Thursday, May 14, 2015



Acts 4:12-"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (JESUS CHRIST)



"Rubio's family was Roman Catholic, though from age 8 to age 11, he and his family attended The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while living in Las Vegas, where his father worked as a bartender at Sams Town Hotel and his mother a housekeeper at the Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino. He received his first communion as a Catholic in 1984, before moving back to Miami with his family a year later. He was confirmed and married in the Catholic Church. Rubio attends Christ Fellowship, a Southern
Baptist Church in West Kendall, Florida, as well as Catholic services. In an interview in 2012, Rubio said: "I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm theologically in line with the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in the authority of the church, but I also have tremendous respect for my brothers and sisters in other Christian faiths. I recognize, as the Catholic Church does, that there are excellent teachings of the Word throughout other denominations. The elements of salvation are found in these churches as well.""
"In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect. His parents left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. According to The Washington Post, Rubio's "embellishments" resonated with many voters in Florida, claiming they would be less impressed by his family being economic migrants instead of political refugees from a communist regime. Rubio responded: "The real essence of my family's story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro's Cuba forever and permanently settled here. The essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place, and why they had to stay.""
EXCERPT: But Catholics and Baptists, especially those of the conservative variety who have held Rubio out as the great new hope for the GOP, do take such matters seriously, and some of them are feeling duped by Rubio presenting himself as a dedicated Catholic while he in fact has been attending a Southern Baptist congregation. 

Rubio Doctrine: More Spying, More Military
and ‘Moral Clarity’

Sen. Marco Rubio Reveals
His Foreign Policy Doctrine • 5/13/15 

by Warren Mass
SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Speaking before the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations in New York on May 13, senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) defended “America’s role as a security guarantor” for the world. While denying that he advocated making the United States “the world’s policeman,” Rubio said that America should “convene the world to take action” during international crises.
Senator Rubio made it clear that he advocated using U.S. military power beyond the mandate given to the president as commander in chief, to the federal government (in general) to “protect each [state] against invasion,” or even to Congress, to “repel invasions,” “define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,” and to “declare war.” Each of these actions presumes cooperation between the president and Congress to defend American interests, not the interests of the world. He said:
As president, I will use American power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space. This includes the economic disruption caused when one country invades another, as well as the chaos caused by disruptions in chokepoints such as the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz.
The above statement not only indicates that, despite his denials, Rubio would use the U.S. military as “the world’s policeman,” but by failing to mention Congress in his game plan, apparently would assume unilateral presidential power to do so.
Rubio approvingly summarized U.S. foreign policy in recent years as “a passionate defense of human rights, the strong support of democratic principles, and the protection of the sovereignty of our allies.”
The Constitution is clear that the obligation of the federal government is to “guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” It says nothing about supporting “democratic principles” (which are far different than a republican form of government) or about protecting "the sovereignty of our allies.”
Rubio, however, sees a different mission for the United States, stating that “vulnerable nations still depend on us to deter aggression from their larger neighbors.”
George Washington, our first president and president at the 1787 convention where our Constitution was drafted, strenuously opposed involving the United States in defending allies instead of our own interests. In his oft-quoted “Farewell address,” Washington stated, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
Rubio lamented that the interventionist foreign policy he champions has been “replaced by, at best, caution, and at worst, outright willingness to betray those values for the expediency of negotiations with repressive regimes.”
At the time Washington delivered his Farewell Address (1796) France was still under the thumb of the bloody French revolutionists, who could have given the worst of today’s tyrants lesson in repression. France’s “republican” government that year put down a peasants’ revolt in Vendée in such brutal fashion that it has been described as genocide.
Yet, though Washington (as expressed in his 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality) had refused to ally himself with France in its war against Great Britain, the United States did recognize the new government and maintained diplomatic relations with France.
By so doing, Washington was practicing the advice he gave in his Farewell Address: “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.”
Though the CFR’s primary interests related to foreign policy, Rubio also addressed other topics. In what CNN described as “a knock on GOP presidential opponent Rand Paul, who is working to reign in government surveillance programs and opposes extending the PATRIOT Act,” Rubio asserted that “we cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue.” Rubio stated:
A strong military also means a strong intelligence community, equipped with all the tools it needs to defend the homeland from extremism both home-grown and foreign-trained. And key to this will be extending section 215 of the Patriot Act. We cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue. We must never find ourselves looking back after a terrorist attack and saying: We could have done more to save American lives.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has used Section 215 of the Patriot Act to justify its bulk collection of U.S. phone records, but this section is set to expire on May 31. New legislation, the USA Freedom Act, passed the House by 338-88 on May 13, purports to limit those powers, but does so only modestly and extends some portions of Section 215 for five more years. For this reason, it would not be a surprise if Paul again opposes the bill when it comes to the Senate, as he did last year. Paul favors not just partial limitations of the NSA’s surveillance powers justified by the Patriot Act, but elimination of them.
If Rubio sought a sympathetic venue to outline his interventionist foreign policy, he could hardly have done better than the CFR. Founded in 1921 by a group tasked several years earlier by President Woodrow Wilson to formulate new U.S. foreign policy after World War I, a major impetus for those founding the CFR was the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles that provided for the League of Nations by the Senate on November 19, 1919.  These internationalists were determined to counter the perceived “isolationism” of those who had rejected the treaty and the league, and usher in a new era of interventionist U.S. foreign policy.
Within a decade, CFR members had begun to dominate the State Department, and all but a few secretaries of state from the Roosevelt administration until our present time have been CFR members. Secretary of State John Kerry is not a CFR member, but his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is. Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not a member, but her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, are both members. The administration of George W. Bush, under which the United States invaded Iraq, was dominated by CFR members Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The most notable characteristic of CFR influence on presidential administrations is an interventionist foreign policy that had led to U.S. involvement in a succession of wars, including World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars have produced approximately half a million U.S. battle deaths.
Senator Rubio is not a member of the CFR, but he is certainly on good terms with the organization and shares their outlook. His picture appeared in the 2012 CFR annual report and he prefaced his talk on May 13 with these words: “It is an honor to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations, and — I appreciate very much the opportunity to address you here today.”
Were the 2016 election to be a contest between Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, the future of U.S. foreign policy would be clear. It would mean a continuation of the same policies that have dominated our nation since the onset of World War II — interventionism, more war, and more casualties.




Jeb Bush Would Not Rescind Obama’s Executive Amnesty if Elected President

by Warren Mass; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

During a recent interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (shown) said that — were he to be elected president — his first order of business would not be to repeal President Obama’s executive action granting amnesty to four million illegal aliens.  Bush, who has not yet announced himself as a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016, said that although he did not support the Obama administration executive action — which he called unconstitutional — he would not remove it (presumably by another executive action) immediately after assuming the presidency. Bush said he would rather rectify the action as part of “meaningful” immigration reform legislation passed by Congress.
Kelly told Bush that she had talked to Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who was one of the “Gang of Eight” that drafted the bipartisan “immigration reform” bill that passed the Senate in 2013 but was never voted on by the Republican-led House because it provided amnesty to illegal aliens. She said that Rubio told her: "It’s going to be very difficult to undo [the executive action] once all these folks are here, if that legal challenge to his action does not succeed.”
The “legal challenge” that Kelly referred to is a temporary injunction that U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville issued last February, blocking implementation of the Obama plan. Hanen’s decision was in response to a suit (State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al) filed against the administration by a group of states led by Texas. The administration has appealed that injunction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which heard arguments from both sides in the case on April 17, but has not yet issued a decision.
Bush replied: “By the way, I think [the legal challenge] will succeed.”
When Kelly asked Bush how he would go about undoing the executive actions (presuming they were still intact should he become president), the former governor replied: “Passing meaningful reform of immigration and make it part of it.”
Kelly then asked Bush if he would have “supported that Senate bill that did not pass.”
Bush replied: “I would have had a different bill that was based on the, you know, my deeply held views on this. But I would have supported that to get beyond this, sure.”
Bush, apparently, is not opposed to granting amnesty to a large number of illegal aliens and differs with Obama solely on the president’s methodology. And his differences with the president are not sufficiently important that he would make it a priority of his, if elected to succeed Obama, to undo the action.
Bear in mind what Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said about the Gang of Eight bill in a national petition e-mailed to his supporters in June 2013, one week before the Senate passed it on a 68-32 vote:
This is urgent. We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border.
The Senate debate is in the final stages and we need to send Washington a strong signal of the overwhelming grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill from Americans across the country.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also opposed the bill, stating: “If [the immigration bill] got stronger, I could consider it, but since they rejected my call to have Congress involved with determining whether the border is secure, I can’t imagine how they can get me back unless they come back to me and say, ‘We've changed our mind.’”
Bush offered this explanation to Kelly about why he was opposed to deporting some illegal aliens, especially those who had been in the country for some time and are therefore eligible for amnesty under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program: “If you’ve been here for an extended period of time, you have no nexus to the country of your parents. What are we supposed to do? Marginalize these people forever?”
Presumably, since every president takes an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and that the Constitution requires that “ he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” it might be presumed that what Bush should do — were he to be elected president — is to enforce the law.
It is not the laws that “marginalize” people. Those who break the law marginalize themselves and must be required to come into compliance. It is up to Congress to pass laws to accomplish this, and to the president to enforce these laws. Among the steps required by existing law are border enforcement, apprehension of those who have entered our nation illegally, and deportation of those apprehended.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, who recently advocated “nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” for illegal aliens and who was critical of those Republican presidential candidates who favor granting legal status for some illegal aliens, but still oppose citizenship, Bush said he backs legal status — but not citizenship — for those who have entered the country illegally. “A practical solution of getting to fixing the legal system is also allowing for a path to legalized status, not necessarily citizenship,” said Bush.
Bush has a history of attempting to straddle the fence on the issue of immigration, often bending language to make amnesty not sound like amnesty. During an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program in March 2013, Bush revealed that he would support legislation that provided a “path for citizenship” for illegal immigrants. During the interview, which coincided with the release of Immigration Wars, the book Bush coauthored with Clint Bolick, Bush said he favored a “path to legalization.”
When Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough asked Bush: “What’s the difference between a path to legalization and a path to citizenship?” Bush replied: “The principal difference … the principle underlying what we’ve proposed is that if you don’t have a difference between a path to citizenship or a path to legalization, you’re going to create a magnet going forward for more illegal…”
Scarborough interjected: “You’re going to repeat what happened in today’s … Reagan amnesty.”
Bush continued: “So going forward — we wrote this last year — going forward if there is a difference, if you can craft that in law where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn’t an incentive for people to come illegally I’m for it. I don’t have a problem with that.”
Near the conclusion of the interview, Bush replied to a question from political analyst Mark Halperin, who asked: “Governor, just to clarify an important point of a path to citizenship, if there was a piece of legislation that had a pathway to citizenship ... people who came here illegally eligible to become citizens without touching back in their home countries, would you support that?”
Bush replied: “I would support it if it didn’t create an incentive for people to come illegally at the expense of coming legally.”
“If you change the system so that there is a legal path and you have a different term for people that are here already illegally so that the incentive isn’t to continue to have that process, then I would support that for sure,” Bush continued.
We think what Bush meant, amidst all that doubletalk, is that if you legalize illegal immigration, then illegal aliens would no longer be here illegally!
However, we would not guarantee that.


Americans have a more favorable view of Clinton (47%) and Biden (39%) than they do of Bush (35%)
SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes: 
Sixty percent (60%) of Americans would not consider Jeb Bush for president, compared to 51% who said the same about Hillary Clinton, according to national poll of mostly conservative voters.
The George Washington University Battleground Poll of 1,000 registered voters, of which only 16% identified with the Tea Party, also found that 48% of voters have an unfavorable view of Bush compared to only 44% who have an unfavorable impression of Joe Biden.
Overall, Americans have a more favorable view of Clinton (47%) and Biden (39%) than they do of Bush (35%).
All three presidential candidates led the rest in name recognition.
“Voters are evenly split on Hillary Clinton (47% favorable, 48% unfavorable; 47% would consider, 51% would not) and strongly negative on presumptive candidate Jeb Bush (35, 48; 36, 60),” the poll’s press release stated.
In other words, if the 2016 election pits Bush against Clinton, the latter would likely win, but either way, don’t expect either candidate to act much different than Obama.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” establishment insider Carrol Quigley advocated in his book Tragedy and Hope. “Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”
It’d just be more of the same regardless of the party label which misleads voters into thinking establishment candidates viciously oppose each other when in fact they play on the same team.
“I would say the best part of the Obama administration would be his continuance of the protections of the homeland using the big metadata [NSA surveillance] programs,” Bush said in an interview on the Michael Medved radio show.

Jeb Bush Praises Obama’s NSA Spying Program
Published on Apr 23, 2015
Former Florida Governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush called the NSA's mass collection of Americans' phone records, which was revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the greatest accomplishment of President Obama's presidency, during an interview on radio host Michael Medved's program. We look at the story on the Lip News with Elliot Hill and Mark Sovel.


Jeb Bush Praises NSA Spying Under President Obama



Jerry Falwell Jr. Introducing Jeb Bush
at Liberty University - 05-09-2015

Liberty Commencement 2015 - Former Gov. Jeb Bush

S.O.B. (Son of a Bush) Touts His “Christian Conscience”
Published on May 12, 2015
If there was any doubt that JEB would be more of the same, he confirmed that he would have invaded Iraq without questioning fake intel, just like his brother. Then he went on to tout his “Christian Conscience” as evidenced by his acquiescence as Florida Gov when a probate judge slowly starved Terry Schiavo to death.


Michelle Malkin Rips On Jeb Bush, Common Core;
Disgusted With Jeb Bush:

Jeb Bush supports the "higher standards"
in Common Core
Published on Apr 6, 2014
One of the topics in Shannon's interview with Jeb was education and Common Core. Jeb is a supporter of Common Core and considers the idea that Common Core is the Obamacare of education is nonsense. He said it is not the federal takeover of education.

Rand Paul: 'The invasion of Iraq was a mistake'; but Jeb Bush doesn't think so:






(NaturalNews) Texas entrepreneur and U.S. Army veteran Jeremy Alcede has been imprisoned for 35 days (and counting) over his refusal to turn over his Facebook account password as part of a business bankruptcy court order. Federal bankruptcy Judge Jeff Bohm of the Southern District of Texas ordered Alcede thrown in jail for an indefinite period of time until he surrenders his Facebook account password, potentially creating a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy and control of all our social media accounts.
Jeremy Alcede is now being incarcerated at the Joe Corley Detection Center in Montgomery County, a for-profit “private prison” run by a corporation. Jeremy Alcede has not been charged with any crime and has been denied a jury trial. He is a “prisoner of conscience” for standing his ground on the issue of social media account ownership, and to my knowledge he is the only American currently being held under indefinite detention for refusing to give up his Facebook password.
Why does his Facebook account matter so much that he’s willing to go to jail to protect it? Before being incarcerated for committing no crime, Alcede told Natural News that his Facebook account contains privileged conversations with his attorney, and that forcing him to turn over his account would violate attorney-client privilege. It would also violate the Facebook terms of service, which states that no Facebook account can be assigned to another party without the written permission of the Facebook company. Turning over his own account password to another party, as ordered by Judge Jeff Bohm, would constitute Jeremy Alcede committing his own identity theft on Facebook because it would allow the party receiving the account to impersonate Alcede to his entire list of friends and followers.
“If this judge is able to force me to surrender my Facebook account password,” Alcede told Natural News, “it would set a dangerous precedent that could see federal courts seizing social media accounts from any person targeted by the government, in gross violation of due process and their First Amendment rights.”
Judge Bohm claims the Facebook account in question belongs to the new owners of the Tactical Firearms business, who acquired it through bankruptcy proceedings. But the Facebook account in question — which has thousands of likes and followers — was used almost exclusively for personal messages, not business communications or promotions. The question posed here is whether a business bankruptcy can cause that business founder’s personal social media accounts to be stripped from them by order of the court. Because there is no precedent on this question, Judge Bohm invented his own answer and appears to be willing to keep Alcede imprisoned until he complies with his demands, no matter how unreasonable they may seem.
Targeted for being a patriot?
Alcede stirs controversy in many quarters, and he’s an outspoken critic of Obama administration policies. He’s the co-founder of the Katy, Texas, firearms retailer known as Tactical Firearms, which made headlines throughout 2013 and 2014 for carrying provocative, satirical messages on its signage visible from a major thoroughfare in Katy called Mason Rd.
The following image shows one of many such signs posted by Tactical Firearms. This one reads, “Criminals obey gun laws like politicians follow their oaths of office.” Other signage poked fun at President Obama, Harry Reid and gun control zealots.
Just as the Obama administration’s IRS targeted conservative non-profits for their political and religious beliefs, Alcede believes he is being held as a “prisoner of conscience” because of his outspoken speech on controversial topics like gun control, Obamacare and illegal immigration. He says that the courts imprisoning someone for an indefinite period of time is a violation of federal and state laws against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
“I have always stood up and voiced my opinion regarding the civil liberties that our founding fathers created. I would not be true to myself or to you if I laid down and blindly obeyed an unlawful order which has currently been placed upon me,” Alcede writes on his GoFundMe page, which has so far raised $3,000 for his legal bills. “I desperately need legal representation but cannot afford it as I have been robbed of everything.”
To prevent Alcede’s story from getting out, Judge Jeff Bohm has denied media visitation access to all reporters, including Andrea Watkins from a local Fox affiliate. As this email shows, the request to interview Alcede was denied.
What kind of prisoner gets held without charge, is sentenced to “indefinite” imprisonment in a for-profit prison run by a corporation, is denied access to the press and fed a health-destroying diet? Welcome to the new Amerikan police state.
Fed donuts and insulin shots, Alcede turns to fasting to protect his health
According to reports from those in direct contact with Alcede, he was fed donuts and processed cereal by the prison staff, causing his blood sugar to experience wild clinical swings. In response, the medical staff at the facility began administering insulin shots to control his blood sugar.
Because prison food is so disastrously malnourished and imbalanced, Alcede’s health status only worsened. It wasn’t long before they tried to put him on metformin, a diabetes drug widely known to cause permanent liver damage. In essence, the prison is now waging a chemical war on Alcede’s physical health, subjecting him to punishment that goes beyond the incarceration itself. Alcede refused the metformin drug, and in a desperate attempt to protect his health from the disastrous diet forced upon him, he went on a six-day fast, during which his blood sugar stabilized.
“I wrote this post at 5 pm after waiting all day in hopes of getting a normal meal which did not happen,” Alcede wrote from prison on April 30. “The medical doctor on staff was ordered yesterday to specify the exact foods I am to be fed. He said that the warden denied the MEDICAL ORDERS and I am being poisoned. I am curious as to why a Muslim is allowed a special diet to appease their God, but a life and death diet is not worthy. Every day that passes I am uncovering MORE and MORE CORRUPTION! With the Texas prisons generating 13 plus billion dollars, yes with a b, a year…it makes perfect sense…”
Human rights violations committed by the government
Alcede remains in isolation at the facility, living in a cell no more than five feet wide. He remains the only known prisoner in America who is serving an indefinite detention for the “crime” of protecting his own social media account.
As this is happening, the United States government is being heavily criticized by a scathing human rights review from the United Nations, which accuses the U.S. government of repeatedly violating fundamental human rights.
“The United States was slammed over its rights record Monday at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, with member nations criticizing the country for police violence and racial discrimination, the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and the continued use of the death penalty,” reports Al Jazeera. The news publisher also states:
The March findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on torture were not overlooked by international delegates. Many echoed the concerns of the Danish delegate, Carsten Staur, who recommended that the U.S. “further ensures that all victims of torture and ill treatment, whether still in U.S. custody or not, obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance.”
With the case of Jeremy Alcede, the United States federal government now stands as a tyrannical regime that will throw someone in prison for daring to protect their control of their own social media account.
Jeremy Alcede’s Facebook page:
Go Fund Me page for Jeremy Alcede:
Written by Mike Adams
Learn more: Natural News


Special Forces out of Fort Bragg are training with SWAT officers in Richland County, South Carolina this week for house to house raids, another unnerving sign of the militarization of domestic law enforcement.
SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Leon Lott is a traitor.
Leon Lott is a treasonous Sheriff in charged of law enforcement for the unincorporated area’s of Richland County, South Carolina.
Only a year after the joint drills of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department and the US military raised eyebrows, Sheriff Leon Lott of the RCSD has once again announced that the department will be conducting drills that involve the joint training of civilian law enforcement and the US military.
On May 8, 2015 it was reported by WLTX that the Richland County Sheriff’s Department will be conducting drills in conjunction with the 3rd Special Forces Group out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The exercises will take place at late-night and pre-dawn and will run from May 8 until May 15, 2015.
Citizens have now been informed that Sheriff’s Department and Military vehicles will be traveling in the Lower Richland County community near Eastover and Hopkins as well as Elgin near Screaming Eagle Road. The vehicles will also be traveling in the North Richland County area near Monticello Rd.
The Sheriff’s Department has announced that residents in these areas may hear explosives being detonated and ordinance being set off as well as shots being fired.
Sheriff Leon Lott stated that the department’s Special Response Team, a SWAT-like team formulation that is becoming ever popular in South Carolina Sheriff’s Departments, with the 3rd Special Forces Group. Lott announced that the Sheriff’s department will “provide simulated scenarios for the military” and added that Richland County “an ideal location for training that cannot be replicated at Fort Bragg.”
There were no elaborations as to what these scenarios might be or what the training will involve. This is perhaps because the last time the Richland County Sheriff’s Office conducted training with Special Forces, it was simulating and training to raid farm houses and engaging in domestic raids as well as to set up checkpoints and chopper insertion. See my article “Local Police Train With Special Forces To Raid Farm Houses, Conduct Domestic Raids.”
It is worth nothing that the drills will be taking place in the exact same location as last year’s drills.
With this in mind, and taking into consideration not only the increasing number of military and joint military/law enforcement drills taking place over recent years practicing the round up, disarming, and relocation of American citizens as well as the ongoing Jade Helm exercises taking place across the country, it is highly likely that these drills are of the same category. After all, the last time they were conducted, they apparently contained a number of these elements.
The fact that the police and military are engaging in joint drill exercises in violation of Posse Comitatus and a long-standing American tradition of separation between domestic policing and military activity is concerning enough. However, if they are training for domestic operations such as raiding American farm houses, setting up domestic checkpoints, and conducting other related raids on the home-front should be terrifying to every single American that desires to keep what little shred of freedom they have left.
Unfortunately, it has become abundantly clear that the American military and indeed Sheriff Leon Lott of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department see the American people and the people of South Carolina as the enemy.

Additional Information
Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
BREAKING: Special Forces Drill 
with Local SWAT for Domestic Raids

Published on May 12, 2015
RICHLAND | In what appears to be the second such drill, Special Forces have been deployed domestically alongside local Sheriffs to train for midnight raids in Richland County South Carolina.

The footage you’re seeing right now is the 3rd Special Forces Group out of Fort Bragg conducting a nighttime raid during an exercise. This is the special forces unit deployed.

Sheriff Leon Lott stated that “Richland County is “an ideal location for training that cannot be replicated at Fort Bragg.”

Coordinating with the Special Forces will be the county’s Special Response Team - or SWAT to “provide simulated scenarios for the military”

What's more chilling than coordinated domestic raid training is that official reports state that live ordinance and gunfire will be employed.

To top it off the media has been restricted from any kind of embedded reporting to provide Transparency for the drills.

Now you can add this drill to the long list of domestic training exercises that have occurred so far this year. FEMA Camp Roundup drills in Florida, martial law training in California, Marines Prepping for Riot Control in Virginia and of course the mother of all drills JADE HELM.

This is another glaring example of the militarization of local police nationwide who have received nearly half a billion dollars in military equipment from the department of defense.

So this begs the question. Who is training who? When local sheriffs receive military equipment and then the special forces train alongside SWAT the lines are blurred. The color of authority is transferred to local police as they become a militarized force. Local Law enforcement can’t violate Posse Comitatus… but they can use the same equipment and tactics as the military making them one in the same… just a different jurisdiction thus skirting the law and violating the constitution.

The next question is who is the intended target? I’ll leave that up to you in the comments section below the video… I’ll give you a hint. “You Train where you deploy”

Footage courtesy Department of Defense, Richmond County Sheriff's Office, and Maine National Guard. All footage resides in the public domain.