Obama is our Greatest Threat

4-Star Admiral Reveals Greatest National Security Threat to U.S.,

 

Retired Admiral James Lyons, Jr. the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and a former senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations was recently recognized and honored.

 

He received the 2015 Freedom Shield Award at the “Keeper of the Flame” event at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Postal Museum.

 

During his acceptance speech, Admiral Lyons blasted Congress and stated the “greatest national security threat to the United States”.

 

It’s the guy who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

 

Give his speech a listen: Our military leaders know Congress and President Obama are failing to make the interests of the United States most important. Their policies and actions are unconstitutional.

 

Will we heed the messages from our real leaders? Or continue to buy into the lies from Congress and the President?

 

http://preservefreedom.org/4-star-admiral-reveals-greatest-national-security-threat-to-u-s/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ax275xlo8

 

Comments: Impeach Obama for treason.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Hiring the enemy

By Don Todd, 10/30/15, netrightdaily.com

 

One would think that those who benefited the most from the free enterprise system would be its most ardent defenders when in fact the opposite is often the case. It has been said that free enterprise never wins because when a person succeeds they give the credit to themselves and when they fail they blame it on, “the system.”

 

Worldwide, most of humanity has lived in abject poverty since the beginning of time. Capitalism is the system that created a middle class that lives better than kings and queens of the past could only have dreamed of and yet that system is singled out for unremitting attack from our culture and ironically from some of those who have benefited the most from it.

 

Take for instance Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. To those of us who admire the system, he is a hero. He started with nothing and created what is today one of the world’s largest online retailers, resulting in great wealth for himself and a great shopping experience for the rest of us. What does he do with that wealth?

 

For one thing he bought the left leaning Washington Post. The result being that the Post is possibly more left wing than it was before he bought it. It features daily attacks on the system that allowed Bezos to succeed while heaping praise on the Obama Administration that has turned this country into an economic basket case with half of our workforce either unemployed or underemployed and an international laughing stalk.

 

Then, he hires Jay Carney to run his Washington lobbying shop. From January 2011 to May 2014 Mr. Carney was the Press Secretary to Obama. Prior to that he was Press Secretary to Joe Biden and prior to that he was Washington Bureau Chief for Time Magazine.

 

Mr. Bezos is not alone in hiring the enemy. Mr. Carney’s predecessor as spokesmouth for Senator and then President Obama was Robert Gibbs. He is now the Executive Vice-President in charge of public relations for McDonald’s Restaurants. While McDonald’s pays Mr. Gibbs lavish amounts of money the Obama Administration’s appointees on the NLRB are giving a maximum regulatory effort to destroying McDonald’s franchise business model. Perhaps the thinking is that Mr. Gibbs will be great at handling the public relations for the restaurant chain’s bankruptcy.

 

Another enterprise much admired by free marketers is Uber, an innovative company that came out of nowhere to revolutionize an industry and make life easier for its customers and contractors. Like all innovation Uber is under attack by state, local, federal and international bureaucrats. Who do they hire to fight this? David Plouffe, a man who has spent his entire adult life supporting and advising politicians who despise Uber-like innovation. Mr. Plouffe was campaign manager to President Obama’s 2008 campaign and served as a Senior Adviser to the President from his first day in office up until January of 2013.

 

These companies and the people running them may think they are buying influence and access by hiring such people. In my view they are not. They are buying contempt from the political class who see through their cynicism and from their customers who do not understand why they would be hiring political arsonists to put out the very political fires they started.

 

Don Todd is Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government.

 

http://netrightdaily.com/2015/10/hiring-the-enemy/

Police failed to protect 1st Amendment Rights

Judges: Cops can't boot Christians because Muslims violent, Ruling puts 'heckler's veto' liability for constitutional violations on county, officers, by Bob Unruh, 10/29/15, WND 

 

The full panel of judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Constitution doesn’t allow police officers to eject Christians from a public area just because Muslims are threatening violence.

 

The decision came in the long-running “heckler’s veto” case that erupted at the International Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, in 2012, when Christian evangelists were violently attacked by a hostile Muslim mob.

 

Lower courts ruled the officers were allowed to order the Christians to leave, under threat of arrest, because of the threat of violence from the Muslims.

 

However, the full appeals court the police action in violation of the Constitution. “We find that defendants violated the Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights because there can be no legitimate dispute based on this record that the [county and officers] effectuated a heckler’s veto by cutting off the Bible Believers’ protected speech in response to a hostile crowd’s reaction,” the court opinion said.

 

“The First Amendment offers sweeping protection that allows all manner of speech to enter the marketplace of ideas. This protection applies to loathsome and unpopular speech with the same force as it does to speech that is celebrated and widely accepted. The protection would be unnecessary if it only served to safeguard the majority views. In fact, it is the minority view, including expressive behavior that is deemed distasteful and highly offensive to the vast majority of people that most often needs protection under the First Amendment.”

 

The case was brought by Bible Believers, Ruben Israel, Arthur Fisher and Joshua DeLosSantos against Wayne County, Michigan, Sheriff Benny Napoleon and deputies Dennis Richardson and Mike Jaafar. It cited the plaintiffs’ messages on signs and T-shirts that included “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder,” “Turn or Burn,” “Fear God,” “Jesus Is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All Others are Thieves and Robbers” and “Prepare to Meet Thy God – Amos 4:12.”

 

The Christians also began their walk carrying a pole with a pig’s head attached to the top, further angering the Muslim crowd.

 

The opinion noted that two types of speech are unprotected, incitement to riot and fighting words. The judges found any advocacy for the use of force or lawless behavior is “absent from the record in this case.” And the judges found regarding fighting words, “the average individual attending the festival did not react with violence, and of the group made up of mostly adolescents, only a certain percentage engaged in bottle throwing.”

 

The opinion cited the “heckler’s veto” concept of one person or group silencing others by threatening violence. “It is a fundamental precept of the First Amendment that the government cannot favor the rights of one private speaker over those of another. Accordingly, content-based restrictions on constitutionally protected speech are anathema to the First Amendment and are deemed ‘presumptively invalid,’” the ruling said. “An especially ‘egregious’ form of content-based discrimination is that which is designed to exclude a particular point of view from the marketplace of ideas. … Punishing, removing, or by other means silencing a speaker due to crowd hostility will seldom, if ever, constitute the least restrictive mans available to serve a legitimate government purpose,” it said.

 

“A review of Supreme Court precedent firmly establishes that the First Amendment does not countenance a heckler’s veto,” the ruling said. The county argued that the Christians needed to be removed because of the crowd and the threat. But, the ruling notes, “The video record evinces next to no attempt made by the officers to protect the Bible Believers or prevent the lawless actions of the audience.”

 

The judges also pointed out that there were many officers “unoccupied” if there had been a need for them. The Christians came to talk about their beliefs, the ruling noted, but when that message was not well received, “police did next to nothing to … contain the lawlessness of the hecklers in the crowd.”

“Instead, the WCSO accused the Bible Believers of being disorderly and removed them,” the ruling said, “Wayne County … through its deputy chiefs and corporation counsel, effectuated a constitutionally impermissible heckler’s veto by allowing an angry mob of riotous adolescents to dictate what religious beliefs and opinions could and could not be expressed. This, the Constitution simply does not allow.” The case was ordered back to the lower court to calculate damages.

 

The American Freedom Law Center, which worked on the case, said the court also found the officers were not immune from legal action. AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise said: “This was a complete victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. This decision makes clear that the First Amendment protects speech critical of Islam and that when the government seeks to suppress such speech by enforcing a heckler’s veto that favors the violent Muslim mob over the free speech rights of Christians, the government will pay dearly for this egregious violation of the Constitution.”

 

AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi added: “Kudos to Judge Clay and the majority. Judge Rogers’s dissenting opinion, on the other hand, speaks volumes about how progressives (be they Republicans or Democrats) view the Bill of Rights. For Judge Rogers, there is one constitution for minorities and quite a lesser document for those perceived to be in the majority. The former’s speech is protected; the latter’s is protected only up to the point that some minority – especially Muslims – protests or, as in this case, engages in violence by attacking the speaker. In this case, the Christians and the Constitution did not lie down and roll over. This is an example where lawfare, fought on behalf of liberty, has moved the proverbial mountain and buried the jihadi’s heckler’s veto six feet under.”

 

The lawsuit alleged the Christians were pelted with water bottles and rocks by Muslims, and police threatened to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

A video of the 2012 confrontation shows the Muslim mob assaulting the Christians and the authorities refusal to protect them. Not one Muslim was arrested for the attack, which left several members of the Christian group injured, the video said. The video, and a related complaint, showed the crowd – reminiscent of a rock-throwing “intifada” scene from the Middle East – hurling a dizzying barrage of objects at the Christians, who were standing passively with their signs.

 

(Warning: The following 22-minute video contains profane statements shouted by an angry mob and may be offensive to viewers.)

 

“House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World” conveys what the West needs to know about Islam and the violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/judges-cops-cant-boot-christians-because-muslims-violent/

 

 

US Murder Rate Down

Report: Murder Rate Cut in Half over Past 2 Decades, Despite Increase in Guns, by Philip Hodges, 10/29/15,  

Ryan McMaken over at Mises.org brought to light a Pew Research Center report that found that the murder rate in the U.S. has been cut in half over the past 20 years or so from 7 per 100,000 to 3.6 per 100,000, in spite of widespread proliferation of guns.

 

The gun death rate has already dropped over the same time period, though not as drastically. In 1993, it was about 15.2 per 100,000. Twenty years later in 2013, it was down to10.6.

 

Despite these numbers, a majority of poll respondents thought that the crime rate had gone up: Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago.

 

A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same. (An additional 6% did not know or did not answer.)

 

Men (46%) are less likely than women (65%) to say long-term gun crime is up. Young adults, ages 18 to 29, are markedly less likely than other adults to say long-term crime is up—44% do, compared with more than half of other adults. Minority adults are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say that long-term gun crime is up, 62% compared with 53%.

 

These people must watch too much TV. You can blame shows that either glorify and romanticize violence, or make it look like it’s more prevalent than it really is, such as in crime dramas.

 

But even more than that, the news media love to fixate on violent crimes, particularly mass murders, simply because they’re shocking. They know that their viewers will be hooked to the tube if they sensationalize a mass murder. They do it for the ratings, which translate into more ad revenue.

People are so hoodwinked by the media that they don’t realize that the truth is that violent crime is down drastically, and gun ownership is up drastically. People’s perceptions are at stark odds with reality.

 

http://lastresistance.com/14459/report-murder-rate-cut-in-half-over-past-2-decades-despite-increase-in-guns/

 

Bad Gun Ban Case NY

Shocking Court Decision Could Pave Way for Nationwide Gun Ban

This week, despite recognizing the language in the Constitution stating guns “in common use” for defensive purposes, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that the so-called SAFE Act in New York State is, in fact, “Constitutional.”

Many of the guns targeted by the SAFE Act are guns that citizens routinely use for defending themselves. With the second highest court in the land upholding this ruling, this may pave the way for more gun control on a national level.

Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York’s strongly anti-gun leader, has stepped up to encourage the rest of the nation to follow his shining example with stricter gun laws. (I’m quite sure the criminal who shot the NYC policeman to death this past week was remiss in reading the updated gun laws.)

“Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld what we have long known to be true – that the core provisions of the NY SAFE Act do not violate the Second Amendment. Today, common sense prevailed.

“When we passed the SAFE Act, just days after the tragedies in Newtown and Webster, New York proved to the nation that it is possible to enact sensible gun control that coexists with the Second Amendment. We showed that it can be done with bi-partisan support from both urban and rural communities. And we took a fundamental step forward to help end the stream of senseless killings by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

“This case validates a simple, fundamental truth about gun control: that it is possible to have strong laws that keep our communities safe, while at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. New York has set the example – and it’s far past time for Washington to follow suit and pass a sensible national gun control policy.”

While the current administration has vowed multiple times to push for more stringent gun control, it seems unlikely that any new bans would happen before the 2016 elections.

 

http://2ndamendmentinsider.com/shocking-court-decision-could-pave-way-for-nationwide-gun-ban/

Obama &Your 401k

Beware America, President Obama has put politics into your pensions, by Richard Manning, 10/28/15, FoxNews.com

 

The federal government is going to allow retirement investments to be subjected to politically correct funny business due to a new guidance issued by the U.S. Labor Department that puts the government’s thumb on the scale in favor of so-called “socially responsible” investments.

 

Prior to the Obama administration action, these politically correct investment vehicles needed to match their peers by meeting the same fiduciary standards in order to qualify for inclusion in a 401(k) or pension plan.  In fact, in previous guidance offered the financial services industry, the Labor Department flatly stated that the occurrence of these funds in a qualified pension plan should be “rare.” All that changes now, as the Labor Secretary flanked by the Chief Financial Officer of the Service Employees International Union opened the floodgates for investment schemes whose first priority is political change rather than return for the investor.

 

Why would the Obama administration allow pension fund managers and indeed, individual investors who control their own retirement accounts to gamble on politically motivated investments?

 

$8.4 trillion is why. That’s how much money is in the retirement funds (primarily 401ks and pensions) covered by the federal government’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which previously were protected from being invested in politically motivated funds.

 

Now, union pension plans will be able to gamble their member’s retirement security on Solyndra-like schemes and avoid the Exxon-Mobils of the world that pay a dividend and have an actual real business.  Those depending upon retirement payouts won’t realize twenty years from now when their pension payments have to be cut because the money isn’t there, that their future was traded for transitory political whims.  

 

This is not to say that people should not be able to invest in whatever they want with their money, but pensions and 401(k) plans are different.  People depend upon pension fund managers to invest wisely so they can receive a promised amount each month when they retire.  They expect that money to be there because it was promised.  They don’t care if the pension fund manager is investing in FritoLay or Charmin, they just want their payout when they retire. 

 

401(k)s are different in that the individual directs his or her investment under the presumption that every one of the offerings has at their heart, the fiduciary interest of the employee.  Now, that assumption will no longer be true as mutual funds with social change as their primary goal will litter portfolios at the expense of other more solid investments.

 

Most perniciously, the opportunity for political chicanery has not been lost on the left, as divestment mania is being fed by their minions all over college campuses — a movement to dump stocks of companies deemed socially irresponsible — divorcing pension funds from fiduciary responsibility opens the doors for political pressure to dictate investments not the needs of pensioners.

 

For those who claim that fiduciary responsibility is still the key element of investing under the new Labor Department guidance one only has to ask, then why was the new guidance needed?  So-called socially responsible investing was allowed under the old law, but it could only be considered after fiduciary factors, not before.  The new Labor directive makes it clear that these political and social factors can and perhaps should be part of the fiduciary analysis baking the cake in favor of whatever social outcome is desired.

 

After all, the American taxpayers “invested” more than half a billion dollars in Solyndra, because it was a can’t-miss solar panel manufacturer, only to lose everything.  If the full weight of the federal government at a time when propping up green energy firms against the markets was the norm could not keep this type of socially responsible investment alive, then nothing can.  Only if it happens to pension funds or mutual funds in a 401(k) it won’t be taxpayer dollars lost, but the retirement security of millions of Americans.

 

Investing is risky by nature, and the Labor Department’s actions are designed to create additional risk to workers’ retirement security.  Congress should take action by defunding the implementation of their new politically motivated investment guidance before retirees get hurt.

 

Richard Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government. Follow Americans for Limited Government on Twitter@LimitGovt, find them on Facebook  and visit their website.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/28/beware-america-president-obama-has-put-politics-into-your-pensions.html

No Gay Wedding Cakes from Muslims

Muslim bakeries refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings VIDEO – media silent, ANDREA MITCHELL

 

Muslim bakeries in Michigan refused to bake cakes for gay weddings. You would think that would be news like Memories Pizza refusing to cater gay weddings. Nope, Muslims are part of the liberal media protected class. If Muslims want to follow their own religious beliefs and not bake cakes for gay weddings, you don’t hear any big outcry out bigotry of ‘homophobia.’ Instead, these Muslim bakeries in Michigan are given a pass to practice their religion as they see fit, unlike Christians. Watch the following video from Steven Crowder going into a few Dearboorn Muslim bakeries and asking them to make a gay wedding cake. Every one of them refuses. Gay wedding cakes!

Yes folks, I did this. I went there. You have this now. Actually, I taped this video a long time ago but due to audio corruption issues, was never able to upload it. Now that my in-house whizz kid, Jared was able to salvage the footage, I am passing it onto you.

What do you think happens when a gay, like SUPER gay Crowder tries to get a super gay wedding cake baked at a Muslim bakery? I’m pretty sure you can guess, but you might as well watch this week’s adventure to Dearborn, MI to find out!

 

I checked Twitter and didn’t see one LGBT supporter threatening to burn down any of these Muslim bakeries. Amazing...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

 

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/muslim-bakeries-refuse-to-bake-cakes-for-gay-weddings-video-media-silent