’t it Jesus who told us to bless those who persecute us (Romans 12:14), to return love for hate and good for evil (Psalm 109:5), and even to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Loving your enemies would include supporting the fundamental commitment to free speech, and defending the right of free speech, even, or especially, for those who offend you. Why am I telling a Pope this?
Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that “one cannot make fun of faith” and that anyone who throws insults can expect a “punch.”
The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that “every religion has its dignity.”
“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” he said. “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”
The right to liberty of expression comes with the “obligation” to speak for “the common good,” Pope Francis said, cautioning against provocation.
To illustrate his point, he joked about Vatican aide Alberto Gasparri who was standing nearby on the plane.
“It’s true that we can’t react violently, but, for example if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend of mine, says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him,” the pontiff said.
Pope Francis also said that killing in the name of religion is an “aberration,” but adding that those who deride other faiths can expect to provoke a strong, even violent response. An aberration?
“One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected,” the pontiff said. “There are a lot of people who speak badly about other religions. They make fun of them. What happens is what happens with my friend [who insults my mother]. There is a limit.”
The pope made the comments during an in-flight news conference from Sri Lanka to Manila, where he took up the second leg of a weeklong tour of Asia. He was greeted at the airport by President Benigno Aquino III and a performance by hundreds of jeans-clad young people. People cheered the pope’s motorcade to the residence of the apostolic nuncio.
In recent days, the 78-year-old pontiff strongly denounced the attack by two militant Muslim gunmen on Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical publication that has long derided Islam and other religions and their institutions, including the Vatican.
French Authorities Identified Terrorist Suspects Who Murdered Two Police Officers and Slaughtered 10 Journalists at Charlie Hebdo … Said Kouachi, Cherif Kouachi & Hamyd Mourad (Update: Mourad Surrends to Police)
Terror suspects ID’d in Charlie Hebdo slaughter …
Three terrorist suspects have been ID’d in the shooting rampage in Paris, France as two police officers and 10 journalists at Charlie Hebdo were murdered. France’s prime minister, Manuel Valls, said the three Islamofascists suspects are brothers, 32 year old Cherif Kouachi, 34 year old Said Kouachi and 18 year old Mourad Hamyd. The brothers were known to intelligence services. It is currently unknown what the relationship of the 18 year old is to the two brothers. AFP reported that they had been spotted at a petrol station in northern France.
The younger of the two brothers being hunted by French authorities had already spent time in jail for links to terrorism.
Cherif Kouachi, a 32-year-old French citizen, was sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 for being part of a jihadist recruitment ring in Paris that sent fighters to join the conflict in Iraq.
He was arrested in January 2005, at the age of 22, when he and another man were about to set off for Syria, via which they planned to reach Iraq where war was raging.
Kouachi’s lawyer Vincent Ollivier said at the time that his client’s profile was more “pot-smoker from the projects than an Islamist.”
But at trial, Kouachi was described as coming under the influence of a radical Muslim preacher, Farid Benyettou, at the Addawa mosque in Paris’s 19th arrondissement.
Much less is known about the elder Kouachi brother, who doesn’t appear to have as high a profile as his younger sibling.
Said Kouachi is 34 and also a citizen of France, according to French authorities.
CNN affiliate BFMTV reported that police found an ID document of Said Kouachi during the investigation.
“It was their only mistake,” said Dominique Rizet, BFMTV’s police and justice consultant.
The photo of Said Kouachi released by police shows him with close cropped dark hair and a short beard on his chin. He’s wearing a gray top with a collar.
BFMTV reported that like his brother, he was born in Paris and was known to police.
The Liberation report suggested that at the time of Cherif Kouachi’s arrest in 2005, the two brothers were both staying in Paris with a French man who had converted to Islam.
Said Kouachi’s name came to the attention of police during the investigation into the 2010 prison-break plot, but there wasn’t enough evidence to keep investigating him, Le Monde reported.
UPDATE I: 18 year old Mourad Hamyd turns himself in and surrenders to police after learning his name was linked to the attacks in the news.
18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, has surrendered to authorities in France. The two other suspects, identified by French police as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, who brothers in their early 30s, are currently still at large.
The 18-year-old Mourad is believed to be the suspect who stayed on the street as the two older brothers committed the shooting in Charlie Hebdo’s offices, killing 12 people.
Federal Court in Pennsylvania Declared President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration Policy Unconstitutional
IMAGINE THAT, A FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR OBAMA TO BE AN EMPEROR …
U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab has ruled that parts of Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional. It’s a start, even though any one with any common sense or grasp of the Constitution knows Obama’s executive order was Unconstitutional. Although this decision was part of a criminal case, look for this case to make it’s way through the federal court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.
According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
The full opinion can be read HERE.
Judge Arthur Schwab stated that Obama’s executive order violated separation of powers.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote in his 38-page opinion (posted here). “President Obama’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.”
The Pittsburgh-based judge rejected a Justice Department legal opinion arguing that Obama’s actions fall within the traditional realm of the executive’s discretion about which cases to pursue and which to overlook. Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, also quoted in detail from a series of public statements Obama made in recent years about the limits on his executive authority to make sweeping changes in immigration enforcement.
As Q and A opines, if this case goes to the SCOTUS, will the “ObamaCare is a tax” court manage to actually rule as this judge has, that the executive has unconstitutionally exceeded his power? Who knows anymore at this point. After Justice Roberts bent over backwards for Obamacare, one can only wonder whether the SCOTUS will get this one right.
Newtown, CT Victims’ Families Sue Bushmaster, Manufacturer of AR-15, Gun Used by Adam Lanza in 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Attack
The Sandy Hook Elementary School murders were unspeakable, however, this lawsuit is misguided and Unconstitutional …
The murders of 27 individuals, 20 of whom were children, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 was a crime so heinous that it was hard to fathom how anyone could be so insane and filled with hate. However, 20 year old gunman Adam Lanza committed this act of violence as he barged into a defenseless elementary school and took part in the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. Now the families of nine people killed in the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre are suing Bushmaster, a privately held company based in Windham, Maine that manufacture the AR-15. This was the gun that Lanza used in the mass murders.
The 40 page lawsuit, filed in Connecticut Superior Court in Bridgeport, names Bushmaster, the weapons distributor and the retailer, Riverview in East Windor, that sold the gun used in the shooting as defendants. The plaintiffs seeks unspecified monetary damages.
The families of nine people killed in a 2012 massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school sued the maker of the gun used in the attack on Monday, saying the weapon should not have been sold because it had no reasonable civilian purpose.
While the AR-15 assault weapon used in the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School was legally sold in Connecticut, the lawsuit contends that the weapon should not have been available to 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza. The AR-15 is manufactured by Bushmaster, a privately held company based in Windham, Maine.
Lanza shot dead 20 first-graders and six educators in the Dec. 14, 2012, attack, which stands as one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The massacre sparked a fresh debate on gun rights, which are protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible,” Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. “It’s negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public.”
As tragic as the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre was and as much we hope that the families affected by this tragedy can move forward from this devastating act of violence at the hands of Adam Lanza, I am sorry but this law suit is misguided. The gun was legally bought by Adam Lanza’s mother, who was also murdered by this sick kid. The guns were legally registered to Nancy Lanza. Adam Lanza was refused the purchase of a firearm as he did not pass back ground checks. If anyone was negligent, one might say it was the mother who shared her gun enthusiasm with her mentally deranged son and did not properly lock them away from this killer. Millions of Americans own AR-15′s and use them for person and civilian use. The notion that plaintiff attorneys say that this weapon is only for military use is incorrect. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon, however, the liberal MSM would like you to think so. What Adam Lanza did was an heinous an act possible … but suing a gun manufacturer that is protected by the Second Amendment and followed all the laws is wrong.
The lawsuit, hand-delivered to a Connecticut state marshal on Saturday, names as defendants Bushmaster Firearms International LLC, which is owned by Remington Outdoor Co.; Camfour, a company that distributes Bushmaster products; and Riverview Gun Sales, a East Windsor, Conn., gun shop that sold the rifle to Ms. Lanza.
It claims the gunmaker, the firearms distributor, and the store that sold firearm are liable for producing and selling a weapon unfit for civilian use, reports WSJ’s Joseph De Avila.
Remington declined to comment. Camfour and Riverview Gun Sales didn’t return requests for comment.
George Kollitides, the chief executive of Remington Outdoor, told the Washington Times in June 2013 that Mr. Lanza alone, and not the rifle, was to blame for the killings.
“It’s very easy to blame an inanimate object,” he said. “Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent — criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility.”
Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) Asks HSS Jeh Johnson, “Did the President Change the Law?” and What Happened to the Deportation of the Terrorists” Who Entered the US Illegally
An amazing exchange yesterday between Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson discussing whether President Barack Obama had the Constitutional authority to change immigration law and what happened to the four terrorists who snuck into the United States illegally. Were they deported? The responses from Johnson were startling, but not unexpected from this corrupt, lawless and lying administration. Jeh Johnson actually had the audacity to call the exert from Obama’s speech suspicious. REALLY SIR? The Obama administration might want to look in the mirror. And you wonder why no one can work with Obama or his administration, their word means nothing.
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R-Utah): What do you say to someone who believes the president took action to change the law?
JEH JOHNSON, DHS SECRETARY: We do not change the law, we act within the law.
CHAFFETZ: Can you play the clip? This is from Nov. 25. This is the president in Nevada talking about this (VIDEO).
BARACK OBAMA audio clip: But what you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.
CHAFFETZ: So you say you didn’t change the law, but the president said he changed the law.
JOHNSON: We acted within existing law. We acted within our existing legal authority. Listen, I’ve been a lawyer 30 years, somebody plays me an eight word excerpt from a larger speech, I know to be suspicious. That was very nice.
CHAFFETZ: I’m going to read it back: “Now you’re absolutely right that there have been a significant number of deportations that’s true, but what you’re not paying attention to is the fact I just took action to change the law, so that’s point number one. Point number two: The way the change in the law works…” and he goes on. He’s pretty clear and he is the president of the United States. This is why we have a hard time believing that Homeland Security is doing the right thing.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) grilled Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson over his department’s failure to deport four members of a terrorist organization who were captured crossing illegally into the U.S.
During a Tuesday hearing, Chaffetz recalled that Johnson had previously promised four men nabbed crossing the Southern border in early September would be deported. The individuals were thought to have ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an organization designated as a terrorist group by the State Department.
“Did you deport them?” the Utah representative asked Johnson.
“Uh, no. Not at this point,” Johnson answered.
“What is the disposition of those four people,” Chaffetz pressed.
“Two are detained, the two others were released by the judge — uh, not my preference — they were released by the judge and they fled to Canada and they are seeking asylum in Canada,” the homeland secretary responded, before placing blame on an immigration judge for releasing two of the four men.
WHAT IF … The United States of America Had a Lawless President Who Could Care Less About the US Constitution & Was Hellbent on Harming We the People?
WHAT IF …
Sadly, the American people elected not once, but twice a president in Barack Obama that is not a “what if,” but a what is. To Obama, elections only matter when he wins. They are inconsequential when he gets shellacked and a real “ass-whuppin.”
This is a must watch VIDEO.
Barack Obama Just Admitted to Immigration Hecklers that He Shredded the US Constitution … “I Just Took an Action to Change the Law”
HEY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AND THE SUPREME COURT, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION THE WORDS THAT JUST CAME OUT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S OWN MOUTH …
While speaking Tuesday in Chicago pandering to Hispanics and discussing his recent executive order regarding amnesty for illegal immigrants, President Barack Obama went off script and actually spoke the truth. Obama stated to the hecklers, “I just took an action to change the law”. It was only last week that the White House was defending Obama’s Unconstitutional executive amnesty order as making changes within the existing law. Hmm, it sounds like he just admitted that he “took an action to change a law, PERIOD! Obama so wanted to be liked by the crowd and garner their cheers and adulation that he spoke the truth. Too bad he had no Constitutional right to do so. To hell with the separation of powers.
“All right, OK. OK. I understand,” Obama told the protesters after letting them go on for some time. “Listen. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Young lady, young lady, don’t just — don’t just start — don’t just start yelling, young ladies. Sir, why don’t you sit down, too?
“Listen, you know — here. Can I just say this, all right? I’ve listened to you. I heard you. I heard you. I heard you. All right? Now I have been respectful, I let you holler. All right? So let me just — nobody is removing you. I have heard you, but you have got to listen to me, too. All right? And I understand you may disagree, I understand you may disagree. But we have got to be able to talk honestly about these issues, all right?
“Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.”