Beck Breaks Exclusive Information

Beck Breaks Exclusive Information on Saudi National Once Considered a Person of Interest in Boston Bombings

Background points:


•A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing

•As the story gained traction, TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national, originally identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi

•Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill.

•An ICE official said a different Saudi national is in custody, but is “in no way” connected to the bombings.

•A congressional source, however, says that the file on Alharbi was created, that he was “linked” in some way to the Boston bombings (though it is unclear how), and that documents showing all this have been sent to Congress.

•Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano

•Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that Alharbi was allegedly flagged on a terrorist watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted. Sources close to the investigation also told him the Saudi is still set for deportation.

•New information provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered early Wednesday evening to disassociate him from the initial charges

•Sources say the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts

•Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.

Monday morning Glenn Beck laid out what he knows about the Saudi connection to the Boston marathon bombings. It is a story that the mainstream media has all but completely ignored, though Beck says TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood reached out to numerous other networks in an effort to get the story out. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to acknowledge the story even existed when questioned by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) last Friday.

MUCH MORE:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/beck-breaks-exclusive-information-on-saudi-national-allegedly-connected-to-boston-bombings/

Byron York: Immigration fight stirs debate over federal benefits

Did you know that U.S. law forbids the admission of any immigrant who is likely to depend on public assistance? It's right there in Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, first passed in the 1950s and still the law today:


"Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible."

The plain language of the law hardly squares with reports that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has sought to promote the use of food stamps and other welfare programs among newly arrived immigrants. (Legal ones; the law forbids those benefits for illegal immigrants.) In 2004, in the Bush years, the feds even began a partnership with the Mexican government to encourage Mexicans to sign up for government assistance as soon as they arrived in the U.S.

And now, the Obama administration forbids American consular officers from even considering whether a prospective immigrant might end up on dozens of public assistance programs when evaluating that immigrant's admissibility to the U.S. The policy came as a surprise to four top Republican senators when they learned about it last year.


"It has long been a sound principle of immigration law that those who seek citizenship in this country ought to be financially self-sufficient," Sens. Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley and Pat Roberts wrote in an August 2012 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge."   Specifically, the senators were stunned to discover that while government policy allows an American official to consider whether a prospective immigrant might end up on Supplemental Security Income, or on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the official cannot weigh whether the immigrant would need more than 70 other means-tested programs: Medicaid, food stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, childcare benefits, educational assistance and more than a dozen nutritional programs.


"Indeed, under your interpretation," the senators wrote in that letter to Napolitano and Clinton, "an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a 'public charge.' "

CONTINUED:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-immigration-fight-stirs-debate-over-federal-benefits/article/2525383?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner%20E-dition%20(March%2026,%202013)%20-%2003/26/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20E-dition

Disarming America

A Message from our Chairman, Rick Hopkins:

This infuriates me! Every God fearing American should contact their legislators today and demand action be taken to stop this. The very heroes that have risked life and limb and sacrificed beyond belief for the country they loved and believed in are being stripped of the rights they fought for. These are not the rights afforded them by bureaucrats and legislators, these are the God given rights that all men have been graced with which were affirmed by our founding fathers and the authors of our founding documents such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Read them people, study them, understand them, teach them and defend them. When is Enough going to be Enough?

The following is from Red Flag News, the link is at the end. Please take action and let our voices be heard. Rather than supporting our heroes and providing care and assistance, our government has chosen to label them as defective to satisfy a political agenda and deny them their God given rights without due process and no method of recourse. Where is the America they fought for, when will it fight for them?

Rick Hopkins
Chairman, Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association


DISARMING AMERICA'S HEROES: Veterans Receiving Letters Prohibiting The Purchase, Possession, Receipt, Or Transport Of A Firearm Or Ammunition...

February 20, 2013
Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

CONTINUE READING:  http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition

Congressman Lt. Col. Allen West on Obama Amnesty Policy

June 15, 2012

Dear Patriot,


Greetings to our Constituents, fellow Floridians, and all Americans.

As I am writing this today, I really cannot believe that President Barack Obama and his administration have failed to grasp the three fundamental premises of our Constitutional Republic: representative democracy, limited government, and separation of powers (recognizing the maxim of co-equality of branches of the Federal Government).

I say that because Friday we received another surprise from the Obama Administration. At around 9:30 am, my BlackBerry buzzed as I was wrapping up speaking to the Palm Beach business forum. Once outside, I checked my messages to find, to my absolute amazement, that Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, would be announcing, effective immediately, that certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children (who do not present a risk to national security or public safety and meet several key criteria) will be considered for relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings.

There were five criteria given:

1) Came to the United States under the age of 16;
2) Have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years;

3) Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; (I find this rather confusing as one cannot join and have an honorable discharge from the Coast Guard or Armed Services as an illegal immigrant)
4) Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
5) Are not above the age of thirty.

This is yet another example of Executive Branch overreach. We have a legislative process that ensures representative governance by the consent of the American people. This action should be crafted into legislation, debated in committee and brought before the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate for vote, in accordance with the process in our Constitutional Republic. Secretary Napolitano is an unelected administrative bureaucrat who does not have the right to make governing decisions for this country.

It is apparent that the goal of the Obama Administration is not to govern, but to rule by edict, or executive order, particularly as November draws near.

I do find it ironic that Secretary Napolitano would not assist our State of Florida with ensuring the integrity of the voting process, but is happy to implement a decision about who can reside in America.

Furthermore, where are the details about how the American economy is going to handle this influx of people? There are currently more than 23 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or just discouraged and no longer accounted for. How will this affect the employment situation in our country, as this policy introduces new competition with Americans for jobs? Will there be any analysis of the economic impact for the American taxpayers who will have to carry this burden? What are the increased demands on additional guaranteed services and will they be guaranteed government benefits? These are the kinds of details that are to be hammered out during the legislative process, and appear to be completely overlooked by the Obama Administration.

Finally, will these young people be allowed to petition for immunity for their illegal immigrant parents as well?


Our constitutional republic was created so one branch of government could not run roughshod over another. If President Obama does not like a certain policy, he must bring the debate to the United States Congress, not attempt to impose it on the country unilaterally. If the American people, through their representative government, reject the DREAM Act, it is not within the enumerated rights of the President to then enact the policy by Executive Order. If that becomes the case, then why have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate? There would no longer be any separation of powers, and certainly the Executive Branch would not have any limit in exerting its power.

This decision is not just about relaxing rules or laws for young illegal immigrants, it is about the respect of the foundational principles and values of America, a Constitutional Republic. The precedent established is dangerous and the overreach threatens the fabric of our Nation.

This policy is wrong. If this Administration continues to make decisions without the consent of the governed, the governed always have the ability to rescind their consent.

Steadfast and Loyal,
Allen B. West

Enemy Expatriation Act~ No Citizenship, No Constitutional Rights

Tea Party Nation
KrisAnne Hall on February 27, 2012
At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, again, here comes another dangerous tool aimed at avoiding Constitutional restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism. It is clear that our Congressmen believe that the pesky Constitution severely limits them in their noble efforts to keep us poor defenseless little citizens safe. Members of Congress vehemently defended their vote for NDAA by stating that US Citizens were specifically excluded from detention under the counterterrorism provisions. Although we know that to be doubtful, Senators Joe Liebermann and Scott Brown along with Representatives Charles Dent, Jason Altmire, Robert Latta and Frank Wolf are working to make that defense irrelevant - eliminate the person’s citizenship and he HAS no Constitutional rights – problem solved. These men have submitted for review S. 1698 and H.R. 3166, bills that will be better known as the Enemy Expatriation Act.


Interesting how the words of our founders still come back to haunt us. In the Letter from a Federal Farmer 8, the author warns us that:

Men may always be too cautious to commit alarming and glaring iniquities; but they, as well as systems, are liable to be corrupted by slow degrees.

That is exactly what has happened. The Constitutional rights of US Citizens are being eroded by slow degrees. Consider the following:

Immediately after 9/11, Congress passes the Patriot Act, legislation that in part allows the FBI to conduct warrantless searches and seize people and property without probable cause and without judicial review. This is the current existing law and do not allow Congress to tell you that it is not being used against US Citizens. Just ask a family in Granville, NC who watched their son snatched into custody by the FBI with nothing more than a suspicion and detained for over two months without any due process!

Next we have Janet Napolitano issuing in an OFFICIAL REPORT of the Department of Homeland Security stating that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion, along with others who hold conservative American values are the real potential terrorists.

Recently, in April of 2011, the Government Accountability office reported that State Department and DHS officials could not agree on “what degree of ‘association’ with a terrorist is sufficient to render an applicant ineligible for a visa.” Through this report we know that our US Visa offices are and have been granting legal resident status to citizens who have documented terrorist affiliation. We also know that these legal residents have been granted full citizenship in spite of their documented terrorist affiliation. Case in point; consider Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber, who was granted a student visa and then full citizenship all the while being on a terrorist watch list. Because of Faisal Shahzad’s terrorist attack on America, Eric Holder went on a campaign, not to fix our immigration system or to limit the real terrorists, but to declare that OUR Constitutional rights should be “more flexible” so we can combat terrorism.

Every move that has been taken by this government moves us closer and closer to the death of the Constitution in the name of combating terrorism.

Next, the National Defense Authorization Act declares an indefinite worldwide war on terrorism and makes provision the indefinite detention of those the government labels terrorists, or belligerents, or hostiles, or…?

Congressman after Congressman has declared these sections EXCLUDE US Citizens. They claim that we are protected because this act does not change existing law. Would that be the existing law that took the 16 year old boy into custoday? They also ignore section 4 that authorizes open and unchecked waivers of any established limitations based solely on the whim of the President. They claim that the language of this Act, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” gives that exclusion, even though telling a government agency they are not required to do something is not the same as prohibiting them from doing it. Not even close. We have declared open and undefined war on the nebulous enemy - “terrorism”, and we have given the President the ability to detain US Citizens indefinitely. Never fear, the current President has promised he will not use that power.

Obama will never have to keep that promise if the Enemy Expatriation Act passes, since this act will strip US Citizens of their citizenship for simply being suspected of association with terrorist activity.

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes guidelines of how a citizen can “lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”. The act then proceeds to list seven ways someone can relinquish their citizenship, among those acts is treason. The Enemy Expatriation Act adds an additional criteria, language straight out of those troublingly worded sections of NDAA that we were told were not aimed at US Citizens. According to Senator Leibermann and others, citizens both by birth and naturalization do not deserve their citizenship if they are suspected of:

engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.

We should be asking ourselves, why we need this language in addition to the crime of treason already listed as a way to lose citizenship. The key may lie in the definition of treason in the Constitution and the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act to actually remove citizenship for treason. The Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist of only levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving Aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Immigration and Nationality Act uses this definition of treason and then states citizenship can be removed “if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The Constitution and the provisions in the Immigration Act both require a conviction of treason in court. The standard of engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting, as stated in the Enemy Expatriation Act contains no requirement for CONVICTION of these activities.

CONTINUED:
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/enemy-expatriation-act-no-citizenship-no-constitutional-rights

“If You See Something, Say Something” BUT NOT WHEN IT APPLIES TO OBAMA, THE IMPOSTOR

(Oct. 19, 2011) — The program that Janet Napolitano kicked off as the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security has wonderful prospects. As law-abiding and freedom-loving Americans, we fully support this program. We love our country so much that we actually did not need the prompting to act on things criminal, suspicious, or threatening to the USA. The continued vigilance to our American way of life and the vast exponential growth of true patriots to Constitutional adherence will insure the program is a success.


However, it may not be as promoted by the DHS. Very soon, the cooperation by citizens in reporting “something” to the program should reveal the context of what Janet Napolitano meant. So far, the reporting to authorities of plenty of criminal acts goes unabated. The effectiveness of this “see & say” is being tested as I type.

READ MORE:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/19/if-you-see-something-say-something%e2%84%a2/

Rep. West: Obama's Rules Scorn Constitution

Monday, 22 Aug 2011
By David A. Patten and Ashley Martella

Conservative firebrand Rep. Allen West is castigating President Barack Obama for “shredding” the U.S. Constitution by aggressively pushing to impose his agenda through executive-branch rule-making rather than via Congress.


In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, West cited Homeland Security Department chief Janet Napolitano’s announcement last week that the federal government will allow illegals not charged with other crimes to remain in the country and will not deport them.

“It’s absolutely a form of amnesty, and it does go against our Constitution,” says West, who called for a congressional investigation into the administration action.

Story and video:  http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/West-Obama-constitution-illegals/2011/08/22/id/408171

34,448 Illegal Immigrants Spared Deportation

In a perplexing development ignored by the mainstream media, the Obama Administration suspended tens of thousands of deportations last year and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lied to a Senate committee to cover up the astounding figure.


READ THE ARTICLE:  http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog

Timely Thoughts--Must Read!

Thu, February 24, 2011

As you all know from the news, we are living in very scary times. Things haven’t been this bad in a very long time, and perhaps 2012 is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

· People are rioting in the streets in nations all over the world, calling for their governments to step down. Some are responding peacefully and others are being gunned down in the streets as if they are nothing more than pestilent rats.

· Our sworn enemy, even as identified in the Bible, not only has barbarically slaughtered over 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11 but they have officially arrived at our shores to stay. Despite an ideology that despises our rules and culture and ultimately cannot exist peacefully in a Christian-based nation, Islamic communities have taken hold all over this country, are challenging our laws, and using our very tolerance and multiculturalism against us. And now our finest lawyers are taking up their cause. Our President has announced worldwide that the United States is the largest Muslim nation. We are at the verge of building a magnificent mosque at Ground Zero as a symbol of Islam’s conquest of the US.

· The Department of Homeland Security, through Janet Napolitano, has identified domestic rightwing groups (such as the Tea Party groups), as being potential sources of violence. In fact, in her report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Radicalization and Recruitment,” she cites domestic rightwing groups as likely to engage in acts of violence because of the various emerging social and political issues, including:

(a) The prolonged economic downturn (including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, an inability to obtain credit, the outsourcing of jobs)
(b) The election of the first African-American president
(c) Resentment over immigration
(d) The passage of the healthcare reform bill
(e) Opposition to a large central government
(f) Opposition to the current rate of taxation

---- Do these issues sound familiar ?? Groups who legitimately have such concerns, and which intimately concern their lives, are on a Homeland Security watch list as potential sources of domestic violence. I suppose that leftwing groups do nothing to warrant such government scrutiny. This is our very government engaging in “View point” discrimination. This is our very own government attempting to shut the conservative message down by issuing a report claiming that we pose a serious enough threat to internal security to be monitored. How long before Tea Party groups will no longer be able to even associate with one another? How long before the government tries to make that a crime?

· The federal government refuses to do its job to keep Americans safe and secure, which not only means safe from the violence that illegal immigrants bring but also the insecurity that comes from a national debt so gargantuan that our very existence becomes precarious. We have a government that completely disregards the pleas of the American people to close our borders and to give assimilation a fighting chance. But no, the borders are open and violent criminals are pouring in. How many reports must we hear about rapes and violent murders and repeat offenses at the hands of illegals? How many are being swept under the carpet so we don’t have to hear about them and complain? We have no meaningful system to track murderous criminals and in fact, the government simply releases them back onto the streets after briefly detaining them and asking them to “please return for a deportation hearing.” I guess it is only the government who believes criminals have personal integrity because it would rather hire more IRS agents to persecute those not paying healthcare insurance than ICE agents to deport criminal illegal aliens in order to make sure our streets and neighborhoods are safe.

· We have more than half the country that loves this country for all the wrong reasons - for the hand-outs and the freedom to disregard education, work, responsibility, and service to their country. “At some point you run out of other people’s money.”

· Aol.com bought out Huffington Post to bring liberal media more into the mainstream where feeble minds can latch on to its message of a government nanny state.

· Democrats in government still don’t understand the gravity of our debt problem. We are losing stature in the world’s eyes. We are mortgaging our children’s future. We are putting the integrity of our entire system on the line.

· Americans still don’t understand what it means to be blessed with Liberty and the responsibilities that come from that. They still don’t understand that with liberty comes a great cost and that cost is eternal vigilance.

· Americans still don’t understand that the US Constitution is everyone’s personal charter of freedom. In defending the Constitution and its design for a limited federal government, we ensure our own liberties. If we fail to stand up for violations of this document, we chip away steadily at our very freedoms. Apparently not everyone values robust freedom; Apparently not everyone knows what to do with it. But unbridled freedom is the very core of what America stands for and it’s the very reason millions left their homeland in the 1700’s, 1800’s, and 1900’s to come to her shores.

· Our President has announced that we are no longer a Christian nation and with every official action and with every official word and government action on his behalf, he announces that this is indeed true.

· Our President just announced that he will REFUSE to enforce a national law which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. (I didn’t know he had that option to refuse to do his job). He declared that the law is unconstitutional. (Not the Supreme Court, mind you, but Obama himself made this enlightened decision). We are not a government of men; we are a government of laws. It would serve Obama, apparently a lawyer, to go back and read the Constitution (or read it for the first time, whatever the case may be).

· These are just to name a few of the current problems…..

WE ARE QUICKLY LOSING OUR VERY HERITAGE AND MEANINGFUL INSTITUTIONS.

So please let us not forget or neglect the words of the very document which declared our independence from another government that oppressed the American people – the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Isn’t that why we have all joined the Tea Party? To recognize that our government has indeed become destructive of the ends for which it was created. And to alter it ….. peacefully

To me it seems the Tea Party movement has been losing steam in our area of Pitt County. Perhaps some have lost the urgency and gravity of the current climate. I hope I’m wrong. It’s a time for action and involvement but instead it seems there is inaction and non-involvement. The coming years will make or break us as a nation. A house divided cannot stand. A nation that doesn’t stand for good cannot ask for blessings. The Bible says we need those blessings or we will perish.

But please know this. In Raleigh, state representatives feel the Tea Party presence and respect its power. This is undeniable. In Washington DC, representatives feel the Tea Party presence and respect its power. I’ve been there and I found this out for myself. The Tea Party movement is historic. It is real and it is very palpable. It stands in a long line of bold attempts by free men to stand up for their inalienable rights in the face of tyranny and oppression.

More and more, the Tea Party can be compared to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. It is a revolt against an oppressive government who believes that people are ruled by powerful men rather than rules. At the height of the Stamp Act crisis, which culminated in the Boston Tea Party, William Pitt proclaimed in Parliament, "The Americans are the sons not the bastards of England." Today, just as back in the 1700’s, we the people are indeed ignored by our government, as if we too are bastards rather than sons and daughters. Our Declaration said this about King George: “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Could this not easily be said of Barack Obama? The Declaration also cited this offense for justifying our separation from England: “…For abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.” Is that not what Obama and his Czars are trying to do?

It is said that since our feudal roots in England following the invasion by William the Conqueror (of Normandy, France), every time the people stood up and fought for their rights and freedoms, they were granted recognition and protection of those rights, and with each successful confrontation, they were granted greater rights. It would be an abomination if in our most civilized era, we were not wise enough to stand up for our rights or for the most ingeniously crafted Constitution the world has ever known.

I am not sending this out necessarily to compel you to any action, but rather to remind you to please stand resolute in your commitment to effect meaningful change in this country - for our children and grandchildren. If you can find the time, please continue to be active in the Tea Party, please help recruit, please become involved locally, become visible, become vocal, become active, and continue to educate yourselves on the issues,

Thank You & God Bless,
Diane Rufino


I read the Constitution for the great articles.

Ann Coulter

Napolitano: The Ball's in My Court Now

After the 9/11 attacks, when 19 Muslim terrorists -- 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon, 14 with "al" in their names -- took over commercial aircraft with box-cutters, the government banned sharp objects from planes.


Airport security began confiscating little old ladies' knitting needles and breaking the mouse-sized nail files off of passengers' nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted.

After another Muslim terrorist, Richard Reid, AKA Tariq Raja, AKA Abdel Rahim, AKA Abdul Raheem, AKA Abu Ibrahim, AKA Sammy Cohen (which was only his eHarmony alias), tried to blow up a commercial aircraft with explosive-laden sneakers, the government prohibited more than 3 ounces of liquid from being carried on airplanes.

All passengers were required to take off their shoes for special security screening, which did not thwart a single terrorist attack, but made airport security checkpoints a lot smellier.

After Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports.

The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped, but being able to see passengers in the nude boosted the morale of airport security personnel by 22 percent.

After explosives were inserted in two ink cartridges and placed on a plane headed to the United States from the Muslim nation of Yemen, the government banned printer cartridges from all domestic flights, resulting in no improvement in airport security, while requiring ink cartridges who traveled to take Amtrak.

So when the next Muslim terrorist, probably named Abdul Ahmed al Shehri, places explosives in his anal cavity, what is the government going to require then? (If you're looking for a good investment opportunity, might I suggest rubber gloves?)

Last year, a Muslim attempting to murder Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia blew himself up with a bomb stuck up his anus. Fortunately, this didn't happen near an airport, or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would now be requiring full body cavity searches to fly.

You can't stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone's guns.


In the 1970s, liberal ideas on crime swept the country. Gun owners were treated like criminals while actual criminals were coddled and released. If only we treated criminals with dignity and respect and showed them the system was fair, liberals told us, criminals would reward us with good behavior.


As is now well known, crime exploded in the '70s. It took decades of conservative law-and-order policies to get crime back to near-1950s levels.

It's similarly pointless to treat all Americans as if they're potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon. We can't search all passengers for explosives because Muslims stick explosives up their anuses. (Talk about jobs Americans just won't do.)

You have to search for the terrorists.

Fortunately, that's the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. (Think: "Guys Madonna would date.")

This would give us a major leg up -- if only the country weren't insane.

Is there any question that we'd be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn't we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?

Only because the terrorists are Muslims do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.

It would be harder to find Swedes or Irish boarding commercial airliners in the U.S. than Muslims. Swarthy foreigners stand out like a sore thumb in an airport. The American domestic flying population is remarkably homogenous. An airport is not a Sears department store.

Only about a third of all Americans flew even once in the last year, and only 7 percent took more than four round trips. The majority of airline passengers are middle-aged, middle-class, white businessmen with about a million frequent flier miles. I'd wager that more than 90 percent of domestic air travelers were born in the U.S.

If the government did nothing more than have a five-minute conversation with the one passenger per flight born outside the U.S., you'd need 90 percent fewer Transportation Security Administration agents and airlines would be far safer than they are now.

Instead, Napolitano just keeps ordering more invasive searches of all passengers, without exception -- except members of Congress and government officials, who get VIP treatment, so they never know what she's doing to the rest of us.

Two weeks ago, Napolitano ordered TSA agents to start groping women's breasts and all passengers' genitalia -- children, nuns and rape victims, everyone except government officials and members of Congress. (Which is weird because Dennis Kucinich would like it.)

"Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint."

This is the punishment for refusing the nude body scan for passengers who don't want to appear nude on live video or are worried about the skin cancer risk of the machines -- risks acknowledged by the very Johns Hopkins study touted by the government.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep the government as far away from airport security as possible, and not only because Janet Napolitano did her graduate work in North Korea.

Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.


http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/11/17/napolitano_the_balls_in_my_court_now/page/2

Amnesty Memo

According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.


Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy — and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation’s de facto amnesty.

UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.




National Review Online
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2447214&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic