Tag Archives: Government Control

We Conservatives have lost; The Liberals are coming!

We Conservatives have lost; The Liberals are coming!

Matrix movie red blue pill

What have “we” become as a nation?  Who is the “we”?  With over 80% of Americans believing in God, guns, and the Confederate flag, how come “we” as a nation have turned in such a terrible direction. Most Americans do not support Obamacare, gay marriage, removal of the Confederate flag, removal of “in God we trust”, or giving Iran the bomb.

Most of us (over 85%) believe the border should be secured with a fence, illegals deported, illegals taken off welfare, welfare in general is too large, taxes are too high, the deficit is out of control, that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, the military should not be decimated as it has been over the last 7 years, and the Second Amendment is a guaranteed constitutional right.

So “we the people” believe in all of the above.  But where are the “we’s”?

US map red states blue counties election
Red is Conservative voting counties.

Obama barely won the last two elections.  Basically a 51/49 split.  So the numbers don’t add up.  80+% conservative thinking Americans but 51% voted liberally.  Huh?  Doesn’t add up even for those of you with weak math skills.

I am impressed with Obama.

In 7 years he gave us “Change We Can Believe In”.  Believe him now?

Obama change we can believe in
2008 Presidential Election

In 7 years he has lead change in our country that most of us thought we’d never see in this country.  Gay marriage. National healthcare. Iran with a nuclear bomb.  Russia flying military aircraft into our airspace.  Complete decimation of our military strength and fighting ability. A border so open hundreds of thousands of illegals cross each year encouraged by our government to do.

Most conservatives think we will turn our country around.  It won’t EVER happen!

We’ve lost!

And we aren’t ever turning back.  Too many people have been deeply influenced by the liberal main stream media.  The rage right now is the removal of the Confederate Flag.  The states of Alabama and South Carolina, two deeply conservative states, have removed this flag.  Did you think you’d ever see the South cave into this sort of pressure.  I’m am extremely disappointed in those states giving in.

But in other news right now, a 32 year old white woman walking down the streets of San Fran with her dad was brutally killed by an illegal alien (hispanic) and a young white male in DC on his way to celebrate the 4th was killed by a black man who wanted the white guy’s cell phone.  Stab him 40 times on a moving subway car while other’s watched.

How many of you have cried out for these two white victims?   Looted? Destroyed buildings and cars? Even protested? How many of you have even heard of these incidents?

Where’s the media coverage?  Where’s the outrage? 85% of us should be outraged.  Instead the 15% are worried about the Confederate Flag.  Its so bad Memphis is digging up a Confederate Civil War hero, and his wife, and moving the bodies!

15% protested, looted, and destroyed a city over a black thug being killed as he was attacking a white police office when the thug was beating him up and attempting to take his gun. 15% protested, looted, and destroyed a city when police (black police mind you) killed another black thug in Baltimore.

United We Stand!

Nope, scratch that….Divided We Fall!

We are a severely divided nation.  Obama promised us change to bring us together.  He did accomplish that by bringing together Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, and Liberals.  And he has brought closer those people who want to destroy America.

8 years ago, our government was not oppressing Christians. And no one ever thought Islam would be held in high esteem by our government.  Let an Muslim cut off the head of a lady at work, and no one cares. But there’s no way we are going to let that racist, bigot Colorado baker not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding!

And its working!  That is why I am impressed by him.  He has accomplished things that most Americans (85%) thought we would never see in this country.

Did you see where the Federal government FORCED a Colorado baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple AGAINST his religious beliefs?

Did you see where the Federal government sent in an armed group of 200+ agents against a unarmed Nevada farmer in order for Senator Harry Reid to take the farmers land and give to the Chinese?

All true stories.  And many, many more like them that most of you have never heard about.  Why?  They are not in the evening news on the liberal main stream media.

The USA, the “United” States, that 85% of us knew and loved is gone.  It’s not coming back.  We are losing and will lose because of the influx of foreigners and the liberal agenda being brain-washed into our younger generations.

There is nothing we can do.  At least as things are today.

Congress is worthless, spineless, weak, and influenced by big money from liberal minded people.  For those of you who believe Obama is really in charge, watch the movie “The Matrix” and take the blue pill which makes you go back to the world as you know it.  The red pill opens your eyes to what the world really is.  “It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes.” The Matrix movie.

When a married couple has irreconcilable differences, differences that they are NEVER going to resolve, they get a divorce and then find another person who is more like-minded.

Liberals and Conservatives are NEVER going to reconcile their differences.

We need a divorce!

US map red states blue counties election

It would be so nice if the all the Red States could live together under laws and leadership of like-minded people. And let the Blue’s do the same.

Obama’s executive action rollouts increasing in pace

Obama’s executive action rollouts increasing in pace

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

President Obama never used the words “executive action” until nearly three years into his presidency. Now announcements of executive actions have become a routine, almost daily occurrence.


(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As President Obama stood in an Everglades swamp to speak on climate change Wednesday, the White House rolled out a package of eight executive actions, implemented by seven government agencies, to “protect the people and places that climate change puts at risk.”

The announcement contained no executive orders, sweeping directives, legislative proposals or bill signings.

Instead, the actions include smaller-bore staples of a “pen-and-phone” strategy that shows no sign of letting up: a report on the value of parks to the environment, a proclamation declaring National Parks Week, and conservation efforts in Florida, Hawaii, Puget Sound and the Great Lakes.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the actions were an effort to deal with the impacts of climate change “even in the face of pretty significant opposition from Republicans in Congress.”

Indeed, the actions have a political component, part of a White House strategy to work around Congress and force Republicans to respond to the president’s agenda.

“Since the election, the president has had a pretty explicit strategy,” said Brian Deese, a senior Obama adviser. “And it has consisted of trying to stay on offense, trying to push where he can to move the agenda through executive action. You’re going to keep seeing the president in that posture going forward.”

“Executive action” — a phrase Obama never uttered publicly in the first two and a half years of his presidency — has now become so routine that new announcements come several times a week.

The actions can take many forms, from formal executive orders and presidential memoranda to more routine reports, meetings and internal bureaucratic changes. That makes any definitive count of lower-level executive actions difficult.

But by one measure, such policy rollouts are actually increasing in pace. The White House often announces executive actions with a fact sheet from the press office, and those spiked last year during what Obama called the “Year of Action.” The White House issued 228 fact sheets in 2014, more than the first three years of his presidency combined.

This year, the White House has already issued three more fact sheets than last year at the same time.

The Obama strategy on executive actions closely parallels that of the Clinton White House. In Bill Clinton’s last two years in office, chief of staff John Podesta launched what would become known as “Project Podesta.” In an effort to flex presidential authority, Podesta canvassed executive agencies for actions Clinton could take without going to Congress.

Podesta came back to the Obama White House last year, and when he departed forHillary Clinton’s presidential campaign his responsibility for climate policy fell to Deese.

“One of the ways that the White House plays a role is to think forward and challenge the agencies to be proactive in saying, ‘What more can we do? And what more can we do that’s consistent with certain themes?’ ” Deese said.

This year, the major theme is “middle-class economics.” The Obama White House has also used executive action to lower mortgage insurance premiums and regulate retirement accounts. And coming soon: new overtime regulations from the Department of Labor, which Obama ordered in a presidential memorandum last year.

The actions often don’t originate in the White House. “Sometimes an agency has a particular initiative that they want to push that would benefit from getting a higher profile, or the president making a very concrete call to action,” Deese said.

Executive action wasn’t part of Obama’s strategy when he first came into office.

“I sort of see it as flowing from the failure of the grand bargain negotiations in 2011,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. That’s when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, tried to reach a permanent budget agreement but instead came up with a “Supercommittee” that failed to reach agreement, triggering across-the-board budget cuts.

“He gets shellacked in the midterm, and then sets up a position where he could actually cooperate — a triangulation strategy, channeling Bill Clinton,” Rudalevige said. “Instead of channeling Bill Clinton, he started channeling Harry Truman taking on the ‘Do Nothing’ Congress.”

In the fall of 2011, Obama went on a “We Can’t Wait” road tour, meant to put pressure on Congress leading up to the 2012 elections. It was during that tour that Obama used the words “executive action” in public for the first time as president.

“I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy,” Obama said in an October 2011 speech in Las Vegas. “And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.”

In the 2014 congressional election cycle, that strategy was called the “Year of Action.” It brought often controversial executive actions on climate, immigration and Cuba.

“I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And that’s all I need,” he said in 2014. “Because with a pen, I can take executive actions.”

Not all Obama’s executive actions get congressional attention, and many involve “soft” powers — like convening meetings, issuing reports or writing internal rules — that are clearly within the president’s authority. But for Republicans in Congress, executive action become synonymous with presidential overreach.

“One of the important roles of Congress is to serve as a check and a balance against the administration, and we’ve seen from this Obama administration many, many times where they’ve overstepped their legal authority,” House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Wednesday. “In fact, 20 different times the Obama administration has had the Supreme Court rule unanimously against executive actions that they’ve taken, that they’ve actually gone before the Court on.”

As the Obama presidency heads into its final furlong, White House officials say their focus is increasingly on getting all those executive actions implemented.

“We will continue to announce more executive actions, but the president is also holding us to account to execute on the executive orders we’ve already announced,” said White House economic adviser Jeff Zients.

Follow @gregorykorte on Twitter.

School Implants Device In Student Without Parental Consent

School Implants Device In Student Without Parental Consent

A mother is irate after discovering that her daughter’s school had given her an implant under her skin without parental consent nearly a year after the procedure had taken place.

Bernadette Jessop was informed by her daughter, Layla Rylands, that she had been fitted for a contraceptive implant at her school, Ashwell Academy in England. The implant had been injected a mere four days after the young girl’s thirteenth birthday.

As any parent would be, Bernadette was furious upon hearing the news. She believes her daughter is too young for a contraceptive procedure to have taken place without her prior consent.

According to Hull Daily Mail, “The implant, a small rod that is inserted under the skin of the upper arm after a local anaesthetic has been applied, releases hormones into the body to prevent pregnancy.”

School Implants Device In Student Without Parental Consent, Mother IRATE

“The school asked me not long ago for my consent for her to watch a film about sex. I didn’t give my consent until I knew what the film contained, yet I don’t get the chance to give my consent for her to get the implant?” Bernadette explained. “When I found out I felt sick. At the end of the day, I’m her mum, and at that age, it is wrong.”

Apparently, sexual health workers visit schools in the Bransholme area to give contraceptive advice to teenagers. If a student is deemed “competent,” they are allowed to give the okay for the procedure without parental consent.

The only problem is the school Layla attends is for students with “complex academic and social needs.”

“Layla is in that school because she has behavior problems,” explained the irate mother. “How can you deem a child with problems competent to make that decision?”

School Implants Device In Student Without Parental Consent, Mother IRATE

Bernadette believes her daughter was too young to not only make that type of decision, but was not at an appropriate age to be discussing contraceptive issues with anyone other than her family.

“In a moment of madness I said yes. If I was a parent and my daughter had it and I didn’t know, I would be furious, just like my mum,” explained Layla. “I do think parents should know, but I was afraid to say and I had signed a form that said it was confidential.”

The only response the school has offered is that “the academy has a duty of care towards its students, some of whom are extremely vulnerable, and their health and well-being is of the highest concern to us.”

If the school needs to get consent from the parents to show a student an educational film about sex, it seems that implanting something into a teenager would also require a consent form. Bernadette has a right to be irate — as well as any other parents who are unaware of the school’s influence in their child’s contraceptive choices.

Sacramento Utility Warns Water Wasters Could Be Cut Off If They Don’t Cut Back

Sacramento Utility Warns Water Wasters Could Be Cut Off If They Don’t Cut Back

American Water Utility Sacramento may be forced to restrict or cut off water to people who waste it, saying if people don’t start cutting back, it may have no choice.

Audie Foster with the private utility says its customers have been very proactive in conserving water.

“We are so proud of our customers in the last year of this drought,” he said.

American Water serves more than 180,000 people and businesses in Sacramento and Placer counties. But as the drought drags on, and if customers begin to waste water, the utility company says it may be forced to take drastic measures.

“Which could possibly include flow restrictions and or shutting off for wasteful water use,” he said.

Water Restriction SignThe utility company would install a device at the home or business that would either slow the flow of water or shut it down altogether, along with the threat of hundreds of dollars in fines.

Eloise Leong is one of several people in a Sacramento neighborhood who share water in a community garden co-op. She doesn’t have a problem with a forced restricted flow for water wasters, and neither does Jose Diaz.

“Yesterday I turned my sprinklers off because I knew it was going to rain and today people are still using water,” he said.

American Water say at this point, it’s not even close to restricting or cutting off water, but it has a message to those who might waste it as the long dry season looms for the state.

“We like nothing more than to help you use your water wisely and work with our conservation efforts so that we don’t ever have to get to those efforts locally,” Foster said.

The company says it couldn’t show CBS13 the flow restriction device because they are concerned violators could look for ways to work around it.

Obama pushes tax plan, wields veto pen in defiant State of the Union address

Obama pushes tax plan, wields veto pen in defiant State of the Union address


obama dictator kingA defiant President Obama staked out a populist agenda Tuesday night for his final two years in office built on what he called “middle-class economics,” while using his sixth State of the Union address to deliver a slew of veto threats challenging the new, Republican-led Congress.

Setting a combative tone with Capitol Hill’s GOP leadership, Obama trumpeted a plan centered on free higher education, new worker protections and a sweeping tax overhaul that hikes rates on top earners to fund credits for the middle class. Far from chastened by Republican gains in the midterm elections, he vowed to defend signature accomplishments from his first six years in office.

“Middle-class economics works. Expanding opportunity works. And these policies will continue to work, as long as politics don’t get in the way,” Obama said.

Throughout, Obama hammered the message that the economy, and the country, are bouncing back after the recession and two protracted wars.

“Tonight, we turn the page,” Obama declared, claiming: “The shadow of crisis has passed.”

The address reflected a president disinclined to cede ground in the wake of his party’s midterm losses. While urging lawmakers to join him in pursuing a “better politics” in Washington, the president repeatedly antagonized congressional Republicans. He sprinkled his address with jabs at the “superrich” and the Keystone XL pipeline, and vowed to fight GOP bills that would chip away at ObamaCare, financial regulations and his recent immigration actions.

“If a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, I will veto it,” Obama said. He issued similar threats with regard to legislation teeing up new Iran sanctions and efforts to roll back environmental regulations.

In an off-script moment, the president even reminded Republicans of his electoral successes. After declaring he had no more campaigns to run, he quipped, “I know because I won both of them.”

Obama, in his address, was promoting a series of programs he previewed in the weeks leading up to it.

Most controversial is a plan unveiled over the weekend imposing more than $300 billion in tax hikes over 10 years – including on investment and inheritance taxes for top earners – to fund tax credit expansions for the middle class, including tripling the maximum child tax credit to up to $3,000 per child. The funding also would pay for an initiative providing free community college for two years for students who keep up their grades (though the White House calls for rolling back a separate college savings tax break).

Referring to long-established entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, Obama said “middle-class economics” helps everyone get a “fair shot” when everyone “does their fair share.”

With that pitch, Obama also called anew for Congress to raise the minimum wage. And he called for new measures to guarantee paid sick leave for American workers.

On his college plan, the president said he wants to make two years of community college “as free and universal in America as high school is today.”

While Republicans have questioned the mechanics of the college plan, they have declared his tax proposal a “non-starter” in the new GOP-led Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner described the president’s wish-list Tuesday as “more of the same” and said his approach is hurting, not helping, the middle class.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement that the address showed Obama slipping back into his role as “campaigner-in-chief,” pushing higher taxes and more regulations, while issuing “premature veto threats.”

In a pointed swipe sure to anger Republicans, Obama in his address downplayed the jobs impact of the proposed Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline, without mentioning it by name. Calling for more infrastructure spending, he said: “Let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year.”

Defending his tax plan, Obama said lobbyists have “rigged” the system with loopholes and giveaways “that the superrich don’t need, while denying a break to middle class families who do.”

He called for closing them “to help more families pay for childcare and send their kids to college.”

Yet the president, as part of his tax plan, is calling for ending a tax break for college savings plans known as 529 plans. Under the change, earnings on contributions could not be withdrawn tax-free, as they can be now.

The speech was dominated by economic and domestic issues, though the president did devote several minutes to addressing terrorism and specifically the threat posed by the Islamic State.

After the recent terror attack in Paris, he said “we stand united” with victims of terrorists.

“We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we have done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies,” he vowed.

On ISIS, though some lawmakers have criticized his current approach, he claimed the current campaign in Iraq and Syria is “stopping ISIL’s advance.” Though airstrikes have been underway for months, he urged Congress to formally authorize the use of force.

And on Cuba, he defended his recent decision to push for normalizing relations with the country. Despite concerns among some lawmakers in Congress that the Castro regime may exploit the opening to its advantage, Obama urged Congress to “begin the work of ending the embargo.”

The speech was Obama’s first State of the Union before a Congress controlled by Republicans. The party won control of the Senate and built a historic majority in the House in November.

Yet Obama has made clear he plans to play “offense” in his final two years, and his speech Tuesday set the stage for that political and legislative battle.

Both Republicans and Democrats are appealing to middle-class voters as they begin the new Congress. But Obama’s State of the Union address, thematically, promoted federal government protections and programs as key to their security, where Republicans are making a flat pitch for private-sector job creation.

Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged the president to look beyond “more tired tax hikes,” and instead strive for “responsible reforms that aim to balance the budget.”

He also sounded a middle-class message, but urged the president to boost workers with bipartisan jobs bills, including by backing efforts to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who was elected in November to an open Iowa seat, delivered the official Republican response to Obama Tuesday night. The senator presented a markedly different picture of the economy, where Americans “agonize over stagnant wages and lost jobs.”

On the tax front, Ernst called for simplifying America’s “outdated and loophole-ridden tax code” – not to finance more spending but improve the economy.

“So let’s iron out loopholes to lower rates — and create jobs, not pay for more government spending,” she said. “The president has already expressed some support for these kinds of ideas. We’re calling on him now to cooperate to pass them.”

Fox News Investigation: CDC May Be Hiding Ebola Cases, People Disappearing

Fox News Investigation: CDC May Be Hiding Ebola Cases, People Disappearing

Further proof surfaces of widespread coverup

An investigation by Fox News journalist Sharyl Attkisson has uncovered further information pointing to a massive Ebola coverup by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to Attkisson, a CDC representative answering questions on potential Ebola cases admitted that the agency has refused to update their website with current information.

“I called CDC not long ago and I said how many cases are being monitored in the United States and they said 1,400. I said, ‘Where are these updates on your website?’” Attkisson said. “They said they’re not putting it on the web. This is public information we have a right to know and the media should not hype it, but should cover it.”

Attkisson also noted the connection between the drop in Ebola coverage and President Obama’s appointment of Ron Klain, the “Ebola Czar.”

The statement comes as no surprise given an admission in Forbes last November that major media outlets had agreed to not report on potential cases for the federal government.

“The Associated Press and other press outlets have agreed not to report on suspected cases of Ebola in the United States until a positive viral RNA test is completed,” the article said.

More than two months ago in an exclusive interview on the Alex Jones Show, Doctor James Lawrenzi revealed that potential Ebola patients were being “disappeared” from hospitals in Missouri in an attempt to hide the severity of the outbreak.

Dr. Lawrenzi highlighted a specific case in which a person returning from Africa was seen “bleeding out of every orifice” before being taken from the hospital without notice.

“These patients are disappearing, they’re doing something with the patients and God knows where they’re going,” he said.

Other doctors speaking exclusively with Infowars last November also warned of an active coverup at their hospitals as well.

Former Border Patrol Agent Zach Taylor revealed to Infowars last October that the Department of Homeland Security and CDC were also disappearing potential Ebola victims as they attempted to cross the Untied State’s southern border.

“The agents are telling us that they’re seeing some people who are obviously sick, with shivering type illnesses, with possible dehydrating illnesses like diarrhea and vomiting,” Taylor said. “Those people are disappearing, we don’t know what they have, where they’re going, where they’re taking them – surely they’re being quarantined somewhere we just don’t know where and even the agents don’t know what the diagnosis is of these illnesses.”

As the government publicly downplayed the spread of Ebola, more than 250,000 Hazmat suits were sent to Dallas as the CDC purchased over 1.4 million surgical gowns and as many as 10,000 body bags.

Attkisson’s revelation solidifies concerns among countless Americans that the Ebola outbreak could be far from over.

FDA Doesn’t Want Kids Playing with Lightsabers

FDA Doesn’t Want Kids Playing with Lightsabers

Feds: Lightsabers aren’t as cool as they look in Star Wars



The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has toy lasers and lightsabers in its sights, issuing guidance to regulate the toys on Friday.

“Many a kid (and parent) who has seen Luke Skywalker battle Darth Vader with a lightsaber thinks lasers are cool,” the government said in a blog post.

“What they may not know is this: When operated unsafely, or without certain controls, the highly-concentrated light from lasers—even those in toys—can be dangerous, causing serious eye injuries and even blindness.”

“And not just to the person using a laser, but to anyone within range of the laser beam,” the agency warned.

The FDA said they are “particularly concerned” about laser toys as the reason for issuing new rules for toy makers.

The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) “believes that toys containing lasers and lasers marketed as toys are particularly susceptible to being used in an unsafe or uncontrolled manner.”

The guidance, aimed at manufacturers of laser products, limits the amount of light output a toy can emit to “Class I,” set by the FDA. Class I are lasers that are “safe during use, including long-term direct intrabeam viewing, even when exposure occurs while using optical viewing instruments (eye loupes or binoculars).”

The FDA is still in the process of imposing the emission limits on the toys through the regulatory process, but released the guidance as a recommendation for manufacturers.

The agency’s list of toys the rules would apply to include “lasers mounted on toy guns that can be used for ‘aiming;’ spinning tops that project laser beams while they spin; hand-held lasers used during play as ‘lightsabers;’ and lasers intended for entertainment that create optical effects in an open room.”

“Toys with lasers are of particular interest to the FDA because it’s often children who are injured by these products,” according to Dan Hewett, health promotion officer at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

“Because advertisers promote them as playthings, parents and kids alike may believe they’re safe to use,” Hewett warned.

Hewitt said lasers pointed directly into someone’s eye could cause lasting injuries.

“[L]aser injuries usually don’t hurt, and vision can deteriorate slowly over time,” the FDA said. “Eye injuries caused by laser light may go unnoticed, for days and even weeks, and could be permanent.”

The FDA added that people should “never aim or shine a laser directly at anyone, including animals,” and that staring directly into a toy laser is hazardous, “perhaps even more than staring directly into the sun.”

When asked why the FDA is regulating toy lightsabers and lasers and not the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency said they have the authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The CPSC did recall hundreds of thousands of Star Wars light saber toys in 1999, due to a manufacturing flaw that could cause its batteries to rupture.

Police: Armored Military Vehicles Needed For ‘Constitutionalists’ With Lots Firearms

Police: Armored Military Vehicles Needed For ‘Constitutionalists’ With Lots Firearms

“We’ve got a lot of constitutionalists… a lot of people that stockpile weapons”

Shocking video provided exclusively to Infowars shows a Washington state sheriff’s deputy proclaiming that law enforcement officers need armored military vehicles because of “constitutionalists” with firearms.

The footage, recently captured in Spokane Valley, begins with a local resident asking two deputies why police would need vehicles specifically designed for warfare abroad.

“I mean, we’ve got a lot of constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, lots of ammunition,” one deputy says. “They have weapons here locally.”

The startling admission not only points to active surveillance of legal gun owners, but of those who support the country’s founding document, further solidifying concerns among law-abiding citizens that police are receiving military equipment and training in order to target conservative Americans.

The deputy’s specific mention of “constitutionalists,” a broad term covering millions of Americans, as opposed to criminals in general, also indicates a clear training mindset linked to the FBI and Homeland Security, two groups which have absurdly labeled “liberty-lovers” as terror threats.

Such clear talking points are unsurprising given reports that Spokane County sheriffs have received training from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that ludicrously compares mainline conservative Americans to racist hate groups.

Infowars was unable to reach the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office for comment at the time of publishing, but did speak with Spokane Valley Republican Representative Matthew Shea, who was appalled when presented with the footage.

“Will law abiding citizens who love the Constitution and Rule of Law be hunted down with MRAPs?” Shea asked. “Constitutionalism is fundamental to being an American. To hate the Constitution and those who support it means you are a traitor to this country.”

“This is spitting in the face of all those heroes that fought, bled, and died so we might live free. The question should be, why aren’t you a Constitutionalist? Why don’t you believe in the rule of law? Why don’t you believe that the Constitution means what it says?”

Incredibly, the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office is not the first to cite patriotic Americans as reasoning for military hardware.

A police sergeant in Morgan County, Indiana admitted just last May that his department had obtained an armored vehicle in part because of returning military veterans, deemed domestic terror threats by Homeland Security in 2009.

In August of 2013, Concord, New Hampshire Police Chief John Duval secretly contacted Homeland Security and demanded an armored vehicle due to the alleged “threat” posed by peaceful libertarians.

A New York State Counter Terrorism Bulletin leaked to Infowars by concerned police that same year attempted to label anyone concerned with government gun confiscation as “far right” conspiracy theorists, even as admitted gun confiscation programs are used against law abiding citizens in states such as California.

The MIAC Report, a federal training document famously presented to Missouri police in 2009, went as far as falsely tying supporters of former Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and the Constitution to “extremist groups” as well.

Despite a massive drop in police officer deaths, gun homicide and violent crime in the last 2o years, government agencies across the board continue to adopt military tactics in order to fight anything that represents traditional America.

Luckily for Americans, peace officers who still respect their oath continue to serve throughout the United States.

FEC Republicans Vow to Fight Regulations on Online Political Speech

FEC Republicans Vow to Fight Regulations on Online Political Speech

Chairman warns of abuses of power in efforts to roll back Internet speech protections

BY: Washington Free Beacon

Republicans on the Federal Election Commission are vowing to fight regulations on online political advocacy that they say would chill free speech and potentially lead to politicized targeting of Internet writers and video-makers.

The commission’s chairman is warning that such regulations would allow the federal government to impose onerous new regulations on websites such as the Drudge Report or the Washington Free Beacon.

“I vow to fight any additional regulation on online political speech,” FEC chairman Lee Goodman said in an interview.

Freedom of Speech First Amendment regulate protect

At issue is a recent FEC ruling on a series of YouTube videos made by a conservative group called Checks and Balances for Economic Growth that criticized various Obama administration policies.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a litigious liberal group owned by pro-Hillary Clinton operative David Brock, brought a complaint against the group claiming that it violated FEC rules by failing to report expenses associated with those videos.

The commission deadlocked on the question. Its 3-3 vote resulted in a dismissal of the complaint.

In response, the commission’s top Democrat on Friday issued a statement that FEC Republicans have interpreted as a call to roll back 2006 regulations that exempted free online issue advocacy from FEC reporting requirements normally applied to paid advertisements on broadcast media and the Internet.

Freedom of Speech First Amendment regulate protect US map

In a statement on Friday, FEC vice chair Ann Ravel called on the commission to revisit that regulation. The FEC should consider rules that would impose disclosure requirements on certain online political speech, she said.

“Since its inception, this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators has been stretched to cover slickly-produced ads aired solely on the Internet but paid for by the same organizations and the same large contributors as the actual ads aired on TV,” Ravel said of the 2006 regulation.

Ravel said she will convene experts next year to discuss ways that “the Commission’s current approach may or may not fit with future innovations.”

While no regulatory language has yet been proposed, Goodman and his Republican colleagues on the commission are already pushing back against what they say is an unworkable attempt to regulate online communications that will chill free speech.

The problem is that Ravel’s approach to the issue contains “no limiting principle,” Goodman said. In attempting to crack down on those “slickly-produced ads,” the FEC could ensnare countless Internet users who simply communicate their political views online.

Ravel did not respond to questions about her proposal, such as how she would propose differentiating between “legitimate” online issue advocacy and content that she feels must be more tightly regulated.

Goodman said the panel’s Republicans are united in their opposition.

“Commissioner [Matthew] Peterson, Commissioner [Caroline] Hunter, and I are steadfast in our opposition to any new regulation of political speech on the Internet,” he said.

The 2006 rule exempted some online political communications from FEC rules requiring that political advertisers report their expenses to the commission. It specifically targeted “issue advocacy” ads, which do not call for the election or defeat of candidates (as opposed to “express advocacy” ads that do).

Ads that are both available for free online and aired through paid broadcast media buys are still subject to standard reporting requirements.

“The Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach,” it wrote at the time.

In contrast to paid advertising on political websites, issue advocacy offered for free through online media warrants a carve-out from disclosure rules, the commission wrote.

“Unlike other forms of mass communication, the Internet has minimal barriers to entry, including its low cost and widespread accessibility. Whereas the general public can communicate through television or radio broadcasts and most other forms of mass communication only by paying substantial advertising fees, the vast majority of the general public who choose to communicate through the Internet can afford to do so.”

Far from enabling the type of corruption that federal regulation of paid political speech aims to prevent, Goodman says that online political speech has done the opposite.

“The Internet, for the last 20 years, has greatly democratized political speech,” he said. “People of modest means with an inexpensive personal computer have been afforded the opportunity to comment on politics and elections on a level playing field with large, well-funded speakers on the Internet.”

A reversal of the online media exemption would not only fail to stem corruption, Goodman said, it could lead to an enforcement regime that would be completely unworkable and vulnerable to political pressures.

From a practical perspective, he explained, there is no way for FEC to effectively and fairly monitor the Internet’s massive volume of political communications in order to decide what merits regulatory scrutiny.

It would require “nothing short of a room full of bureaucrats sitting on computers every day combing YouTube and other websites in an effort to identify posters and to begin investigating that posted political content,” Goodman said.

“And I think that is a very ominous regulatory regime. I don’t think you have to reach very far to see the sorts of images that that raises.”

He speculated that the commission would likely focus on popular online content. “And as a result of that, we would be targeting messages that resonate among people and go viral because they resonate, without any regard for a particular video’s corruptive potential.”

He also warned that the discretion such a regulation would afford federal regulators would open the door to potential abuses of power.

“There is always the risk that a governmental agency would begin picking and choosing who to enforce against and who not to enforce against,” he said. “This is why I support broad and clear exemption from regulation for Internet posts.”

Goodman encouraged Americans to comment on Ravel’s proposal and potential FEC regulation of online speech at the commission’s website.