TRAITOR PAUL RYAN LED HOUSE: SPENDING, CAPITULATION TO DEMOCRATS, & RISING DEBT CONTINUE-PLANNED PARENTHOOD RE-FUNDED

PAUL RYAN A FRAUD LIKE BOEHNER

POPE'S CATHOLIC PUPPET DESTROYING AMERICA JUST LIKE OBAMA

PAUL RYAN SELLS OUT AMERICA!!

Published on Dec 18, 2015

UPDATE: As of Noon Central time on December 18, 2015. Congress approved the omnibus bill with the House voting 316-113. The Bill now heads to Obama's desk. Who will gladly sign away any protection we may have had against jihadist terrorism entering the United States.

This is what happened while you were sleeping dreaming of family and friends gathered for the upcoming holiday season. Yet another treasonous move from our corporatized politicians and their NWO agendized act of war against the American people. Act of War against the American people? Come on. I’ll explain why. But first, how destructive is the 2,242 page omnibus package passed at 2 am led by Obama sycophant ?

Breitbart reports “Rep. ’s first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill.”Obama’s Unconstitutional 2012 Amnesty for hundred’s of thousands of illegal Aliens continues to warm the federal printing presses with work permits and federal benefits. Meanwhile the taxpaying middle class will be cannon fodder for the Unconstitutional Obamacare penalties that have doubled since last year. Breitbart continues “Obama’s executive action, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has granted around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs.”

Regardless of the fact that a promising 32 year old American woman was gunned down in broad daylight in San Francisco as a result of the failed policies of the revolving door allowing criminals to return to Sanctuary Cities. Ryan is rewarding these sanctuary cities with a heap of federal grants. “Division B Title II of Ryan’s omnibus funds various grant programs for the Department of Justice (pages 167, 168, and 169) and contains no language that would restrict the provision of such grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.”

Criminal Aliens will continue to resettle in America, H-2B visas will quadruple and replace American workers with cheap foreign labor in America, Defense and Non Defense spending will be increased by $25 Billion, the 700 mile border fence Americans were promised has been gutted, 1.1 Trillion more was added to Obama’s already doubling of our national debt as foreign countries buy up our farmland, corporations, and even our entertainment industry. This is nothing less than dangerous and total betrayal by the criminals occupying our Government. 

Senator Sessions: Why Voters Are in Open Rebellion

Published on Dec 17, 2015

Sen. Sessions explains why American voters are in open rebellion over the betrayal of GOP leaders. Leadership lied to him about contents of the bill and introduced a bill at 2AM giving Obama and big business everything they wanted: a fourfold increase in immigration, American workers forced to train their foreign replacements then laid off, and allowing Obama to bring in unlimited migrants from wherever he wishes and give them access to unlimited welfare and entitlements.

BUDGET BILL A DISASTER FOR CONSERVATIVES & AMERICA ON EVERY COUNT

Paul Ryan-Led House: Spending, Capitulation to Democrats, and Rising Debt Continue

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22160-paul-ryan-led-house-spending-capitulation-to-democrats-and-rising-debt-continue; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Dave Brat, the Virginia Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the primary, and a prominent member of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, summed up the new budget soon to be voted on by the entire House.

“The end product here is just cleaning the barn; it’s a disaster. We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps to the American people, we’ve lost fiscal discipline, and we’re throwing it all on the next generation,” declared Brat, a member of the House Budget Committee.

Several Republican presidential candidates have made the rising national debt a major issue of their campaigns. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky calls the $18-trillion debt the “greatest threat” to the future of the country, while Senator Marco Rubio predicts the debt will “shackle future generations."

However, the latest budget deal — the first under the leadership of House Speaker Paul Ryan, will add billions to that debt.

And the House gets just two days to review it.

The new budget involves $1.1 trillion in spending and $680 billion in tax breaks. It not only vastly increases federal spending, but also represents yet another victory over the Republicans for the White House and Obama's Democratic allies.

For example, Obama was able to win on climate change funding. This past summer, a bill would have blocked any funding for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This fund’s purpose is to provide help to poorer nations in their efforts to implement the agenda of those who want to scale back certain economic activity, which they say will fight “global climate change.”

This bill, however, while not explicitly funding the GCF, does not actually block it either. In other words, Obama will be able to use money from current “discretionary funding” to make American contributions to the GCF. Press Secretary Josh Earnest was pleased at the budget proposal in this regard, telling reporters, “Based on what we have reviewed so far, there are no restrictions on our ability to make good on the president’s pledge to contribute to the Green Climate Fund.”

Karen Orenstein, a senior analyst with Friends of the Earth, added, “This is a rebuke to those congressional extremists who tried to play politics with desperately needed money to help the world’s poor take climate action. Morality and reason, rather than science-denying isolationism, prevailed in this case.”

The number of visas made available for foreign workers will also increase with the Ryan budget — another victory for Obama and the Democrats. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, perhaps the number-one opponent in Congress of the president’s pro-immigration policies, took to the floor of the Senate to express his outrage:

The GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs. The result? Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans.

Sessions was referencing the number of H-2B visas, which will expand from 66,000 to 250,000, due to the Ryan budget language.

Yet, provisions to defund “sanctuary cities” (which provide sanctuary to illegal aliens in violation of federal immigration law) were stripped from the bill, Sessions noted, and the Ryan budget will continue to provide funding to those cities. The proposal to prevent illegal aliens from receiving tax credits for children not even in the country was also taken out of the budget.

Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that it takes the lives of 330,000 unborn babies every year, and has now been exposed selling aborted baby parts — is fully funded in the Ryan budget. Additionally, neither the effort to restrict Syrian and Iraqi refugee resettlement, nor the attempt to stop Obama from taking unilateral executive action on immigration, was in the final draft.

Tax breaks for special-interest groups, who have the lobbyists to make such things happen, will also add to the rising national debt. Others getting a break? The film and TV industries, rum producers in the Caribbean, racehorse owners, and those who have a two-wheeled plug-in electric car..

However, the average American who works in a factory, or who owns a small business or is employed in one — lacking a high-powered lobbyist in D.C. — can expect to continue to bear the burden of government spending and tax policies, designed to benefit the well-connected.

President Andrew Jackson alluded to this issue in his historic veto message, when he struck down the recharter bill for the Second Bank of the United States in 1832. He declared,

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.... When the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinction, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges ... the humble members of society — the farmer, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.

So it continues, whether Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Those who have connections are the recipients of federal spending and favorable changes in the laws. For example, Republican leadership may not have cared enough about aborted babies to fight for defunding Planned Parenthood, or American workers displaced by foreign workers and environmental extremism, but Ryan made sure a provision was added to the bill to allow the sale of American oil to foreigners. While this is intrinsically a good policy, it vividly illustrates the truth of Andrew Jackson’s remarks in his bank veto message.

As radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh asked in commenting on the budget bill, “Why do we even have a Republican Party?”

_________________________________________________________________

PLEASED WITH NEW BUDGET FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS

Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood vice president of public policy and government

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/11/new-planned-parenthood-vp-has-loads-of-political-experience/#.VnQdDPqVonV

EXCERPTS: "Singiser made just $300 a month when working on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign . Nothing lists her new salary, but other V.P.s listed on Planned Parenthood’s 2009 tax return earned upwards of $200,000 per year."

Oh, by the way, according to The Hill newspaper, Singiser “was a key part in the team that shepherded his [Obama’s] healthcare reform law through Congress.”

______________________________________________________

Paul Ryan, John Boehner: What's the Difference?

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22161-paul-ryan-john-boehner-what-s-the-difference; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Fiscal conservatives who hoped House Speaker Paul Ryan would put up more of a fight against President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have reason to be disappointed with the unveiling of the new congressional budget.

The budget increases federal spending and hands victory after victory over to the White House and Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress.

The budget continues full funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization revealed to having been involved in the sale of baby body parts. Sanctuary cities — localities that ignore federal immigration law and harbor illegal aliens — will continue receiving federal funds uninterrupted. Visas for foreign workers, which lead to the displacement of American workers, received an increase in funding. Democrats won extensions of tax credits for solar and wind production. Efforts to block Obama’s executive actions on immigration were not included in the bill.

Exactly how the budget bill would differ from a bill negotiated by former House Speaker John Boehner is hard to determine.

Republicans were able to insert a repeal on the ban of crude oil to foreigners, but that is hardly the kind of victory that excites the Republicans' conservative base. Rather, it is revealing of just who is important to Republican leaders in Congress, and who has the better lobbyists. Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp agreed with lifting the ban, but he said he did not receive a single call in favor of the action. Instead, his calls were all about Syrian refugees, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and several other concerns.

Not surprisingly, members of the House Freedom Caucus, the group which is largely responsible for forcing Boehner out of Congress, are not pleased with the new budget. Huelskamp, who is a member of the caucus, predicted that a majority of Republicans would vote no on the $1.1 trillion appropriations bill. He’s calling the package the “Boehner legacy bill.” Another member of the Caucus, Jim Jordan, agrees that few Republican members of the House will support the bill, either.

Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who is also a Caucus member, had objections about the cybersecurity language added to the bill.

“It’s pretty bad,” complained Freedom Caucus chairman Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio. “How can you not put the refugee issue in there? It makes so much sense. We were clear that if that goes in and [we get] something pretty good on the pro-life, we thought we could get a number of us” to vote for the bill. “But that’s not going to happen.”

So, Ryan will most likely construct a coalition of so-called moderate Republicans and mostly House Democrats to pass the bill. This, of course, was the Boehner way of advancing spending bills during his tenure. When Ryan was under consideration for the speakership, he wooed conservatives by promising to abide by the Hastert Rule (named for former Speaker Denny Hastert). The Hastert Rule stipulated that the speaker would allow votes only on bills enjoying the support of the majority of the Republicans.

But Ryan is not following the Hastert Rule with this budget. He is instead implementing the governing coalition used by his predecessor, John Boehner.

Despite predictable grumbling from the more conservative members of the House, such as Freedom Caucus members, Ryan appears safe in his position as speaker, at least for now. Representative David Brat, the man who pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history when he defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a Republican primary in Virginia, criticized the budget deal (“We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps”), but he also had cautious praise for Ryan.

“Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things.”

Arizona Republican Representative Matt Salmon agreed. “Paul [Ryan] made some pretty sustainable commitments about things we’ll do next year: a major overhaul of our tax system, welfare reform, replacing Obamacare. These are major things. If we do those things and define clearly what we stand for, that’s the best we can hope for.”

“In terms of process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” added Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican. It was Meadows who headed the charge against Boehner that eventually led to his resignation last fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”

One concrete action taken by Ryan that is encouraging to some Freedom Caucus members is that he has already begun the budget process for 2016. A large part of the problem for the past several years has been the failure of the House to develop a budget early enough to vote on the various parts of that budget separately. This has led to the series of “continuing resolutions” of recent years, which has led to a subtle shift in budget-making power away from Congress to a liberal president such as Obama. Obama can threaten to veto the budget if the Republicans put things in the bill he does not like, and blame the Republicans for “shutting down the government.” With his allies in the mainstream media, the public is led to believe it is all the Republicans’ fault. Many Republicans in Congress quake in fear of being blamed for "shutting down the government."

The next budget vote is slated in the fall of next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign. We can expect to hear suggestions that Republicans in the House should avoid a confrontation with Obama over the budget, so as not to hurt the Republican nominee. “Let’s wait until we have a Republican president to take serious action on the budget” will be the probable plea.

Voters were told that Republicans will take “serious action” if they get control of the House. After they did win the House in the 2010 elections, little was done, because the argument then was that the Democrats still controlled the Senate, and besides, we have a presidential election in 2012. Then, in 2014, the Republicans took the Senate and kept the House, and the Republican base was told, once again, to “wait,” since Obama will just veto any substantive action on important issues. And, of course, he can blame the Republicans.

A year from now, the Paul Ryan “honeymoon” will be over, and we will get to see the extent to which he will honor his “marriage vows” to the Republicans in Congress and to the country.

OMAMA TO BLAME: FEDS IGNORED ISLAMIC TERROR THREAT BEFORE SAN BERNARDINO TO FOCUS ON ‘RIGHT-WING RADICALS’

FEDS IGNORED ISLAMIC TERROR THREAT BEFORE SAN BERNARDINO TO FOCUS ON ‘RIGHT-WING RADICALS’

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/feds-ignored-islamic-terror-threat-before-san-bernardino-to-focus-on-right-wing-radicals/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The federal government deliberately downplayed the threat posed by Islamic terrorism immediately before the recent spate of Islamist terror attacks, ignoring Muslim extremists in favor of hyping the threat posed by radical right-wingers.

In the years leading up to the Boston bombings, the Garland shooting, the Chattanooga attack and the San Bernardino massacre, the FBI, Homeland Security and the Obama White House emphasized the narrative that white supremacists and anti-government Americans were of more concern than Muslim jihadists.

A policy that prohibited Homeland Security officials from checking the social media accounts of foreign visa applicants, while concurrently keeping tags on the social media profiles of American citizens, directly contributed to San Bernardino terrorists Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook going undetected.

As Chuck Ross writes, “Malik, a Pakistani citizen, reportedly posted pro-jihad messages on her Facebook account while living overseas. But the posts were not discovered even though Malik underwent three separate screening procedures before being granted her green card.”

This failure to check Malik’s social media accounts was justified on the premise that it could be “viewed negatively” from a privacy and civil liberties perspective. However, a DHS directive published in 2011 encouraged agents to “compile reports” on the social media accounts of American citizens which contained discussion of “policy directives, debates and implementations related to DHS.”

In a similar vein, the FBI’s August 2014 national terror threat assessment list completely omitted Islamic terrorists, instead focusing on sovereign citizens and the militia movement.

The University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) also said that sovereign citizens were the “top concern of law enforcement.”

In 2012 that same department released a study which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

The study, which was funded by the DHS to the tune of $12 million dollars, largely ignored Islamic extremism and instead focused on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and put them in the context of radical extremism.

Last year, it also emerged that the Department of Homeland Security maintains a “hands off” list of individuals with terrorist ties, allowing them unfettered entrance to the United States. In a related story, Muslim Brotherhood members with ties to terrorism traveling through Minneapolis Airport, New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport and Dulles Airport in April 2012 were handed “port courtesies,” with the State Department telling the DHS to ensure the men “not be pulled into secondary upon arrival at a point of entry.”

In August last year, over 12 months after the Boston bombings, the Department of Homeland Security listed sovereign citizens as a more deadly potential terror threat than Islamic extremists, placing sovereign citizens number one on the list despite the fact that individuals who identify as such have only been involved in minor and sporadic attacks.

PSA’s for the Department of Homeland Security’s See Something, Say Something program also routinely failed to portray terrorists as Muslims on numerous occasions, preferring instead to depict the bad guys as white middle class Americans.

In pursuing the political narrative that right-wing American citizens posed a greater terror threat than Islamic extremists, the federal government has made it significantly easier for Muslim jihadists to coordinate and plan attacks, while a climate of political correctness that led to neighbors of Malik and Farook refusing to report their suspicious activity for fear of appearing racist has also fed into the dangerous delusion that radical Islam doesn’t represent a problem that needs to be urgently addressed.

SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: OBAMA'S "ENTIRE LAWLESS IMMIGRATION AGENDA" FUNDED BY OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL~PLANNED PARENTHOOD RE-FUNDED

Sessions: Spending Bill Funds Obama’s
"Entire Lawless Immigration Agenda"

Omnibus Omits Justice Department

‘Slush Fund’ Rider Ending Payments 

to Liberal Groups

Rider would have ended settlement payments from going to groups such as La Raza, National Urban League

BY Joe Schoffstall

SEE: http://freebeacon.com/issues/omnibus-omits-justice-department-slush-fund-rider-ending-payments-to-liberal-groups/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research 

purposes:

President Obama on Wednesday backed the final spending package that would continue to fund the government through September 2016, with the White House saying it meets his expectations without containing “hundreds of needless ideological riders.”

The bill was praised by the likes of Planned Parenthood and will continue to allow American funding to go toward “international climate” efforts in poorer nations. The bill would also provide handouts for NASCAR tracks, college students, teachers, and racehorses.

However, one provision that did not make the final omnibus bill would have eliminated what critics refer to as a Department of Justice “slush fund” that allows money to be funneled to third-party activist groups—a practice that has come under scrutiny due to the liberal ideological bent of some of the approved organizations.

The practice in question began on August 21, 2014 when the department entered into a nearly $17-billion settlement with Bank of America for selling residential mortgage-backed securities leading up to the 2008 financial collapse. Similar settlements were made with J.P. Morgan and Citigroup that brought the total amount to $36.65 billion.

During settlement, the companies agree to pay financial penalties that sometimes include “donations” given to nonprofits instead of being paid directly to the Treasury.

With the Bank of America and Citigroup settlement, a provision was included that required $150 million in donations to groups that are supposed to help people who have been hurt by a corporations actions. The donations count as twice as much as cash paid towards the settlement total. For example, if a company were to donate $500,000 to an approved organization, it would count as $1,000,000 toward their bill.

The approved groups to where donations can go include the likes of the National Council of La Raza, National Urban League, and NeighborWorks America, which gives grants to community organizing groups thta lean left.

In the case of Bank of America, two payments were made totaling $1.5 million to La Raza that were credited as $3,450,00 while another $1,150,000 was donated to the Urban League and counted as $2,265,000 towards their bill, according to the bank’s latest settlement report released on November 2.

“The purpose of financial penalties is to punish, and to provide restitution to real victims,” the Wall Street Journal wrote on Dec. 3. “The Justice Department would make the case that this money is flowing to groups that aid the targets of supposed banking abuse, such as homeowners. But that assumes the work these groups do is targeted at actual victims—which it isn’t. It assumes that the work these groups do in housing is nonpartisan—which it isn’t. And it ignores that money is fungible.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), the head of the Judiciary Committee, has expressed concern for some time now over these actions. The Justice Department “may be systematically subverting Congress’ budget authority by using settlements to funnel money to activist groups,” Goodlatte said in February.

On June 2, the House of Representatives passed an amendment brought forth by Goodlatte to be included in the original appropriations bill that sought to end the practice.

“The passage of this amendment finally puts an end to the serious executive overreach of the Department of Justice in regards to improper donations being allocated in mortgage settlement agreements,” Goodlatte said after its passage. “A long and difficult investigation led by the House Judiciary Committee shows that the [Justice Department] DOJ systematically subverted Congress’s budget authority by allocating donations to third-party groups, rather than to the victims who are deserving of settlement money.”

An aide for the House Judiciary Committee informed the Free Beacon that the amendment did not make it into the final omnibus bill. The Appropriations Committee did not respond to request for comment on why it failed to make the final bill and whether anyone in particular nixed it.

Government accountability groups such as Cause of Action have launched investigations into the practice. The group has also filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking “clarity from the Justice Department on its legal authority to enter into financial settlements and arbitrarily allocate settlement funds.”

A senior policy adviser for Freedom Partners said the Obama administration is circumventing Congress in what equates to taxpayer funds being funneled to liberal special interests.

“The Obama administration is circumventing Congress by doling out funding from bank settlements to its left-wing allies,” Andy Koenig said. “This is billions of dollars in taxpayer money that instead of going to far-left special interests, should be going toward paying down our debt. Ending shady deals like this should be commonsense.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

____________________________________________________________

Planned Parenthood unscathed in spending bill

BY PETER SULLIVAN

SEE: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/263464-planned-parenthood-praises-spending-bill-for-avoiding-cuts; 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:


Planned Parenthood is praising Democrats in Congress after the spending bill released early Wednesday morning spared the organization from cuts. 

As expected, the spending bill does not defund Planned Parenthood, a clear deal-breaker for Democrats, but the absence of spending cuts is still noteworthy given the intensity of the push to defund the group earlier this year. 

Planned Parenthood Vice President Dana Singiser praised congressional Democrats on Wednesday for “holding the line against these harmful policy riders and cuts to key women’s health programs.”

“Extreme members of Congress spent an entire year targeting access to reproductive health care at every opportunity — even threatening to shut down the government,” she added. “Today’s budget bill maintains access to critical preventive health services and lacks these harmful attacks on women’s health care — at home and abroad.”

After pushing for complete defunding of Planned Parenthood ahead of the Oct. 1 funding deadline, the conservative House Freedom Caucus scaled back its demands to a call for compromise language that would give states the ability to choose to defund the group.

The compromise was not included in the final spending bill.

The Freedom Caucus and Pro-Life Caucus also pushed for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act to be included. That would have strengthened protections for organizations that do not want to cover abortions and doctors who do not want to provide them, as well as allowing people to sue if they think the protections are violated. 

It also was not included in the final spending bill.

Republicans did win language requiring a 7 percent cut in funding for the United Nations Population Fund, an entity that the Pro-Life Caucus said supports China’s “coercive birth limitation policy.”

Planned Parenthood denounced that cut, while acknowledging that it is “small.”

Planned Parenthood is also pushing for more family planning funding. Still, Democrats touted that the bill includes $286 million for Title X family planning, a program that would have been completely eliminated in House Republicans’ proposal earlier this year. 

A Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado was the site of a mass shooting on Nov. 27 in which three people were killed and nine people were wounded. Pro-abortion-rights groups blamed rhetoric in Washington for influencing the shooter, and the violence appeared to undercut efforts to reduce funding for the group.

PAMELA GELLER EXPOSES ISLAMIC JIHAD, FULLY MUSLIM

ISLAMIC APOLOGIST IN CHIEF

TRUTH IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH

"I WILL NOT ABRIDGE MY FREE SPEECH 

TO DEFEND SAVAGERY"

GELLER SUED THE NEW YORK CITY "MTA" TO PROTECT HER RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH;

POSTERS THEN ALLOWED IN SUBWAYS & ON BUSES

GELLER SPOKE AT BROOKLYN COLLEGE; MUSLIM STUDENTS WALK OUT, HARASS, INTERRUPT SPEECH

OBAMA PUSHING "REFUGEE" NARRATIVE

"FATWA" ON HER HEAD FOR BOLDLY SPEAKING OUT

http://pamelageller.com/

OBAMA REFUSES TO LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA 

TO FERRET OUT TERRORISTS

DHS HOWEVER IS MONITORING SOCIAL MEDIA 

FOR CRITICIZING OBAMA

GELLER: "ISLAM ASSERTS ITS AUTHORITY OVER NON MUSLIMS (INFIDELS)

Pamela Geller on Hannity Show
Discussing the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)

Pamela Geller to Attorney General
Loretta Lynch: "Come and Get Me Byatch!"
"We'll Be Cell Mates"

Pamela Geller Jihad In Boston, Jihad In America, Stop The Jihad 4/20/13
"In America, They Assassinate Your Character" First

                             

FOX Host Pleads With Pamela Geller to Respect Islam & Constrain Herself; Even Donald Trump & Catholic Bill Donahue Object To Her Supposedly Inciting Islamofascists
Geller: "I Will Not Abridge My Free Speech"

Michael Savage Attacks Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren of Fox News Criticizing Pamela Geller on Mohammed Contest

Pamela Geller - Free Speech Under Assault

Published on May 7, 2015

Pamela Geller, organizer of the draw Mohammad event in Texas, schools CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on the principles of free speech.http://www.LibertyPen.com

Pamela Geller Banned Speech Chabad House
Great Neck, Long Island, New York
"They Are Pursuing a Pro Jihadist Foreign Policy"

Published on Apr 21, 2013

April 14, 2013. Chabad House. Great Long Island hosts the banned synagogue speech that was shut down by pressure lobbies who oppose the American right to free speech. David Yerushalmi introduces Pamela Geller.

CAIR'S PROPAGANDA ADS

http://www.cair.com/

PASTOR MANNING INTERVIEWS 

PAMELA GELLER 2014

"THE SILENCE OF THE SHARIA COMPLIANT MEDIA"

UPDATE: JEB BUSH'S CLOSE NAZI TIES EXPOSED BY JOHN BUCHANAN

JEB BUSH: CLOSE NAZI TIES 

EXPOSED BY JOHN BUCHANAN

Investigation Exposes Jeb Bush Nazi Treasure Holdings

Republished:Wednesday, November 11, 2015

JEB BUSH: WOULD HAVE KILLED BABY HITLER~BUT NO MENTION OF HIS GRANDFATHER SUPPORTING THE NAZIS

HITLER & PRESCOTT BUSH

SEE: http://www.shoah.org.uk/2013/08/09/prescott-bush-the-nazi-bush-connection-2/

QUOTES:

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. created the Union Banking Corporation with Friedrich “Fritz” Thyssen. Prescott Bush was one of seven corporate directors put in charge of Union Banking Corporation as a front to help Thyssen conceal the bank’s real ownership. The U.S. Government accused Prescott Bush & Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. of “Trading with the Enemy” in 1942, the bank and other business interests were seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of WWII until 1951 when they were given back their company. Union Banking Corporation was dissolved.

A year later in 1952 Prescott Bush became a US Senator.

FRITZ THYSSEN-STEEL BUSINESSMAN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Thyssen

JEB BUSH: KILLING BABY HITLER;

BUT NO MENTION OF HIS GRANDFATHER 

SUPPORTING THE NAZIS

BY KURT NIMMO

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/jeb-bush-killing-baby-hitler/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Jeb Bush, the Republican presidential candidate who is in the single digits, told The Huffington Post he would kill a baby Hitler if given the chance to go back in time.

“Hell yeah, I would!” the former Florida governor said while on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. “You gotta step up, man.”

“It could have a dangerous effect on everything else, but I’d do it — I mean, Hitler,” Bush added.

The question was posed by The New York Times Magazine. Most respondents said they would kill the baby who would grow up to become Der Fuhrer.

If given the chance, Jeb Bush might want to travel back in time and prevent his grandfather from helping Hitler become one of the most infamous dictators of the 20th century.

Prescott Bush, a Wall Street executive banker and Connecticut Senator, helped assist the Nazis through the Union Banking Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Banking_Corporation) and Brown Brothers Harriman, an influential investment bank.

The bank held gold for the Nazis and acted as a clearing house for Fritz Thyssen, a German industrialist who supported the Nazi regime. In 1932 Thyssen and other industrialists signed a letter urging Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Adolf Hitler as chancellor. He also arranged a meeting of the Association of German Industrialists that raised 3 million marks for the Nazi Party. Thyssen was instrumental in Hitler’s effort to re-arm Germany. In 1941 Thyssen wrote a book titled “I Paid Hitler.”

Jeb Bush’s grandfather was also linked to Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, a company that used slave labor during the Second World War.

Prescott Bush was not deterred by the outbreak of the Second World War. It took the Trading with the Enemy Act and a seizure of the bank’s assets in 1942 to stop it from dealing with Thyssen and the Nazis.

If Jeb Bush found a way to travel back in time, he also might want to prevent J.P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and dozens of others from the financial and corporate elite supporting Hitler and the Nazis.

___________________________________________________________

Prescott Bush - How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to Power

OBAMA'S MORALLY PERVERTED ANALOGY: CONFLATES SYRIAN REFUGEES WITH JEWISH REFUGEES BEFORE WORLD WAR TWO

OBAMA PLAYS ON IGNORANCE OF HISTORY; IMMIGRATION LAWS BE DAMNED

HE WANTS US TO REMEMBER OUR MISTREATMENT 

OF THE "ENEMIES OF AMERICA" IN THE 1940s?

OBAMA CONFLATES SYRIAN REFUGEES WITH REJECTION 

OF JEWISH REFUGEES BEFORE WORLD WAR TWO

SHOULD WE FEEL GUILTY FOR U.S. DETENTION CAMPS FOR JAPANESE, AND OUR BOMBING OF JAPAN & GERMANY?

"REPEATING THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST"???

LETTING THIS MUSLIM JIHADIST INTO AMERICA, & ELECTING HIM TWICE 

WAS OUR WORST MISTAKE

Morally perverted analogy between WW2 fleeing Nazis and Syrian refugees
JEWS WERE NOT COMING TO AMERICA
TO KILL AMERICANS

Published on Nov 20, 2015

9 reasons why comparing WW2 Jewish refugees and today's Muslim Syrian refugees is a specious and reprehensible analogy.
The latest from the delusional, suicidal or just plain stupid left is that refusing to take Syrian refugees is the same as refusal to save Jews from Hitler in WW2. And when Obama whines "we don't want to take in widows and children", we know 80% are fighting age males and he (Obama) just doesn't want his grand jihad schemes thwarted or limited.
Why Syrian refugees NOT = to Jewish refugees WW2
a. Jews were not a terror threat; there is evidence terrorists are hiding among Syrian refugees. FBI says we cannot vet them. Obama’s own DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson actually said “we don’t know a whole lot” about Syrian refugees coming into America, and that DHS has “no active protocol” for properly screening them. Paris killers came as “refuges” http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/franc... 

b. Jews were singled out for persecution by the Nazis, not (initially) fleeing an ongoing war. 
c. Jews had nowhere to go; Syrian refugees should have many places to go. 
d. Opposition to Jewish refugees was “racial”; opposition to Syrian refugees is based on security concerns. 
e. Many of the Syrian “refugees” are neither Syrian, nor refugees. 
f. The Jewish refugees had communities willing and able to resettle them; the Syrian refugees may not
See full article here about above from Breitbart http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com...
additionally: 
g. Obama has already admitted a million + Muslims under the radar to USA, 25% of whom support violent jihad.http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com...
h. Islamic goal is conquest by invasion this way principle of Islam, Hiraj, conquest by invasion.
i. Why does Obama want this? Obama is not asleep. He is not delusional or stupid or naive. His father was Muslim. He was educated in Indonesian Muslim schools. Rev Wright says Obama asked him to become Christian for show and not give up Islam. Why would anyone come up with any explanation for Obama other than the obvious? He is a pro Islamic jihadist. Here are 250 examples:

http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com...
+ 80% Moslems vote Democratic
+Bill and Hillary have take HUGE $ from Jihadist nations.

Obama Administration Warns Governors
About Syrian Refugees

NOT THE ONLY PERVERTER OF HISTORY

Durbin Exploits Holocaust, Jewish Refugees & Others;
Calls For Importation Of Syrians; 10-1-2015

Published on Oct 1, 2015

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin exploits the story of the SS St. Louis - a vessel carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution sent back to Europe - to push the agenda of President Barack Hussein Obama to import at least twenty thousand "refugees" from Syria.

SEE: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

Obama to New U.S. Citizens: Syrian Refugees Like Jewish Refugees of WWII

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/22153-obama-to-new-u-s-citizens-syrian-refugees-like-jewish-refugees-of-wwii; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Speaking Tuesday at a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., President Obama took the opportunity to lecture the newly minted Americans and subtly criticize Republican presidential candidates about immigration in general, and the issue of Muslim immigration in particular.

“In the Syrian refugee today, we should see the Jewish refugee of World War II,” Obama declared, in an obvious reference to the incident when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to admit Jews into the United States, sealing their fate, as they were then returned to Europe and Hitler’s death camps.

The president's analogy fails, however, in one critical respect.

Not one person at the time believed that the Jews asking for admission into America in an effort to escape persecution of the Nazis in Germany were any threat whatsoever to commit murderous acts of terrorism inside the United States. On the other hand, not one person can assure us today that no ISIS terrorists would be among the genuine Syrian refugees fleeing persecution of those same terrorists in the Middle East.

“How quickly we forget,” Obama intoned in his speech Tuesday. “One generation passes, two generations pass and we don’t remember where we came from and suggest that there is ‘us’ and there is ‘them’ — not remembering that we used to be ‘them.’”

While immigrants have certainly made many positive contributions to America, Obama’s comments promote the commonly held view that all Americans are descended from immigrants. This is true only if one calls those present in the country at the time of the American Revolution (except for the American Indians) “immigrants.” When the first federal census was taken in 1790, the total white population was 80 percent British. Almost all the rise in population until the 1840s was what is referred to as a “natural,” or non-immigration, increase.

So, why does Obama so strongly favor ever increasing immigration? Before his election in 2008, he boldly predicted that his presidency would result in the “fundamental transformation” of America. One can safely infer that Obama sees open borders — or at least a massive increase in immigration — as an important element in effecting that transformation.

Obama appeared to make that connection clear to the new citizens: “We cannot say it loudly or often enough: Immigrants revitalize a new America." (Emphasis added.)

In September, Obama launched an effort to get the almost nine million legal immigrants in the country to apply for citizenship. Since he captured 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, with much of that coming from naturalized citizens, it is clear that there is a political motivation in the Democratic Party’s advocacy of a “path to citizenship”: The majority of virtually all immigrants of recent years vote for Democrats.

Actually, this is not totally new. With improvements in transportation after 1880, the source of immigration into the United States shifted from northern and western Europe to include millions from southern and eastern Europe and from Asia — principally Japan and China. These “new immigrants,” as they were called, from nations such as Italy and Poland, tended to swell the ranks of the Democratic Party and the growing cities of the North, such as Chicago and New York.

In the 1920s, the Republican Party won three consecutive presidential landslide elections. By 1928, some were even wondering if the Democratic Party would soon “go the way of the Whigs”— that is, cease to exist. But, in that 1928 election, while Democrat Al Smith of New York was drubbed nationally for the party’s third consecutive defeat, he did carry the 12 of the largest cities in the country. This laid the groundwork for the Democrats to emerge as the dominant political party in the country, winning five consecutive presidential elections, with huge majorities in Congress until 1947.

By the 1960s, the children and grandchildren of these immigrants had begun to shift their loyalties to the Republican Party. Beginning in 1968, the GOP was clearly in ascent, winning five of six presidential elections and taking control of Congress in the 1994 elections.

But the seeds of a Democratic comeback were sowed in 1965. Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy explained in 1988 what happened, and why the future looked so bright for his party, despite having just lost their third presidential election in a row, and five of the last six:

The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.

This explains why Obama is so intent on not only maintaining, but expanding, that flood of immigration from poor countries. The immigrants to America before the Great Society largely came to work — whether they were from Europe to work in the growing factories of the northeastern United States, or those from Asian nations such as China and Japan, who traded poverty for a job in America. And job prospects have drawn millions since the Great Society, as well.

However, the differences between the pre- and the post-Great Society immigrations are important to note. Immigrants before the Great Society had no choice but to work to survive. Today, the modern welfare state constructed by Lyndon Johnson and expanded since by Democrats and many Republicans, has created a large class dependent on government programs. This “underclass” of welfare dependents can be expected to continue to vote for the politicians who provide these social programs.

This, in a nutshell, is why Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other such “progressive” politicians support never-ending waves of immigration.

But even more ominous is that these hordes of immigrants will provide the votes to keep in power politicians who want to “fundamentally transform” America, including those shifting more power to international organizations by diminishing the patriotic resistance to the loss of American national sovereignty. Whereas the immigrants prior to the Great Society tended to assimilate and become patriotic Americans, the large numbers of the immigrants who have arrived in the country since have resisted assimilation. As Obama said, “Immigrants revitalize a new America.”

A new America, remade in the image created by Barack Obama, and those like him who favor the abandonment of the old America.

THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS CHALLENGED BY ONE IN CONGRESS

THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS

VIDEO: 

Published on Dec 16, 2015

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) has introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the House that “the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who celebrate Christmas” amid warnings from the right that religion is being pushed out of the holiday. http://www.infowars.com/house-republi...