Click Button in Toolbar to Toggle Playlist.

We Win They Lose archive
Category : Issues: Personal Freedom & Liberty

Will Boehner Lose His Speakership Over Immigration Reform? ‘Maybe,’ He Says (Let’s Hope So!)

John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he might lose his job as House speaker over immigration reform, but he insisted he will not bring a bill to the House floor that does not have majority support of both Republicans and Democrats.Following the Republican conference meeting on Tuesday, Boehner was asked: “Rep. Rohrabacher said that if you bring immigration reform to the floor without the support of the GOP conference you will lose your job (as speaker). Do you think that’s accurate?”

“Maybe,” Boehner said after a long pause, to laughter from reporters.

“I think this immigration issue’s been kicked around in this town now for 15 years,” he said. “That’s why I said the day after the election it was time for Congress to do its work.”

Boehner said he is “increasingly concerned” that President Obama and Senate Democrats are shutting out Republican amendments to the Senate bill, which passed a cloture vote last week, 82-15. That clears the way for senators to vote on various amendments.

“I’m increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” Boehner said. “It was the president who said that he wanted a robust vote coming out of the Senate to help move this process along. And yet here’s the president and the Senate Democrats working to limit the number of Republican votes that this immigration bill is likely to get. I think that’s unfortunate.”

Boehner said Republicans will hold a special conference meeting on July 10 to discuss immigration reform in the House.

Read More…

Supreme Court leaves door open to Arizona requiring additional proof of citizenship – Wait, what?

7-2 decision practically invites Arizona to try again using proper administrative procedure.

Most of what you have heard in the media about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona is incomplete to the point of misleading.

It is true that the Court held that Arizona’s Proposition 200 (passed in 2004) requiring documentary proof of citizenship was invalid as contrary to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requirement that states “accept and use” the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) voter registration form which merely requires that a registrant affirm citizenship.

But, this ruling essentially was procedural.

The Court held if Arizona wanted to require additional documentary proof of citizenship it needed to follow the administrative procedures under the NVRA to obtain approval to alter the instructions to the federal form. In fact, in 2005 Arizona had requested such approval, the EAC split 2-2, but Arizona failed to appeal. The Court held that nothing prevented Arizona from requesting approval again, and appealing if denied. The Court practically invited Arizona to try again.

Read More…

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’? Senator Mike Lee Presents the Evidence…

Senator Mike Lee on Why Justice John Roberts Voted to Uphold ObamaCare | Glenn Beck Radio Program

After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication. Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.

First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority. He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.

Not only that, he said, but the court performed an unusual feat of “legal gymnastics” in upholding the legislation, particularly with regard to whether the fines incurred are or are not taxes. They had to re-write sections of the the bill not once, but twice.

Read More…

NSA discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts are listening to domestic phone calls

NSA Director Keith Alexander says his agency's analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting "civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day."

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” Owens said he couldn’t comment on what assurances from the Obama administration Nadler was referring to, and said Nadler was unavailable for an interview. (CNET had contacted Nadler for comment on Friday.)

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, being able to listen to phone calls would mean the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

Read More…

Pakistan hates gays but love ‘shemale sex’ and ‘man f***ing man’ porn searches

Pakistan — a global leader in intolerance towards homosexuals — leads the world in Google searches for gay pornography, according to an analysis of search terms published by Mother Jones.

The study found the Islamic republic is the world leader by volume of searches form the terms “shemale sex,” “teen anal sex,” and “man f***ing man,” while it ranks second in searches for the term “gay sex pics.”

The term “shemale sex” was most-searched for in the city of Peshwar, a conservative Islamic stronghold that has become a frontline in the war on terror.

In a survey of 39 countries worldwide, the Pew Research Center asked the question, “Should society accept homosexuality?”

Read More…

Obamacare Is Turning Walmart Workers Into Temps

This is a selfmade image from the english wiki...

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) opponents warned it would happen, but now there’s mounting proof that full-time employees are being replaced with part-timers, at least in the retail industry where Walmart is focused on keeping the majority of workers to part-time hours only.

A new hiring policy uncovered by Reuters shows that nearly half of its stores are only hiring part-time employees, thus avoiding the mandate to provide health care or pay a fine.

A Reuters survey of 52 stores run by the largest U.S. private employer in the past month, including one in every U.S. state, showed that 27 were hiring only temps, 20 were hiring a combination of regular full, part-time and temp jobs, and five were not hiring at all.

It’s company directive, according to sources interviewed by Reuters who asked to remain anonymous.

Read More…

Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers

The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That’s right, the government’s sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Fourth Amendment Rally Planned For Fourth of July

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: June 14, 2013

Restore the 4th.png

Though there won’t be loaded rifle-toting protesters traipsing around the National Mall on the Fourth of July anymore, it does looks like there will be a different group of Bill of Rights upholders protesting on Independence Day.

In response to Edward Snowden’s massive intelligence leak, supporters of Fourth Amendment rights are banding together to organize massive rallies across the country.

The rally, dubbed ‘Restore the Fourth,’ will be held in major cities across the country on July 4th, including Washington, D.C. Though a time and location for the D.C. rally hasn’t been confirmed yet, the event is being planned through Reddit. More information will come soon.

Read More…

We Aren’t Communist?

We aren’t communist?

When the obvious is obvious, why is it that there are those who can’t seem to see the obvious? Strange metaphor is it not? That we in this nation have those who can’t see this obvious scenario that this nation is as communist as any that has ever been, or will ever be!

Perhaps it’s our identification of what we use as the yard stick to measure what is a communist government?

When we look at the definition of communism, it is obvious that it had never existed, will not ever exist, and cannot exist as it is defined. Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.

Is it not interesting that the failure of communism is defined in the very first identification of this ideology? Why is the word ‘revolutionary’ so prominent?

The answer is simple really—for in fact communism is based on the oldest of human actions—theft. This is the why it must be a revolution of taking that from a society that has productive capacity—as communism is not the ideology of the beginning…for it produces nothing…as the literate history of mankind has proven.

There is no more one need to know of communism. The basis of this dementia and the results are all based in this simple reality.

One thing about communism is that reality is never part of the evaluation. Take a moment to think of this; movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at establishing this order.

We read this presentation using the word classless. What does that mean? Or is it to make some social distinction to create the very ‘revolutionary’ ‘theft’ from those who have produced? What is the difference between the simple philosophical identification of our ‘Declaration of Independence’ where we state ‘All men are created equal!’ Does this not make all men in the same class—are we not all created by our creator with the same foundations of physical structure? Do we not all have a brain, some intellect, and the capacity to observe and make independent decisions? Is not this the whole concept of Christianity—that we have free will—and as such have by our choice the desire to do what we wish?

You see, the philosophy of Christianity, that all men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights—makes simple fact; it identifies man’s very existence.

Read More…

Congressman: Christian Soldiers Being Singled out for Punishment

A Midwestern lawmaker is calling on his colleagues in Congress to offer cover to an Army soldier under fire for his conservative political views and religious faith, and accusing the Obama administration of “creating a tyrannical culture of political correctness in the military.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., is introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would prevent the Army from conducting a court martial of Master Sgt. Nathan Sommers until the military first files a report for Congress to review.

“The Secretary of the Army shall provide to Congress a report on activities with respect to Master Sergeant Nathan Sommers at least 90 days prior to taking any further disciplinary or administrative action against that individual,” states Huelskamp’s amendment.

The amendment would also allow service members to sue in the event their First Amendment rights are violated. Huelskamp said the legislation will “unblock the courthouse door so that service members whose First Amendment rights have been violated by the federal government can seek redress like any other American.”

“Sgt. Sommers is the poster child for an increasingly pervasive pattern of persecution,” Huelskamp told Fox News.

Sommers, a decorated member of the U.S. Army Band, came under intense scrutiny after he was found with pro-Republican, anti-Obama bumper stickers on his personal car. An Army officer informed the solider – in writing – that the stickers were creating “workplace tension.” The 25-year military veteran was also told to stop reading books written by conservative authors while in uniform. A superior officer told him that reading books by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and David Limbaugh was offensive to other soldiers.

Read More…

NSA Scandal Sends Sales of George Orwell’s ’1984′ Soaring on Amazon

1984

A complementary commercial winner-and-loser pair has emerged from the disclosure of the NSA’s domestic data dragnet, one that would surely bring a thin-lipped smile to the face of Eric Arthur Blair, the English Democratic Socialist who wrote as George Orwell: While Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), the defense contractor that employed leaker Edward Snowden, has seen its stock plummet since the revelation of its connection to the scandal, Amazon’s (AMZN) sales of “1984,” Orwell’s classic dystopian novel of surveillance and control, have skyrocketed.

The LA Times reports that sales of the book, which concerns a discontented propagandist working for the Ministry of Truth in a time of endless war, are up 5,771 percent as of Tuesday morning. From a sales rank of 12,507 in the days before The Guardian published top-secret government documents provided by Snowden, “1984″ has risen to crack Amazon’s top 200.

Read More…

FBI requests for records under Patriot Act have increased 1,000% in just four years under 0bama

It’s not just the number of requests, it’s the scope of them. They’re not demanding records related to particular investigations anymore, they’re demanding huge troves of records on random Americans for data-mining purposes, the same thing Patriot Act co-author Jim Sensenbrenner complained about a few days ago but somehow didn’t foresee in 2001.

Like I said, you might want to re-poll Bush’s numbers.

“That they were using this (provision) to do mass collection of data is definitely the biggest surprise,” said Robert Chesney, a top national security lawyer at the University of Texas Law School. “Most people who followed this closely were not aware they were doing this. We’ve gone from producing records for a particular investigation to the production of all records for a massive pre-collection database. It’s incredibly sweeping.”…

[I]n the years since [2003], the FBI’s use of Section 215 quietly exploded, with virtually no public notice or debate. In 2009, as part of an annual report to Congress, the Justice Department reported there had been 21 applications for business records to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) under Section 215 – all of which were granted, though nine were modified by the court. (The reports do not explain how or why the orders were modified.)

In 2010, the number of requests jumped to 205 (all again granted, with 176 modified.) In the latest report filed on April 30, the department reported there had been 212 such requests in 2012 – all approved by the court, but 200 of them modified.

These sharp increase in the use of Section 215 has drawn little attention until now because the number of national security letters (NSLs) issued by the bureau has been so much greater — 15,229 in 2012. But FBI Director Mueller, in little-noticed written responses to Congress two years ago, explained that the bureau was encountering resistance from telecommunications companies in turning over “electronic communication transaction” records in response to national security letters.

Google, Facebook, and the gang started to resist NSLs on grounds that they were dubious legally, so Mueller shifted to Section 215 and got back to squeezing them for more and more and more data

Read More…

Mohammed movie filmmaker: “If I could go back, I would do it again”

He’s defiant, but not as defiant as you might think from that headline. He has no regrets about making the movie and says he’ll finish it once he’s out of the pen, but if you’re expecting any indignation over the White House’s repulsive attempt to make him a scapegoat for Islamist degeneracy, think again. He’s entirely deferential to The One — and maybe you would be too if you were stuck in a federal jail cell reading newspapers with daily reports about government gone rogue.

“It is not [a] religion movie,” he said. “I have a lot of Muslim friends and not all the Muslims believe in the terrorism culture. Some of them believe in this culture. That’s why we need to fight [against] the culture, not the Muslims. My enemy is the terrorism culture; this is my enemy…

“Of course I’m proud of [the movie]. If I could go back, I would do it again,” said Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt who came to the United States in 1984. “Everybody gets hurt in this culture. We need the world free of this culture. We have to fight it.”…

“I would like to thank the United States government from the top to the bottom for protecting me,” he said. “They treat me very, very good since this happened until now.”

When asked about Rice’s promotion last week to National Security Adviser after she became the face of the White House effort to substitute him for Al Qaeda as the cause of the Benghazi attack, Nakoula was again unwilling to be critical of the Obama administration.

“Who am I to criticize the United States’ commander in chief? This is his decision,” he said. “It’s not my responsibility. It’s not my job.”

When asked if he thought the administration had used him and his movie as scapegoats, he said simply “No comment.” That’s how you answer when you’re afraid to answer otherwise. I wonder if he knows that the frontrunner for the next Democratic nomination told more than one relative of Americans killed in Benghazi that they should blame him for the bloodletting. No comment.

Read More…

Nine Companies Tied to PRISM, Obama Will Be Smacked With Class-Action Lawsuit Wednesday

(Evan Vucci/AP) 

Former Justice Department prosecutor Larry Klayman amended an existing lawsuit against Verizon and a slew of Obama administration officials Monday to make it the first class-action lawsuit in response to the publication of a secret court order instructing Verizon to hand over all phone records of millions of American customers on an “ongoing, daily basis.”

Klayman told U.S. News he will file a second class-action lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia targeting government officials and each of the nine companies listed in a leaked National Security Agency slideshow as participants in the government’s PRISM program.

According to the slideshow, the PRISM program allows government agents direct, real-time access to the servers of nine major tech companies, including AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PalTalk, Skype, Yahoo! and YouTube.

U.S. News did not seek comment from the companies, all of which have denied any knowledge of or participation in the PRISM program.

Klayman said he hopes the two lawsuits will be considered jointly as companion cases.

The class-action lawsuit against Verizon says the defendants violated customers’ “reasonable expectation of privacy, free speech and association, right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and due process rights.”

Read More…

Did the Obama regime blackmail John Roberts to change his Obamacare decision?

Radio host Glenn Beck interviewed former National Security Agency (NSA) employee William Binney on his program Friday. Mr. Binney was previously a very highly placed intelligence official until he resigned in 2001. He then became a whistleblower, helping to expose the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping program. As a consequence of his whistleblowing, his NSA security clearance was revoked, armed agents raided his home, and his business was forced to shut down.

During their discussion, Mr. Beck raised an intriguing possibility: Was Chief Justice John Roberts blackmailed by the Obama regime into changing his ruling on Obamacare at the last minute? Given what he knows about the NSA, Mr. Binney couldn’t rule such a thing out.

Beck expounded further on his theory:

“You had spent months writing your dissent [sic], and instead at the last minute you changed it, in fact you changed it to such a point you couldn’t even change all of the stuff in it, you changed it so fast, and then you came with bleary red eyes, puffy eyes, as if you had been up all night or maybe you were crying yourself to sleep, Mr. John Roberts. Did someone approach you with some sort of information – who are you sleeping with, Mr. Supreme Court Justice? What have you done?”

Read More…

ArabicChinese (Traditional)DanishDutchEnglishFilipinoFrenchGermanGreekHebrewHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanNorwegianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedish
Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Wednesday, June 19, 2013