ISIS Prepared to take over

http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=11264

COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT

COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT

With the Supreme Court now overriding the Constitution and the Legislative branch I thought it may be interesting to run this legislation next year to bolster states rights. I would be very interested in what you think of the concept. Let me know.
ARTICLE 28 (or alternate number to be assigned by Congress)
Section 1. The Article restores State sovereignty in our Constitutional Republic by providing State Legislatures Countermand authority.
Section 2. State Legislatures in the several States shall have the authority to Countermand and rescind any Congressional Statute, Judicial decision, Executive Order, Treaty, government agency’s regulatory ruling, or any other government or non-government mandate (including excessive spending and credit) imposed on them when in the opinion of 60 percent of State Legislatures the law or ruling adversely affects their States’ interest. When the Countermand threshold has been reached, the law or ruling shall be immediately and automatically nullified and repealed. This Countermand authority shall also apply to existing laws and rulings.
Section 3. From the time the initial Countermand is issued by a State Legislature, the other Legislatures shall have 18 months to complete the Countermand process. If the Countermand process is not completed in 18 months, then the law or ruling that is being challenged shall remain enforceable.
Section 4. Each State Legislature must complete their Countermand affidavit and deliver a certified copy to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the United States, and when applicable the Government Agency or Body that is being challenged.
Section 5. Any elected or non-elected government official, or any non-government individual or organization, who intentionally obstructs or prevents the implementation of any provision in this Article shall have committed a criminal offense and shall be subject to impeachment (when applicable)and criminal prosecution and upon conviction serve up to five years in prison.
Section 6. Individual States shall have authority to prosecute violators of this Article under State laws in the absence of Federal prosecution after 90 days from the date of the alleged violation. Multiple prosecutions, by multiple States, for the same alleged crime are prohibited.
Section 7. The Article shall be immediately part of the United States Constitution upon ratification by three quarters of the State Legislatures in the several States.
Section 8. The provisions of this Article are enforceable within the United States which shall include the Several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories and possessions of the United States.

Confederate History - Dispelling The Myths

Confederate History - Dispelling The Myths

History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH  -   The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.
FACT  -   Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.
MYTH  -   Only Southerners owned slaves.
FACT  -   Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.
Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.
U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!
Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
MYTH  -   The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.
FACT  -   NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.
BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.
These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products madefrom raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.
This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.
MYTH  -   The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.
FACT  -   Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.
The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.
The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.
The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.
The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northen Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.
MYTH  -   The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Stars & Bars".
FACT  -   A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the "Stars & Bars". The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Southern Cross".
MYTH  -   The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.
FACT  -   The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that villify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.
MYTH  -   The United States Flag represented freedom.
FACT  -   No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it's commodities. It wasn't until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.
MYTH  -   Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.
FACT  -   While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.
MYTH  -   The South revered slavery.
FACT  -   A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it's servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.
MYTH  -   The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.
FACT  -   Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.
MYTH  -   Only the North had men of color in their ranks.
FACT  -   Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.
Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.
MYTH  -   The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.
FACT  -   Quite the contrary. These dispicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.
MYTH  -   The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.
FACT  -   This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendents of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.
The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.

The Physics Of: How the HANS Device Saves Lives - Feature - Car and Driver

The Physics Of: How the HANS Device Saves Lives 

The Physics Of: How the HANS Device Saves Lives

The "head and neck support" system has revolutionized motorsports safety.

• Jan 2012
• By DON SHERMAN
• Photography By ROY RITCHIE
• Illustration By BRYAN CHRISTIE DESIGN

•  

Feature

In the dark ages of motor­sports, relatively minor accidents were often fatal. Case in point: Patrick Jacque­mart’s 1981 head-on collision into a dirt bank at Mid-Ohio while testing his Renault 5 Turbo IMSA GTU racer. Even though damage to the car was minor, Jacquemart died from a basilar skull fracture—a break in the bones at the base of the skull resulting in severe brain trauma.
Such accidents were typically chalked up to bad luck or the cost of racing, but this mishap was different. Jacquemart’s friend and fellow racer Jim Downing wondered what could be done to avoid such tragedies. In response, Downing and his brother-in-law Dr. Bob Hubbard, who earned his Ph.D. in engineering studying the mechanical properties of skull bones, invented the “head and neck support” now known and marketed as the HANS device.
The HANS essentially works like an airbag. But instead of inflating a cushion to arrest occupant motion in a collision, it uses a raised collar and two polyester-fabric tethers to secure the driver’s head. The driver’s shoulder belts hold the tall, stiff collar securely in place. The tethers link the sides of the driver’s helmet to collar anchor points. When g-loads build during a forward impact, the HANS device assures that the driver’s helmeted head moves with his torso so vulnerable neck and skull bones aren’t overloaded.

The above sled-test drawings show the HANS at work. With only a neck to restrain it, a 15-pound helmeted head lunges forward at 107 g during a 40-g head-on collision. Resulting “shear” (two opposing forces perpendicular to the neck’s axis) and “tension” (pulling force along the neck axis) loads vastly exceed the injury threshold, making death more likely.
The restraint provided by the HANS device reduces neck tension by 81 percent, shear by 72 percent, and the total neck load by 78 percent. The head experiences a tolerable 62 g. Because the driver’s head and neck motion is now in synch with his torso’s movement, chest g-forces rise slightly, though chest compression is reduced.
Downing wore a HANS prototype in a 1986 race. Three years later, Wayne State University, in Detroit, Michigan, tested the device on a crash sled, the first such test of any racing-safety equipment in America, according to Hubbard. Sales began in 1991, after which GM, Ford, and Mercedes-Benz pitched in with development support. CART made the device mandatory in 2000.
Unfortunately, it was only after a sensational tragedy that HANS gained wide acceptance. Hubbard recalls that throughout the 1990s, only 250 or so units were sold. But following Dale Earnhardt’s death in the 2001 Daytona 500, 250 HANS devices were sold in one week. Today, most race-sanctioning organizations require drivers to wear these lifesavers, and more than 140,000 have been sold worldwide.
Nowadays, thankfully, motorsports safety is taken seriously. No driver with a brain worth protecting would consider racing without a HANS device.

Damning Letter From Obama’s Kenyan Brother Leaks 

Damning Letter From Obama’s Kenyan Brother Leaks

Andrew Spalding

Malik Abongo “Roy” Obama, the half-brother of Barack Obama, recently sold an old letter from the future president that exposes the real reasons he got into politics.
In the letter, which was written in 1995, Barack tells his brother the reason he got into politics, and it has nothing to do with the American people.
“Some colleagues of mine here have talked me into running for the Illinois State Senate (like being an MP for a province),” Barack wrote to his brother 20 years ago, according to Conservative Tribune. “I have agreed, since I have an interest in politics to deal with some serious ­issues blacks face here.”
This letter proves that Barack Obama never intended to help the American people as a while. Instead, his goals were always to be a shameless race-baiter as soon as he got any power.
In the letter, Barack goes on to talk about his distaste for meetings, which hasn’t changed at all in the last two decades.
“Of course, it involves a lot of campaigning, going to meetings and so on, which I don’t find so attractive,” he wrote. “Anyway, if I win it will only be a part-time post, and I will ­continue my work as a lawyer.”
The letter explains a lot about what has happened during Obama’s disastrous terms as president. He never even wanted to fix racial tensions in this country, instead, he wants to use them to divide our country and destroy the United States.
What do you think about this? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

17 Logos With Hidden Meanings You Never Knew About

17 Logos With Hidden Meanings You Never Knew About

17 Logos With Hidden Meanings You Never Knew About

Sometimes it can be difficult to stand out, especially in business. Companies have to come up with creative logos and advertising to make sure that their brands alone can compel people to buy their products. One way to do that is to come up with a clever logo. Just by carrying an interesting image, people are more likely to try your service. Here are 17 great examples of businesses that did just that, sometimes even unintentionally.


Amazon’s logo has always looked fairly interesting to consumers, but a lot of people probably don’t realize that the little arrow signifies more than just shipping off goods from around the world. It also shows that Amazon has everything from “A to Z”, pointing to those specific letters in the logo.

When it comes to sports, a good logo is everything (other than a good team, of course). That’s why the Hartford Whalers came up with this creative logo. It sports the H in the negative white space, the W at the bottom in green, and of course the whale’s tale at the top in blue.


Spartan Golf Club designed its logo with a double meaning, having both a golfer swinging his golf club and the head of a Spartan warrior in one image, all depending on which way you look at it.


Unilever’s famous U may look a little busy and crowded, but that’s only because they carry so many products. Each symbol signifies one of the hundreds of products that Unilever makes and sells. What each one is, we’re still not exactly sure.

The FedEx logo looks simple enough, but there’s actually a clever image within it. In the negative space between the e and the x, you can see an arrow, indicating that the company is not only forward thinking, but also continues to move your package forward.


Depending on how you look at it, the big white image in the corner of Goodwill’s logo can either be seen as a G or a smiling face. 


This one may be a little harder to see. Look at the mountain on the logo. In the negative space, there is a bear pictured in the mountain. The reason? Toblerone originated from a town called Bern, Switzerland, also known as the city of bears.



This small and simple logo both shows a nicely designed letter “e” and the trunk of an elephant in the negative space.




Another easier one to spot (though often overlooked), Sun Microsystems one ups its tech competition with a clever logo. The diamond to the left says “sun” no matter which way you look at it.


Tortilla chip brand Tostitos is all about the party, which can be seen clearly in the center of their logo, where the T’s form two people dipping a chip into a red dot over the I – presumably salsa.


A first glance at this logo shows a picture of Africa, but when you pay more attention to the outline, you’ll notice the face of a child looking up at an adult.


Formula 1 Racing’s logo had convinced many people that the red speeding lines were meant to represent the number 1, when actually it is in the negative space in the middle.

Northwest Airlines was very clever with their logo design. The letter in the circle can be read as a W with a line through it or an N, with the extra triangle pointing in the direction of, you guessed it, north west.



Baskin Robbins is famous for being known for their 31 flavors of ice cream. That’s why the pink in the B and the R spell out just that – 31.

Electronics company Vaio did more than create a unique logo. They used the first two letters to construct the symbol for analog, with the last two representing digital and the binary system.




This one seems like a stretch, but after years of successful Coke sales with the above logo, someone noticed that the way the o’s connect to the other letters looks like little Danish flags. Denmark also happens to be the happiest country in the world, with happiness being a message that the brand tries to embody constantly. Naturally, Coca Cola went along with it and handed out Danish flags at Denmark’s biggest airport to people arriving from all over the world. Here’s an image if you still don’t see it:

Read more: http://capitalismisfreedom.com/logos-with-hidden-meanings/#ixzz3ea2qNbaG

Look at every country that allows gay marriage and you see something VERY interesting... 

Look at every country that allows gay marriage and you see something VERY interesting…

Written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on June 29, 2015

Every day or so I get a chart from Statista showing figures for various things. Like who in D.C. gets the highest speaking fees (Chelsea Clinton? really?) Today I received one about which countries in the world allow gay marriage. Take a look at this chart and see if you see what I saw.

I am wondering if homosexuality is part of “white privilege” — if there is in fact “gay privilege,” which is conferred by the privileged white leadership. Because other than Jacob Zuma, the leader of South Africa — and one genetic half of our president — none of the leaders of the countries which allow gay marriage are people of color. The grandparents of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the president of Argentina were from Spain and Germany. Even the president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has Bulgarian ancestry.
Also of note is the fact that gay marriage is allowed in majority Christian countries – you know, those same terribly intolerant Christians who won’t bake wedding cakes or pizzas.
So shall we start a pool to guess which nation will be next?

Why is our Government Covering Up Extortion 17? - Eagle Rising

Why is our Government Covering Up Extortion 17? - Eagle Rising

Why is our Government Covering Up Extortion 17?

By Tim Brown / 30 June 2015

In a previous article, I pointed out that testimony concerning the downing of SEAL Team Six aboard Extortion 17 revealed that there were seven Afghans on board, who still, to this day, remain unidentified. I followed that up by pointing out that the mission of Extortion 17 was delayed by more than four minutes from its original landing time and thus, it is theorized that these Afghans could have engaged in a Green on Blue attack against Americans. However, it is the fact that the Afghan bodies were flown back to the states and presumed to be cremated along with US soldiers' bodies. It is with that understanding that I think there is a glaring indication of a cover-up of the downing of Extortion 17 in order to suppress evidence of a Green on Blue attack, a possible trade off with the Taliban for the alleged death of Osama bin Laden.
Consider that in testimony, it was also pointed out that the Afghan government was given eyes on all of America's Special Operations and even technically has the authority to squash those missions, though they have never used it that we know of.
Second, consider that both Vice President Joe Biden and former Central Intelligence Agency Director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that it was the Navy SEALs who allegedly took out Osama bin Laden, and on top of that revealed that it was members of SEAL Team Six involved in the operation. Three months later SEAL Team Six was taken out on Extortion 17 by the Taliban.
Third, the seven Afghans, minus the Afghan interpreter, on board Extortion 17 were not the Afghans listed on the manifest. Those particular Afghans were alive and well. These men have never been identified and the status of their bodies is completely unknown.
However, many of the bodies of the SEALs were apparently cremated following the shoot down. Why? According to Don Brown, a former Navy JAG officer and author of the book Callsign Extortion 17: The Shoot-Down of SEAL Team Six, "The military claims none of the remains are identifiable."
However, Brown went on to point out that "…testimony in the Colt Report, autopsies, and the report from the local coroner clearly contradict that claim."
That isn't all.
Charles Strange, whose Navy SEAL son Michael was aboard Extortion 17, said that he obtained a copy of his son's autopsy report along with photographs of his body, which showed no sign of fire damage.
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Extortion-17a-300x292.jpg
"There's nothing wrong with the body except for his ankle, but they claimed everybody was burned beyond recognition, yet there he was lying there whole and intact," Strange said. "His hair and arms weren't burned, and there was no sign of smoke in his lungs. When I called the command up and asked them about this, they seem shocked that I had the photo. They told me 'we'll get back to you,' but they never did." "Why did they cremate my boy? We are Christians and do not believe in cremation; there was no reason for them to do that," Strange said.
We also have the claim of Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), whose dog and pony show congressional hearing failed to even ask about the status of either the Americans' bodies or the Afghans'. Chaffetz claimed, "The body I saw didn't need to be cremated."
Take into account also that the Afghans' bodies were flown back to the states with our fallen American soldiers.
Brown, in recounting this odd move writes, "Think of the oddity of bringing foreign soldiers back to the United States to have their bodies disposed of here. It would seem that the Afghans, if they were up to something honorable, would be entitled to a burial with honors in Kabul or an Afghan military cemetery somewhere in Afghanistan."
image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/extortion_17-269x300.jpg
"Think of how odd it would be if, on the beaches at Normandy, the bodies of the fallen British and Canadian soldiers had been scooped up by the United States and brought back to the United States for disposal, rather than being left with the military authorities for a dignified treatment and burial in their own countries," Brown mused. "Such treatment would have been an arrogant slap in the face to America's British and Canadian allies." So, why would the US be handling the Afghan bodies, and were they cremated? Some may ask, why is this relevant? Lt. Commander Don Brown has an answer.
"If the bodies were cremated, DNA evidence was destroyed," Brown writes. "If DNA evidence was destroyed, it becomes impossible to identify the unidentified Afghans. Thus, if the unidentified Afghans were Taliban infiltrators or sympathizers, their identities will probably never be known because of the military's decision to cremate. If, in fact, this aircraft was infiltrated, and possibly even sabotaged by Taliban sympathizers who drew weapons while the aircraft was in flight, or possibly communicated with Taliban attackers on the ground, then cremating the bodies might be a way to keep that information from the public. Could this explain why the bodies of the Afghans, strangely, were brought back to the United States?"
I think it could be. And, we know it wasn't just Afghans who were unidentified by a grave marker in Arlington.
Immediately following a press release by four families, who revealed government culpability in the deaths of those who died on Extortion 17, I reported that a Muslim cleric was invited to speak at a ramp ceremony before the bodies were flown back to the states. According to several reports that consulted several Arabic translators, the imam damned the fallen SEALS to Hell as infidels.
If cremation was provided for American soldiers, such as Michael Strange and others (some of which had bullets in their bodies), along with the Afghans, is it really farfetched that there is a cover up going on with Extortion 17? I think not.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/20260/why-is-our-government-covering-up-extortion-17/#IHpFpioQz0LfTtzQ.99

Fox News Comes Forward With PROOF Hillary Committed Treason in Benghazi | Washington Weekly News

Fox News Comes Forward With PROOF Hillary Committed Treason in Benghazi | Washington Weekly News

Fox News Comes Forward With PROOF Hillary Committed Treason in Benghazi

Federal court documents recently obtained by Fox News show that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, supported a covert exchange of weapons to the rebels in Libya who subsequently carried out the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

 

The attack took the lives of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA contractors, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.
In sworn testimony to the District Court of Arizona on May 5, 2015, CIA officer David Manners said, “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council.”
Manners’ testimony was part of a grand-jury investigation of Marc Turi, an American defense contractor, who is suspected of facilitating the secretive flow of weapons into Libya as part of an effort to overthrow the regime of Moammar Qaddafi.

<a href='http://nym1.ib.adnxs.com/click?uJ1_BxZ58j8nLhWB6-TrP3Noke18PwVAJy4Vgevk6z-4nX8HFnnyP8NklANDNn0UiEiJ_xvRZ0xzxpFVAAAAAAnXQQDHBAAA8wAAAAIAAAA7il0BSBkJAAAAAQBVU0QAVVNEANgCWgDapgAA-fEAAgUAAQIAAJ4AwyYaGAAAAAA./cnd=%21ZwZqOwiGp_oCELuU9goYyLIkIAA./referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwashingtonweeklynews.com%2Ffox-news-comes-forward-with-proof-hillary-committed-treason-in-benghazi%2F/clickenc=http://www.placelocal.com/tracking/click.php?campaign_id=426180&invocation_code=e00da03b685a0dd18fb6a08af0923de0&ex=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersandnolan.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline-block'><img src='http://ak-cdn.placelocal.com/backup_image.php?campaign_id=426180&width=728&height=90&invocation_code=e00da03b685a0dd18fb6a08af0923de0' border='0' /></a>

Turi claimed that Obama administration officials and members of Congress knew that weapons were flowing into the region as early as 2011 and being re-routed to forces hostile to the United States in not only Libya but also Syria.
“I got involved in this business in the 1990s,” Turi said. “I’ve been involved in all type of operations regarding transportation, logistics and liaising with those foreign governments.”
Yet, incredibly, Turi has a criminal record. His rap sheet shows that, in the late 1980s, he stole a computer and an automobile and wrote bad checks — one for $100,000. Fox News has confirmed that he spent jail time in Arizona.
It has also been revealed that while Clinton was secretary of state, American arms dealers were awarded a record number of licenses to sell weapons internationally, from about $34 billion to $44 billion in 2011 alone.
During that time, Turi explained that he had high-level connections inside and outside the U.S. government that encouraged him to arm the Libyans who were intent on overthrowing Qaddafi. Manners was one of Turi’s contacts.
So on March 12, 2011, Turi submitted a $267 million contract to supply weapons to a U.S. ally that would covertly send them to Libya. Two days later, Clinton met with Mustafa Jibril, a senior member of the Libyan Transitional National Council.
That these events were merely coincidental is doubtful, especially in light of an April 8, 2011, email from Clinton that states, “The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”

Juan Williams: Whites think blacks are less intelligent, trustworthy, patriotic

Juan Williams: Whites think blacks are less intelligent, trustworthy, patriotic

By Jon Greenberg on Monday, June 29th, 2015 at 12:54 p.m.

Fox News analyst Juan Williams argued that prejudice is widespread among whites. (Video screenshot)

Fox News' Juan Williams made an interesting claim about the continued existence of racism in the wake of the Charleston, S.C, shootings.

"The polls indicate this, that white people think that black people are less intelligent," Williams said on the June 22, 2015, edition of The Five. "They think they’re less trustworthy, less patriotic. At some point you’ve got to deal with these root issues."

We reached out to Williams to better understand his statement but did not hear back. We think you could interpret his words two ways.

You might think that a majority of white people believe black people are less intelligent, trustworthy and patriotic.

Or you could hear Williams' claim and think that within the white population, you’re more likely to find people who think poorly of blacks. You could have that trend even if most whites don’t think that way.

The difference in interpretation makes all the difference, polls show.

What the polls show about race

To make sense of racial attitudes, pollsters ask whites and blacks the same set of questions about their own group and the other group. Then they compare the results.

A 2012 survey from a partnership of the Associated Press, the GfK polling firm, Stanford University, the National Center for Opinion Research (NORC) and the University of Michigan attempted to answer questions about how one race thought of the other.

The series of questions followed the pattern of, "How well does each of these words describe most blacks/whites?"

Words included "intelligent at school," "smart at everyday things," "law abiding," "good neighbors" and "dependable."

The possible responses were Extremely well, Very well, Moderately well, Slightly well and Not at all well.

Josh Pasek, a researcher at the University of Michigan who worked on the project, broke down the results for us to help analyze Williams' claim. "Intelligent at school" and "smart at everyday things" are approximations for intelligence. "Law abiding," "good neighbors" and "dependable" work as stand-ins for trustworthy. (Alas, the survey did not ask about patriotism.)

This approach lets you tease out how many whites have negative opinions of whites, and how many whites have negative opinions of blacks. And you can compare that to black perspectives on whites and blacks.

The results: A majority of whites don't hold negative views of blacks. But you will find a group of whites who view blacks more harshly than whites. And that group is bigger than the fraction of blacks who see blacks negatively.

The following chart shows the negative opinions of whites. The green bar is the percentage of whites holding a negative opinion of blacks. The brown bar is the percentage of whites holding negative views of other whites.

The higher the column, the more negative the feeling.

The clear pattern is that whites are more likely to have a negative view of blacks than of whites. To round out the picture, the fraction of blacks who hold negative views of blacks is about half that of whites.

Additional study results

We looked at other studies in this area, including one that looked at people's views on patriotism.

Intelligence. A group of researchers led by Harvard University sociologist Lawrence Bobo looked at recent trends in white attitudes about blacks. That research shows that since 1990, the fraction of whites who think that whites are more intelligent and more hardworking than blacks has declined.

Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC), told us that "racial differences have decreased over time, but many whites still rate blacks more negatively than they rate whites on various traits." Smith said in the 2014 survey, one quarter of whites rated blacks as less intelligent than whites.
Trustworthy. Angie Maxwell, a political scientist at the University of Arkansas, told us that the 2012 Blair Center national poll found that about a fifth of whites (20 percent) say that blacks are untrustworthy.
Generally negative views. Vincent Hutchings at the University of Michigan pulled responses from the American National Election Study to assess the impact of race on the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Hutchings didn’t report how whites answered specific questions but he wrote that overall, a "slight majority of Latinos and Whites indicate that they view Blacks more negatively than they do Whites."
Patriotism. Spencer Piston, a political scientist at Syracuse University, directed us to the American National Election Study, which added patriotism to its questionnaire. Piston ran the numbers for us and found that for whites:

46 percent rate blacks less patriotic than they rate whites;

49 percent rate blacks equally patriotic to how they rate whites;

5 percent rate blacks more patriotic than they rate whites.

A final note
The connection between these survey results and overt racism is far from straightforward. Pasek at the University of Michigan said the connection between outcomes is even more complex.
"If you look at the series of recent incidents, from Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, Mo., those are not necessarily cases where people would have actively espoused racist attitudes," Pasek said. "But there could be an internal racial predisposition that would lead them to act in prejudicial ways, and social science suggests that most of us harbor these implicit biases."
Our ruling
Williams said polls show that white people think that black people are less intelligent, less trustworthy and less patriotic. The veracity of Williams' claim hinges on how you interpret his comments.
One way: That whites are more likely to hold negative opinions of blacks (than they do of fellow whites or blacks do of blacks), is largely accurate.
But a second way: That a majority of whites hold negative opinions of blacks, is inaccurate.
On the question of patriotism, the data are thin. But what we have suggests that Williams is wrong.
Williams’ statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

BREAKING: Alabama Chief Justice Issues Massive Order in Defiance of U.S. Supreme Court

BREAKING: Alabama Chief Justice Issues Massive Order in Defiance of U.S. Supreme Court

BREAKING: Alabama Chief Justice Issues Massive Order in Defiance of U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued a monumental ruling, declaring equal marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples all across the nation.
However, same-sex couples in Alabama will have to hold on and wait a few weeks before proceeding with their nuptials, thanks to an order issued by the Alabama Supreme Court.

The court issued an order on Monday that essentially prohibits probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days.
This has effectively stalled the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling in Alabama, while providing time for interested parties to file motions and petitions contesting the ruling.
“Basically it states that in the court’s judgment, it (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday) is tabled effective until after the hearing (before the Alabama Supreme Court),” Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said. “It’s not in effect until after this hearing in this 25 day period.”

According to AL.com, seven of the nine justices concurred with the order, with Moore recusing himself and Justice Greg Shaw abstaining from voting.
“I am not real clear what it’s saying .. it’s very unclear,” said Jefferson County Probate Judge Sherri Friday, who is continuing to issue licenses to same-sex couples while attorney’s review the order from Alabama’s highest court.
The order likely stems from a previous order issued by the court in March, which also put a hold on the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the order issued in March stated. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”
We will keep an eye on the situation in Alabama as it develops.

SCOTUS Chief Justice Admits Gay Marriage Ruling Ignored This Major Law

SCOTUS Chief Justice Admits Gay Marriage Ruling Ignored This Major Law

SCOTUS Chief Justice Admits Gay Marriage Ruling Ignored This Major Law

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by former President George W. Bush, delivered a blunt message concerning the price America paid for the recent 5-4 decision extending same-sex marriage to all 50 states as a constitutional right.
Roberts argued that the nationwide ruling showed “disrespect” to the democratic process and essentially violated the Constitution by taking away an individual state’s rights to decide whether or not same-sex marriage was lawful.
Remaining realistic about the outcome of the decision, Roberts explained that he understood why gay rights activists would celebrate the ruling, but suggested keeping in mind that it had nothing to do with the Constitution.
“Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts said in his dissent.
He went on to further explain why the ruling may sound great on the surface, but looking at the deeper issue, it was a cheapened win for the LGBT community.
“Indeed, however heartened proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs,” Roberts said.
In the wake of the landmark ruling, Roberts also warned Christians that the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages could be in jeopardy and that some of the questions asked of government attorneys during the case indicated that President Barack Obama  planned on pushing the gay marriage agenda on churches (H/T The Hill).

Supreme Court Is NOT The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution

Supreme Court Is NOT The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution

Image credit: shutterstock.com

It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic--and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress.

KrisAnne Hall June 26, 2015 at 3:20pm

SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution; the STATES hold that power. How does it make any sense that one part of the federal government holds the authority to determine the power of the whole?
It makes no sense; and as a matter of fact, James Madison told us that in no uncertain terms:

“…that the ultimate right of the States, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800

However, that is exactly what has happened with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell. It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic–and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress. Interestingly, all you need to know about the King v. Burwell decision is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion. Consider these words:

“In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”  (emphasis mine)

IF we were a democracy, as Roberts is asserting, this opinion would be absolutely correct–Obamacare would result from an absolutely lawful use of federal power, and we would have no real argument to make. However, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In a Constitutional Republic, the Legislature is NOT unlimited in its power and authority. Article 6, clause 2, The Supremacy Clause, makes it perfectly clear that there is a hierarchy to the federal system and that the Legislature is NOT on top; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

When Roberts says, “But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done,” he is asserting that whenever the Legislature makes a law, we are bound by it without question. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Supremacy Clause, we have an obligation to undo what Congress has done if what they are doing is not “made in pursuance” to the Constitution.
Additionally, if the “Laws of the United States” are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, then they cannot legally exist. To allow Legislative Acts contrary to the Constitution to remain law would elevate the Congress ABOVE the Constitution, destroying the Constitution itself and transmuting the nature of our Republic into an Oligarchy.
There is no specific enumeration in the Constitution for the federal government to provide healthcare to the States or the people. There is only errant interpretation of clauses to justify such an exercise of power.
Because there is no specific enumeration for healthcare, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that healthcare is not a power to be exercised by the federal government.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (emphasis mine)

But what does Roberts use to justify this federal encroachment? Not a clause from the Constitution, but an opinion by the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison. How convenient that the Supreme Court can write opinions that declare themselves the ultimate rulers of the universe and then be allowed to credibly use those opinions to justify their emperor-like behavior! Ironically, the most important role of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the Congress acts within its Constitutional limitations. But since it is ridiculous to believe that any entity of power would act on its own to limit itself, our framers didn’t trust these federal employees with that task. They trusted the States.
Madison declares in 1789 that the STATES are to be the ultimate control against the expansion of federal power, the greatest opponents to the federal government necessary to preserve the Liberty of the people:

“The State legislatures will…be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.” House of Representatives 1789 (emphasis mine)

But, when the States REFUSE to live up to their obligations and allow any branch of the federal government to expand power and limit the people and the States, they are simply declaring that they believe we are not a Constitutional Republic, but instead a Federal Kingdom built of 50 colonies subject to the whim of the feds.
Justice Roberts told the States in the original PPAC opinion:

“We look to the States to defend the their prerogatives by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The States are SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis mine)

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the federal government is limited by specifically enumerated powers. It is time for the States to ACT like States, instead of cowering like colonies. It is time for the States to fulfill their obligation to be the SURE GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES’ LIBERTIES.
It is time to dethrone the Supreme Court. It is time to STAND for the Constitutional Republic and defy this theft of State Power and destruction of the Constitution.
Healthcare is NOT a specifically enumerated power delegated to the federal government. The exercise of that power is therefore contrary to the Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause, any law by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution is NOT the law of the land. That makes the law null-and-void of any force. Since the Affordable Care Act is NO LAW AT ALL, when we REFUSE TO COMPLY we are not breaking the law…we are enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land, defending our Republic, and guarding our Liberty!

St. Paul: ‘God Gave Them Over to a Debased Mind, to Do Those Things Which Are Not Fitting’ 

St. Paul: ‘God Gave Them Over to a Debased Mind, to Do Those Things Which Are Not Fitting’

St. Paul the Apostle | June 26, 2015 | 12:54 PM EDT

Saint Paul writing his epistles. - by Valentin de Boulogne (Wikimedia Commons)

[Editor's Note: St. Paul discussed same-sex relations in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans. Printed below is what he had to say as translated in the New King James Version of the Bible.]
Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Desire to Visit Rome
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established— that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
The Just Live by Faith
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

The Supreme Court Has Ruled: Principled People Will Not Obey!

The Supreme Court Has Ruled: Principled People Will Not Obey!

The Supreme Court Has Ruled: Principled People Will Not Obey!

By Dr. Don Boys -- Bio and Archives  June 28, 2015

---

Following the Supreme Court’s illegal, immoral, and incredible “gay” rights decision, the White House (owned by the American people, not the President) was flooded with rainbow-color lights in celebration of that disgusting, dangerous, and decadent decision. Such impudence and defiance was an insult to America and a goading of God. However, be assured that God sees the evil and the good and He is involved in our world. Sometime His judgment seems slow, but it is always sure and severe. Judgment is on the way!
Former U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said about the Supreme Court’s authority, “We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final.” That attitude is not only arrogant but audacious and asinine. However, the Supreme Court is not infallible (as only a fool would say) nor is it final (as only a fanatic would say). I remind you that their decisions are called, “opinions” and do not reach the level of the Ten Commandments–or even the Ten Recommendations. Same-sex “marriages” will continue to be abnormal, abominable, and aberrational even as shallow people applaud them.

Some have said, “The Court has spoken. That settles it.” Oh, really, what about Dred Scott? The Court, consisting of appointed, flawed individuals, has reversed itself over 200 times and it must be remembered that the Court is illegitimate when it usurps the position of legislatures. If the Court wants to write laws, they should resign, run for Congress, expose their financial souls and seek approval from the voters. The Justices are rogues in black robes drunk with power. The Court thinks it is omnipotent and omniscient and it seems to be almost omnipresent in our lives.
If laws that are contrary to the Constitution can be written by unelected officials then why do we have a Constitution? It means we are living under tyranny.
As a consequence of this opinion, everyone and all organizations will react. U.S. legislators must consider the “good behavior” clause in Article III, Section I of the Constitution that requires them to remove an erring justice from the court. That will happen when Hell has an enormous drop in temperature which can’t happen according to my theological beliefs. America will be free from the tyrants only when some of them reach room temperature.
State governors have an opportunity to affirm their sovereign authority and say, “We will not comply. You gave an opinion over something beyond your responsibility. We will not permit or give approval to behavior that is a threat to civilization.
Same-sex ‘marriages’ will not be recognized in this state.”  Then, the Court will charge the governors with contempt (which the governors will be guilty of as I am but I’m doing my best to conceal my contempt) and send U.S. Marshalls to arrest them. The governors can choose to use state troopers in their defense or choose not to do so. Bad position to be in but then no one asked for this except homosexuals and those whose highest ambition and reason for living is to satisfy homosexuals.

I will not comply. I will live as if the decision was never made

I don’t know what governors will do but I know what I will do and recommend other preachers do. I will not comply. I will live as if the decision was never made.
Pastors should inform everyone that they will never perform a same-sex “wedding.” Nor will the church ever be used for such activity. It is not enough for pastors not to perform such weddings; they must go on record of that decision.
Pastors should make it clear that unrepentant homosexuals will not be accepted as church members just as unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, thieves, abortionists, killers, and radical Liberals are rejected. Surely no pastor has to be convinced that he should never permit any secular authority to dictate to his church.
Pastors should prepare to lose the 501 (c) (3) tax status. Pastors have been negligent if they have not prepared church members for that event. The loss really should be no big deal since sincere Christians give 10 to 15 percent of their total income because they want to–not because of a tax advantage.
Preachers should continue to preach that homosexuality is perversion and if homosexuals do not repent they will be cast into Hell as will fornicators. At the same time the homosexual, like the adulterer, must understand that God loves him and is willing to forgive him at any time. And so is the church.
Pastors must warn members not to attend same-sex “marriages” of close friends or family members and refuse without alienating them if at all possible. With many, it will not be possible and the loss will be heartbreaking; however, any kind of approval will make one “a partaker of his evil deeds.”
Sunday school teachers and Christian school teachers should continue to teach that any sex outside of man-woman marriage is sinful requiring genuine repentance.
Christian colleges should continue to refuse homosexuals as students so housing for same-sex “couples” on their campus is a moot issue.
If the Court should rule that gun ownership was illegal or that freedom of the press was now illegal, would any sane person comply? It is ridiculous to suggest that the Court can write law as in this case and in the ObamaCare case then declare that the newly written laws are constitutional! No one gave these birds such carte blanche authority.
In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” That’s where we are today: despots reign.
Abe Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address “that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
In 1832, President Andrew Jackson’s contempt of the Court’s decision in Worchester v. Georgia was on full display when he allegedly replied, “John Marshall [Chief Justice] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” He was acknowledging that the Court does not have an army to enforce its decisions although it does have a few U.S. Marshalls that can arrest offending individuals.
The Court Jesters have made their ruling, now let them try to force thinking and committed Americans to accept perversion as normal, natural, and noble.