The Media Refused to Cover This, So We Will ~ Ep. 1404 ~ The Dan Bongino Show

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode in his Show Notes (a.k.a. Newsletter!):

In this episode, I discuss the dramatic hearing in Arizona yesterday and the intentional media black out. I also discuss another chilling episode where a public figure was caught violating her own edicts.

As Dan will tell you, and often does during his intro segments, it is definitely a packed show today!  He's never wrong, and actually, I think all of his episodes are packed with information that we need, to counter the lies and gaslighting by the fake news organizations in the legacy mainstream media.

And as you will learn more about in this episode, "Fakebook" (actually known as Facebook, but Dan calls it Fakebook, and so will I), uses "fact checkers" from liberal third-party news sources.  So, if you are a Conservative, some liberal is sitting there sifting through your posts and trying to find problems with it, at least "misinformation" in their liberal viewpoint.  Unfortunately, sometimes their liberal bent is so slanted, they actually characterize something as nonfactual or misinformation, when it isn't.  That happened to Candace Owens.  And Candace fought back! And she won!  Just wait until you hear what she claimed, and Fakebook deemed it to be false.  Dan will tell you what it was that she said, and you'll definitely be thinking the factcheckers are working with a double-digit IQ at the best!

Dan's "this will nuke your bagels" segment was a definite "bagel nuker" in this episode!  More evidence from Nevada of the gigantic election malfeasance that went on in November 2020.  Dan explains what somebody could do if they wanted to commit election fraud.  Let's just get right to the point:  The mail in votes, the lack of a requirement for valid IDs to vote, or the lack of signature checking, all things that could and should be fixed, made it so that this election was ripe for massive malfeasance and fraud to take place.

Finally, I want to comment on Dan's segment on the Covid-19 restrictions, and data that may show something different from what we're being told about the lethality of the Corona virus.   You have to wonder about those politicians that restrict our actions, but then they break their mandated restrictions.  If dining out in a restaurant is so dangerous, then why would they do that?  Are they just stupid, or are they lying to us?  It has to be one or the other, right?  I definitely agree with Dan on that!  (You'll have to watch this episode to find out which one Dan thinks it is.)

Because I know that Dan Bongino would prefer that I embed the Rumble.com video here, I am now doing that! It finally came to me how to do it, and I am very pleased, because it doesn't require me to use the JavaScript code to do it! So, when you are watching, you will not be seeing it via youtube.com again. Nope, not here. Ever!  No more screwtube embedded video here! Forevs! So, it's now RUMBLE all the way, Dan.  For Dan's show page on Rumble.com, click here.

Be sure to see the SHOW NOTES for Episode 1404 for related news stories.

Looking for news? The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information.

VIDEO: Criminals on Death Row are probably saying, "Just Shoot Me"

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

'No help coming': State preps citizens for EMP attack ~ By F. Michael Maloof

In February 2013, Congressman Trent Franks introduced the SHIELD Act in the House of Representatives and established in the U.S. House of Representatives the EMP Caucus.

The SHIELD Act stands for Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage. It calls on industry and government to develop, promulgate and implement standards and processes that are necessary to address the electric grid’s current vulnerabilities and shortcomings that would be affected by an EMP.

Franks has been trying to get the SHIELD Act into law since 2011. In the last session of Congress, it passed the House but failed in the Senate. His efforts stem from findings of the congressional EMP commission which spelled out in considerable detail the cascading impact of an EMP on the electrical grid system and its catastrophic impact on life-sustaining critical infrastructures that depend on it.

Experts agree that if there were an EMP event, the U.S. could see some 90 percent of its population affected. Experts believe food, water, energy and other supply systems could be inoperational, possibly for periods extending to years.

Okay, here are the key words: "No help coming." That should be very concerning to all of us. There may be a reason why no help would come if there was an EMP attack on the United States, though. There seems to be people that refuse to believe it could ever happen. From the article:

State Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, was one of 17 lawmakers who voted against the original legislation, criticizing the focus on a catastrophe that he said was a very remote possibility.

“Really, we already have a major catastrophe in the state and that’s called our schools falling apart, our roads falling apart and we should be fixing those things,” he said. “Not living in some fantasy world worrying about some unquantified attack or some disaster that’s not gonna happen.”

I suspect that this Rep. Chad Campbell, a Democrat who sounds like he's pretty progressive, would probably never understand the EMP threat, possibly just because it has been written about so extensively on wnd.com, and I do not consider that to be a "remote possibility" at all! Or, perhaps the representative, and many like him, have never bothered to read any of the multiple reports and briefings that have been produced by the EMP Commission, such as their Executive Report. Here is a snip from the Abstract of that report, found on page 5:

Several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication.

EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.  (Emphasis my own.)

It does, however, illustrate one major reason why nothing has been done on the federal level,  It could be related to the ignorance about the plausibility of one of our enemies having the ability to launch a nuclear weapon into space, and detonating it right above the United States.

Keeping in mind that our current President and many of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are not pro-military, it might explain why the SHIELD Act passed in the House last year, but went nowhere in the Senate.

Well, there is one thing that We the People can do to help prevent such a catastrophic event from happening, or at least to the magnitude that could be the reality right now.  You know what that is, and you know when we can do something about it:  It is called the Midterm Election this November 2014.  We must vote out the Representatives and Senators, mostly Democrats, but even some of the progressive Republicans, too, that are keeping this country from protecting itself.  Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• April 9, 2014 ~ DHS study: North Korea capable of EMP attack on U.S. ~ By F. Michael Maloof

Long-suppressed report concludes communist nation can deliver on threats

• February 10, 2014 ~ Approaching Iranian warships raise EMP threat

Experts: U.S. 'defenseless' against high-altitude explosion

• February 1, 2014 ~ North Korea EMP attack could destroy U.S. – right now

There may be nothing that we can do to stop such a tragedy from happening (except for maybe prayer). What really does matter is that you prepare yourself for an event that could feasibly happen.

*    *    *    *

'No help coming': State preps citizens for EMP attack

F. Michael Maloof

By F. Michael Maloof

April 28, 2014

From wnd.com

WASHINGTON – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed legislation to require the state’s Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to prepare materials outlining what citizens need to know to deal with either a natural or man-made electromagnetic pulse event that could knock out the vulnerable electrical grid system over a wide geographical region.

The legislation, SB 1476, was introduced by Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa. It includes the type and quantity of food, water and medical supplies that each person should stockpile in case an EMP occurs over the U.S.

The legislation, however, doesn’t require actual hardening of the grid within the state.

“In our lifetimes the emergencies we’ve seen have been local emergencies, and really all we have to do is be prepared enough to hang on until help arrives,” Farnsworth said at the time he introduced it last February. “With an EMP, there’s no help coming.”

Under the legislation that now is law, the Arizona Division of Emergency Management is to post on its website recommendations such as the type and amount of supplies residents should stockpile to be prepared for an EMP event.

Farnsworth’s more immediate concern was the prospect of an EMP triggered by the detonation of a high-altitude nuclear weapon. The EMP would have the effect of knocking out the vulnerable grid system and any unprotected electronics.

“My hope is that by bringing this out, we’ll start discussions and come to the realization that as a government we can’t feed all these people, but as responsible citizens we need to do our part and make individual preparations,” he said at the time he introduced the legislation.

A co-sponsor of the legislation, Don Shooter, R-Yuma, had criticized the federal government for not taking a similar public education program.

~~~ READ MORE on wnd.com ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

AP: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot, 6 killed in rampage

A terribly tragic shooting occurred early Saturday afternoon that shook the country. It happened in Tucson, Arizona. I was looking for the story, and my google search found this one for me, where FoxNews.com had picked up this Associated Press story.

Before I tell you what I thought of this news article, I do want to pass on my condolences to all of the families that lost a loved one, or that have somebody fighting for life in the hospital. It was a horrible and senseless act of violence.

But here is what really bothered me about this story, and the way it was written. Just for starters, they spelled the name of the alleged shooter both as Jared Laugher and Jared Loughner, and one time they did that in the same paragraph:

The suspect's exact motivation was not clear, but a former classmate described Laugher as a pot-smoking loner who had rambling beliefs about the world. Federal law enforcement officials were poring over versions of a MySpace page that belonged to Jared Loughner and over a YouTube video published weeks ago...

But, if that was not bad enough - clearly the editor dropped the ball on that - the story goes on and on about vitriolic political rhetoric and violence against politicians and lawyers. It was what Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said that seemed so creepy. He was really pushing the vitriol and violence thing, and you know who he was trying to blame from this statement: "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government." Am I out of line to guess that when he said "out of certain mouths," he was either talking about certain conservative talk radio hosts, or possibly even Sarah Palin? Or maybe he is still upset about Arizona's SB 1070, Gov. Jan Brewer's immigration legislation. Sure, Sheriff, way to spread that vitriol.

So, once again, before all the facts are in, people - or so-called journalists - are trying to blame conservative talk radio for the violent act in Tucson. However, from what we read in this column about the alleged shooter, Jared What-Ever-His-Last-Name-Is, tends to fit the profile of an anarchist:

High school classmate Grant Wiens, 22, said Loughner seemed to be "floating through life" and "doing his own thing."

"Sometimes religion was brought up or drugs. He smoked pot, I don't know how regularly. And he wasn't too keen on religion from what I could tell," Wiens said.

I'll guarantee you that as more facts come out about the gunman, there will be no doubt that he is not a Conservative Right-wing Christian. I'm just sayin'....


UPDATE:
January 9, 2010 at 23:45 CST

Here is the complete video of the statement by Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

Video provided by Attention101 on January 09, 2011

Furthermore, from a story on the Christian Science Monitor, we have this:

A possible link between Jared Lee Loughner, the primary suspect in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and American Renaissance, the publication of an anti-immigration group, offers potential new insights into what may have caused the 22-year-old Arizonan to carry out the attack, which killed six people and wounded more than a dozen outside a Tucson, Ariz. stripmall on Saturday.

The CSMonitor story continues on to say:

American Renaissance is the publication of the The New Century Foundation, described by the Anti-Defamation League as a "self-styled think tank." The ADL, on its website, calls American Renaissance a "white supremacist journal and companion Website" that "promotes pseudoscientific studies that attempt to demonstrate the intellectual and cultural superiority of whites and publishes articles on the supposed decline of American society because of integrationist social policies."

It turns out that my hunches were correct! And we can say, Jared Lee Loughner isn't your typical American, and he's definitely not a Tea-partier, that would turn to violence because of the "vitriolic political rhetoric." 

Therefor, my belief is that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik may just be your typical liberal!

RELATED STORY:
The Sheriff's Vitriol ~ By John Kubicek


AP: Arizona Rep. Giffords shot, 6 killed in rampage

FoxNews.com

Published January 08, 2011 | Associated Press


Associated Press Writers Pauline Arrillaga in Tucson, Jacques Billeaud, Bob Christie and Paul Davenport in Phoenix, and Espo, Matt Apuzzo, Eileen Sullivan, Adam Goldman and Charles Babington in Washington contributed to this report.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)

TUCSON, Ariz. – Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head Saturday by a gunman who opened fire outside a grocery store during a meeting with voters, killing a federal judge and five others in a rampage that rattled the country and left Americans questioning whether divisive politics had pushed the suspect over the edge.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Giffords was the target of a gunman whom he described as mentally unstable and possibly acting along with an accomplice. He said Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including Arizona's chief federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and an aide for the Democratic lawmaker. He said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

The sheriff pointed to the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country as he denounced the shooting that claimed several of his friends as victims, including U.S. District Judge John Roll. The judge celebrated Mass on Saturday morning like he does every day before stopping by to say hello to his good friend Giffords.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," the sheriff said. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."  [Emphasis my own]

READ FULL STORY at FoxNews.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Arizona in the crosshairs ~ By Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo writes about Obama's war on Arizona. It's all about Obama wanting open borders. With a substantial majority of Americans siding with Arizona on their immigration law (S.B. 1070), why would Obama and Eric Holder be trying to stop the Arizona law from going into affect on July 29? As Tom opines, "It is quite conceivable that President Obama has already decided to not seek a second term in 2012 and therefore can afford to ignore public opinion..." 

Of course, there is another possibility that I've been wondering about. Maybe Obama isn't planning on running in 2012 for the reason that there won't be an election, or that by the time 2012 comes along, the U.S. will already part of a "New World Order." Oh, of course, I know many of you will think that could never happen here! But then, just a few years ago, who would have ever thought a Marxist would ever become President? Just sayin'...

If the Arizona law is struck down in federal court, and if similar efforts by Arizona lawmakers aimed at protection against foreign invasion are blocked, there will be consequences that are very unpleasant. When lawful authority cannot or will not protect citizens against violence and invasion, at some point "vigilante justice" will fill the gap, and it likely will not be limited to the "observe and report" rules of engagement followed by the original Minutemen patriots of 2005.

It is quite conceivable that President Obama has already decided to not seek a second term in 2012 and therefore can afford to ignore public opinion and "do the right thing" by his own compass – not only on border security and amnesty but all across the board. The problem for the nation is that his compass is set on the goal of a socialist America within a new international socialist order where borders – and the Constitution's limits on his power – are of little consequence.

By Tom Tancredo

Posted: July 17, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In Phoenix this past week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton heard opening arguments in a motion to grant a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of Arizona's new law aimed at illegal immigration. The new law will take effect on July 29.

Next week the same judge will hear arguments in two other lawsuits against the Arizona law, one brought by Obama's Justice Department and the other by the ACLU and two open-borders groups.

The argument of the Obama lawsuit is that Arizona has invaded legal territory reserved exclusively for the federal government – enforcement of federal immigration law. But, oddly, the shallowness and hypocrisy of this claim was laid bare by none other than Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement in Laredo, Texas, on the same day as the court hearing in Phoenix.

Napolitano announced that the Department of Homeland Security is releasing $51 million in grants to Arizona and several other states as part of Operation Stonegarden, a program began in 2006 to help local law enforcement deal with crime in border regions. Arizona will get $13.8 million, Texas $17.5 million and California $12.2 million.

Consider the significance of the fact that these federal funds are administered by Homeland Security, not the Department of Justice. The federal government – authorized by an act of Congress – is admitting local law enforcement is dramatically impacted by open borders and needs help. So, DHS now offers financial assistance to enable local law enforcement to pay overtime and purchase needed equipment such as night-vision goggles, so local police can better cope with the byproducts of federal open-borders policies.

Lost in this scramble for federal dollars is the lesson about the relationship between local crime rates and border security. When the Border Patrol in Del Rio, Texas, and Yuma, Arizona, implemented Operation Zero Tolerance and started prosecuting and putting in jail all the people apprehended crossing the border illegally – instead of the traditional practice of merely pushing them back into Mexico without any jail time – not only did border crossings drop by 70 percent, local crime in those border towns dropped dramatically.

Evidently, it is all right to spend federal dollars to help local law enforcement cope with crime created by federal open-borders policies, but it is not all right for a state to protect itself against those same criminals by enforcing federal immigration law and asking the federal government to deport persons arrested for local crime – which is what the Arizona law tries to do.

It is now clear that the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder have declared war on Arizona's attempts to protect itself from the border invasion. Obama will not protect Arizona's borders, and Holder wants to prevent Arizona from protecting itself.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Idiots in high places ~ By Barry Farber

I first heard about the possible deportation of Mosab Hassan Yousef in a column by Joseph Farah back in early June. So, Barry Farber has it exactly right about the idiots in high places, and it is unbelievable that Janet Napolitano was given the job as Secretary of Homeland Security. (And, what a bunch of morons in the Senate who confirmed her for the position!)  It is even more unbelievable she hasn't yet been replaced! Oh, wait, there probably is a plausible reason for why Obama hasn't gotten rid of her yet. Obama needs another crisis, so he needs to keep her in the position of "securing the homeland," and probably assuring that the United States is attacked again.

And while reading this column, I had a thought that made me chuckle. I realized what an ironic twist it was that Obama picked Napolitano for the job of the Secretary of Homeland Security, because it was when she opted to take the assignment, meaning that she had to resign as Governor of Arizona. And we all know what that lead to. As Arizona Secretary of State, Jan Brewer was next in line to become Governor to finish the term. Yes, so Obama gets his DHS boss who is probably even dumber than Joe Biden, leaving his worst nightmare, Jan Brewer, down in Arizona to sign S.B. 1070. What an ironic twist of fate! Just sayin'...

And the media covering all this with a straight face is just as scary as the espionage-illiterate Napolitano. Doesn't she have anybody around her with the brains and guts to say, "Hey, Chief! Maybe this guy deserves a high-five and not a heave-ho!"

The Department of Homeland Security, according to American media reports, withdrew its deportation demand without explanation. Bravo! Once, an Italian invasion unit involved in NATO exercises mistakenly landed in Kristianstad, Sweden, instead of the intended Kristiansund, Norway. Sweden isn't even a member of NATO. Oops, wrong country!

And the Italians never even offered to explain why they quickly withdrew.

Would you?

By Barry Farber

Posted: July 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

America's economy is in bad shape. But the country's economy is in better shape than its mentality.

In the 1850s, a traveling theatrical group arrived in the beautiful mountain town of Asheville, N.C., for a series of performances. They hired some local people to help with props, stage settings, etc. The first act ended with a massacre; one of the actors pulled out a gun and shot four other actors who fell to the floor. And the curtain descended.

One of the local men burst out upon stage and yelled, "I live in this town. I ain't no traveling actor, and I gotta tell you this whole damned thing is a fraud. Those people ain't dead. Why, the minute that curtain fell, they all got right back up and dusted themselves off, and now they're all back there walking around just like you and me!"

Mosab Hassan Yousef

Not exactly a good advertisement for the mentality of that era and area, but chillingly neck-and-neck with the mentality of the American government today. Mosab Hassan Yousef is the now-famous son of the founder of the terrorist group Hamas who pretended to be a terrorist himself but was secretly spying for Israel. His book, "Son of Hamas," describes his work pretending to be a loyal Jew-hating terrorist while feeding vital information to Israel's Shin Bet agency the whole time, and finally converting to Christianity and warning about the evils of Islamic terrorism.

In a shameful and breathtaking burst of ignorance, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security sought to have Yousef deported. Why? Well, there it was in black and white: He admitted in his book that he worked closely with Hamas! If Napolitano's deportation demand had gone through, and if Yousef could obtain excellent disguise, he might remain alive five minutes after his arrival back in the Middle East. And it was only after a cadre of sane and intelligent Americans, led by former CIA Director James Woolsey and Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn and his GOP colleagues, came storming to the rescue that Napolitano "got it" and dropped the deportation effort.

This is the most alarming lack of sophistication in government I can remember. Of course, Yousef "worked with Hamas," you irredeemable idiots! That's what spies do. They pretend to be on the side they're not on in order to be trusted so they can shovel more information to the side they are on; in this case, our side. I recall when we understood the two-plus-two-equals-four of world affairs. The unswerving stupidity of the Department of Homeland Security makes me want to plunge into the nostalgia tank and forget about coming up for air. There was something called communism, the Soviet Union, Moscow – you remember, Janet; it was in all the papers. Whenever anybody – forget spies on our side – whenever anybody escaped communism and made it to America, he got asylum as reliably as detergent boxes back then offered free glassware.

If I were a congressman or a senator and Janet Napolitano were the one we were "hearing," I'd ask her if she thought James Cagney, Vincent Price, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre should be locked up because they played bad guys in movies. If she responded in the negative, I'd ask her to explain the difference between any one of them and the valiant and valuable Yousef "acting" as a loyal Hamas follower, complete with gun, hanging out with his dad over at Yasser Arafat's. And, by the way, saving countless Israeli and American lives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The war for Arizona – and America ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph writes, "Yet, if you listen to Barack Obama, you would think the real crisis in America today is that the Arizona Legislature and governor have taken a modest action to try to protect their citizens." There is no doubt that Barack Obama is not interested in enforcing the immigration laws already on the books or securing the border, which is why Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature needed to pass S.B. 1070, so that they would be able to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.

In the video below, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona says that securing the border is not the only thing that needs to be done. He emphasizes the need to also be enforcing the immigration laws.

The good folks of the State of Arizona are very lucky to have a courageous governor, legislature, and at least one good sheriff who is not afraid to enforce the laws. Just sayin'...

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ - What HE will do about SB 1570

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

A few years ago, George Bush justified amnesty for illegal aliens because they would "do the jobs Americans wouldn't do." Today, with 40 million Americans out of work, I wonder what the justification would be?

Consider the fact that about 20 million illegal aliens are currently working in America today. By sending them back home, the unemployment rate for Americans would be cut in half.

But nobody in Washington talks about that.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: July 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

While Americans were celebrating Independence Day weekend, news of a gun battle near the Arizona-Mexico border, rivaling anything from the old "Wild West" days, wasn't getting much attention.

Here's what you likely missed: Rival Mexican drug gangs shot it out 12 miles outside of Arizona, leaving 21 dead. At least six others were wounded.

About the same time, elsewhere along the border, gunmen killed an assistant attorney general for Chihuahua state and one of her bodyguards. After being chased through the darkened city streets of Ciudad Juarez by assailants with automatic weapons, Sandra Salas Garcia was murdered. A second bodyguard was wounded. Salas was responsible for evaluating the work of prosecutors and special investigations units in Chihuahua.

That weekend's murder spree brought the death toll due to drug violence along the border since 2006 to 23,000. That's about half the number of Americans killed in Vietnam in a decade.

In Ciudad Juarez, more than 4,300 people have been murdered in that same time period.

There's a war going on a few miles south of the U.S. border – and no one in Washington seems to be the least bit concerned.

They're more concerned with losing their 9-year-long war in Afghanistan.

Go figure.

Six weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was cutting millions of dollars intended for the high-tech "virtual fence" along the Mexican border. The project began in 2005 and was supposed to be complete by now – covering the entire 2,000-mile border. So far, $1.1 billion has been spent with nothing to show except two small testing sites in the Arizona desert.

Meanwhile, talk of amnesty is back in the air.

Congress doesn't have the guts to approve it in a volatile election year, but Barack Obama is threatening to misuse his executive authority to impose the unpopular measure.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Greatest obstacle to border enforcement , Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Do you know what I think I learned from Chuck's column today? Chuck is as angry about Obama's lack of action for stopping illegal immigration as I am! And isn't just stopping the flow of Mexicans coming illegally into the United States that is worrying us so much. It is also the fact that there also could be terrorists from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen that could make their way in to the country.

But that is still just the tip of the iceberg, for there is another insidious situation that Chuck focuses on here. It is the global elitist vision of a "country" with no borders that Chuck is most worried about:

What hope do we have that the feds will finally secure our national borders when their primary leader is a globalist who espouses "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders but by our bond"?

So, without protecting our borders, we have the hoards of people coming into this country that use our schools and hospitals and do not give anything in return, the contraband such as drugs and weapons, terrorists, and who knows, maybe even something like the swine flu. And our president doesn't want to do anything about it? That just doesn't make sense, does it? It just doesn't sound right. Just sayin'...

May 20, 2010 — Michelle Malkin on Fox and Friends: Immigration and more

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Will you believe and follow the philosophical precedent of globalists like President Obama, who said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

Or will you join me and millions of other American citizens who believe and follow the definition offered by other leaders like President Ronald Reagan, who said, "A nation without borders is not a nation."

By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series on solutions to America's illegal immigration problem.)

There is one gigantic obstacle that stands before America and our immigration crisis. And, quite frankly, it is in my estimation an insurmountable roadblock that will inhibit any resolution that enforces current immigration law, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants. That barrier is not a people, policy or protocol. It is our president.

I seriously doubt that our current commander in chief can lead our nation out of this immigration mess because of a single fundamental and philosophical difference he has with most Americans, previous administrations and even our founders. President Obama declared it in the Rose Garden two weeks ago in the presence of Mexico's President Felipe Calderon and an international television audience. And it seemed to escape the attention of most. It was one of the most un-American, unconstitutional and radical statements to date from Obama's presidency. He said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

His statement reminded me of what I wrote in my new expanded paperback edition of "Black Belt Patriotism": "For better or worse, we have new leadership and a new direction for America. It's a kinder and gentler Washington, to whom the global war on terror has turned into an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' It's a softer and relational Washington, with whom international bonds are more important than national borders and boundaries." Now we have more proof from the horse's mouth.

Obama's statement in the Rose Garden is not merely a stand against Arizona's or any other states' immigration enforcement laws. It is a stand against his presidential oath, our Constitution, our national identity, security and sovereignty. For the commander in chief to go limp on border rigidity, especially when the feds themselves have been reporting for years about escalating border troubles and recently warned of foreign "terrorists" breach of U.S. southern borders (including those coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen), is for the White House itself to jeopardize our national security.

Just a week ago at West Point, the president declared, "We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation." Our relatively young commander in chief gave new marching orders to a new generation and graduating class at the military academy, saying, "The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times ... combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds." His language seems eerily reminiscent to the U.S. Navy's new contested recruiting slogan, "A global force for good." Is Obama leading our country or a global government? Unfortunately, he is proving himself to be far more than a socialist – rather he is a globalist, and that is even more dangerous to our national security and sovereignty.

The White House website confessed that Obama's new National Security Strategy released last Thursday is "a blueprint for pursuing the world that we seek by outlining a strategy to rebuild our foundations, promote a just and sustainable international order … and universal values." It plays down the threat of terror, trumps up (24 times) the threat of "climate change," calls for more "global leadership," "international cooperation" and "partnerships," and regards "American innovation as a foundation of American power" rather than military might. Does that sound like a national security strategy or the beginnings of an international global-governance manifesto?

Does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G20 conference this past year he also pushed world leaders even to reshape the global economy?

Still, Obama knows he is in the political border pickle of his life. And that coddling the Mexican president, doing nothing about border violence and remaining passive in the midst of escalating national debate on illegal immigration is a recipe for political disaster and Democrat re-election demise. So, last Tuesday, the White House unexpectedly announced that Obama will deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to America's southwest boundary. What timing, after he has resisted repeated calls for weeks from border state lawmakers to deploy 6,000 military personnel.

The fact is the deployment of up to 1,200 National Guard troops is a political appeasement, carefully crafted as a temporary noncombatant assignment restricted to providing only intelligence and training. You can also bet it's not a coincidence that the White House suddenly announced a $500 million supplement for border enhancement at the very same time that Senate Republicans began introducing several border security amendments to a $60 billion war spending bill. That Oval Office has amazing timing, doesn't it?!

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The Obama race card ~ By Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo discusses the use of the race card by the Obama camp and how it could prevent impeachment if it is found that the law was broken regarding the job offer to Joe Sestak. And though Tom didn't mention it, could it also be the reason why so many people deny that Barack Obama is possibly not Constitutionally eligible for office? Could those people that may know the truth be keeping it to themselves because they are afraid of being called racist? Just sayin'...

Will Obama be the first black president to be impeached? It is possible, if the White House job offer to Mr. Sestak is traced to the Oval Office. Will that case be investigated and pursued on the facts, or will it be swept under the rug to protect the first black president? That a possible impeachment inquiry will be evaluated and debated as a "racial issue" shows how far down this dark road we have come.

By Tom Tancredo

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Playing the race card has worked for the Democrat party for 50 years, but can it work to protect Obama from an impeachment investigation?

We are all familiar with the use of race by the Obama campaign team to get him the Democratic Party nomination in 2008. The Obama campaign used it first against Hillary Clinton, and she had no defense against it.

The argument for which Hillary and Bill Clinton had no convincing answer was that "the time has come for an African-American president." The Clinton argument in rebuttal – "Yes, but he's not the one because he's not qualified" – could only be uttered in muted tones.

To liberals in 2008, it was indeed time for a particular black president, and while Obama might not be the most qualified man to ever run for the office, he was qualified because of his agenda. "He's one of us. He's a progressive."

Many Americans were not only open to the idea, they were enthusiastic about it. Polling data showed that Obama's race was a huge positive, not a negative.

An empty suit in the oval office?
Obama lacks qualifications

Obama's lack of executive experience and lack of substantive accomplishments was also turned into a positive factor. He was blank slate, and Americans were invited to project their own hopes and dreams onto that blank slate.

Obama's election in 2008 thus served to confirm what liberals already knew, that white guilt over America's involvement in slavery and mistreatment of blacks in the Jim Crow South could be used to deflect concerns over his lack of qualifications to hold the highest office in the land. As it turned out, he did not get a majority of white votes in the election, but combined with the 97 percent support among black voters, it was enough to win.

We should not be surprised that 18 months later, Americans are still being asked to ignore his record and his lack of accomplishments. Playing the race card worked so well in the campaign, the White House and its allies are now trying to use it to silence criticism of his policies and performance.

Republicans were not the first to object to this tactic. It was 1984 Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro who said early in the 2008 primary contest, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." But once Democrats saw how well the race card worked, it became standard practice to use it any time Obama got into trouble.

The problem now for Obama and the Democratic Party is that the tactic is wearing thin. The problem for the country is, we must endure two years and six months more of it.

In 2010 the use of the race card to defend Obama has become predictable and nauseating. Americans who object to the government's takeover of 16 percent of our economy through Obamacare? They're racists, of course. Citizens who say Obama has reneged on his promise of transparency in government? They're racists. You object to adding $10 trillion to the debt our children and grandchildren must pay off? Well, you wouldn't feel that way if Obama were white, right?

Since playing the race card obviously has been so successful for Obama, that message and theme has been adopted by others as well. If you do not like 1 million persons slipping across our open borders each year, you must be a bigot who dislikes "brown people." The entire population of Arizona is labeled racist by the American left and targeted for a crippling boycott for wanting to enforce federal immigration laws.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Our founders' solutions for illegal immigration ~ By Chuck Norris

In this column, Chuck expounds on what the Founding Fathers had in mind when it came to deciding on how to treat the naturalization of new immigrants. He also states what the dangers are if nothing is done about immigration reform soon, which should definitely include the enforcement of the immigration laws that we have now or after reform. Arizona definitely has the right idea: Enforce the laws as they are now.

Musician Charlie Daniels put it well, when he wrote, "I don't blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal, it is flat-out wrong, and I don't care how many lala-land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons. I don't need sensitivity lessons. In fact, I don't have anything against Mexicans. I just have something against criminals, and anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal. If you don't believe it, try coming into America from a foreign country without a passport and see how far you get."

By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 17, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part One of a two-part series on solutions to America's illegal immigration problem. Next week in Part Two, Chuck will lay out our founders' and his plan for dealing with the 12 million-plus illegal immigrants in our country today.)

With his thick Austrian accent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quipped in his commencement address at Emory University last week, "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."

It seems that the whole country is taking sides in the battle over the border in Arizona. Yet it truly remains the tip of the iceberg of our immigration troubles. Spurred on by the national debate, at least 10 other states are now seeking to enact tougher illegal immigration laws.

Now, more than ever, we must protect our borders and sovereignty by providing genuine solutions to the dangers of American boundary fluidity. With estimates showing that by 2060 America will add 167 million people (37 million immigrants today will multiply into 105 million then), it is imperative for us to do more to solve this crisis. Now is the time to beat the doors of change and save the boundaries and future of America.

The federal government has miserably failed to produce a viable solution to the illegal immigrant crisis. Amnesty is not the answer. And immigration laws aren't effective if we continue to dodge or ignore them. Furthermore, globalization efforts have only confused security matters, further endangering our borders as well as our national identity – our sovereignty. And the question that keeps coming to my mind is: How is it that we can secure borders in the Middle East, but we can't secure our own?

From America's birth, our founders struggled, too, with international enemies and border troubles, from the sea of Tripoli to the Western frontier. While welcoming the poor, downtrodden and persecuted from every country, they also had to protect the sacred soil they called home from unwanted intruders.

According to the Declaration of Independence, "obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners" was one of the objections leveled against Britain that warranted the American colonists' secession. Yet even the founders themselves believed that a total open-door policy for immigrants would only lead to complete community and cultural chaos.

Under the Articles of Confederation (our "first constitution"), each state possessed the authority over naturalization. Such diversity, however, led the founders at the Constitutional Convention to shift the power of naturalization to the federal government. The Constitution therefore reads in Article I, Section 8, that Congress shall have the authority to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

We discuss and debate new ways to resolve the social crisis we call illegal immigration, but our founders again pointed the way more than 200 years ago. Like enrolling in an Ivy League school, they considered and promoted American citizenship as a high honor. James Madison shared the collective sentiment back then when he stated, "I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States." Hence, they processed applicants and selected only the ones that contributed to the building up and advancement of their grand experiment called America.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Balancing justice and compassion ~ By Dave Welch

Dave Welch brings up some excellent points. This column reminded me of what I wrote just yesterday, "Safety Net: Personal responsibility and charity should matter," where I was talking about charity (compassion) and personal responsibility (living by the rule of law). Dave is well aware that the biggest lack of compassion, by our own government, is by allowing the illegal immigration to take place for decades. And now that the system is broken, because of not abiding by our own laws (both government and businesses), we have a real problem of being able to be compassionate in how we deal with the situation. Great column, Dave!

What I do believe is that immigration reform should be off the table until those clamoring for it the loudest first commit to closing and securing our borders to the fullest extent of our ability. Build fences and/or walls, tear down walk bridges, take down steps, place National Guard – or even better, U.S. Marines – on the border; whatever it takes.

Once that is accomplished, we must deal with the terribly dysfunctional immigration and guest-worker process that once worked but now allows terrorists in and keeps out solid, educated and professional would-be citizens who would be an asset to this nation.

If you have broken the law, it must be made right. If you are working to change or enforce the law, keep mindful of your mind and motives so we can balance justice and compassion.

By Dave Welch

Posted: May 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The rising tensions surrounding the immigration crisis are once again placing front and center the issue of just how tenuous is the balance between the principles of justice and compassion. The reality is that one is impossible without the other, yet we constantly try to separate them.

For example, the "law and order" mindset says that if you broke the law to get here and have likely broken numerous laws while here, you have no right to stay, nor any children you brought or bore here.

Contrarily, the "compassionate" mindset says that these are all real humans who deserve to be treated with dignity and that we cannot just lock up or ship out those here illegally.

Some on both sides are right; some on both sides are wrong.

First, it is self-evident that no home, neighborhood, city, society or nation can long survive without operating under the respect for the rule of law that protects the life, liberty and property of every innocent citizen under its jurisdiction. The primary restraint that preserves the greatest freedom for the most people exists in the heart of the individual that is grounded in the acknowledgment of a personal, caring and just God.

If I assume that my every thought, every action and every word are going to be one day replayed before a righteous and holy God to weigh on His scales for my "reward," you can guarantee it will give me pause on all three fronts.

As I explained to my son, who like thousands of others returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is wrestling with the demons of combat trauma and guilt of having had to kill, they have not committed murder. If he took a life in the performance of his duties under legitimate authority in a justified context of war, that is clearly not in violation of either God's or man's laws.

However, the rage and hatred that develops for "the enemy" because of the unthinkable acts and atrocities they witnessed lead them to a condition of murder even without taking life. Are you confused? Listen to the words of Jesus Christ:

You have heard that the ancients were told, ''YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER" and "whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court." But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, "You good-for-nothing," shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

– Matthew 5:21, 22 NASB

Similarly, if our frustration with the inaction of our government on immigration turns to anger and even hatred of any who have come here illegally, we are now in danger ourselves.

Our Lord raised the bar beyond our actions to even hold us accountable for the condition of our soul, which, as we are reminded, is the spring out of which our thoughts and actions flow. If our mind, will and emotions are driven by something other than love of and loyalty to God and His commandments, we will ultimately be driven by self-interest.

Both sides of the immigration debate have significant elements of self-interest involved, not all of which is wrong or even unlawful. It is not wrong to desire what is best for my family's care and even survival; it is almost always wrong to break laws to achieve it.

It is also not wrong to want safety, security and blessings for my family that cause me to insist that people be kept out of this country who live outside the laws I must obey and who demand that I surrender property, income and freedom to accommodate them. It is wrong, however to avoid taking responsibility for being apathetic toward the inhumanity of a broken immigration system, unjust and corrupt policies of our government that harm many people, and even for our own love of cheap goods and labor.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Don't cry for me, Arizona ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Burt reflects the opinion of many people across this land that support the new Arizona immigration law. In this column, he goes after the critics of the law that seem to be able to say whatever they want to, many of them that use race-baiting, hypocrisy, and lies about what the law does.

In my opinion, it should be a criminal act for anyone to compare the new law in Arizona in any way, shape or form to what took place in Nazi Germany. Hitler, in case it slipped your mind, was arresting, torturing and murdering Germans for no other reason than that they were Jews, Catholics, gypsies, invalids and homosexuals. Members of the Gestapo weren't simply asking to look at green cards and sending non-citizens back to Poland, France and Holland. They were sending them to Auschwitz.

Ironically, Article 67 of Mexico's Immigration Law states: "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal, are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country." In spite of which, President Calderon had the gall to compare our border fence to the Berlin Wall. Nobody bothered pointing out to the jackass that there's a world of difference between building a barrier to keep illegal aliens out and erecting one to prevent one's own citizens from escaping.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: May 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

When you're a right-winger living in California, you tend to envy people who live elsewhere. For a long time, I've envied Texans. For one thing, judging by my e-mail, most of my biggest fans seem to live in the Lone Star State. But, also, aside from an occasional cretin like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texans seem to elect more than their share of stalwart conservatives.

Another state I came to admire was Oklahoma. That was after discovering that it was the only state in the Union in which Obama failed to carry a single county in 2008.

Now, of course, I've lost my heart to Arizona. At last, a state has sounded the alarm about illegal aliens. Sure it was a long time coming, but at least Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature have finally stood up for the law of the land. Even John McCain, who has spent years sounding like an immigration lawyer, jumped aboard the bandwagon.

On the other side, we have virtually every hack politician with a Hispanic last name ready and eager to display his ignorance, bigotry and lack of patriotism. I mean, really, is there an uglier, more disgusting sight than a bunch of dunderheads complaining about racial profiling when their own actions and statements are based solely on race?

Arizona has been overrun by at least half a million illegals who have placed unbearable burdens on its schools, hospitals and emergency rooms. They have made Phoenix the kidnap capital of North America and turned its countryside into an open sewer for drug smugglers. It took the cold-blooded murder of an elderly rancher before the good folks of Arizona said, enough is enough.

We keep hearing the same stale propaganda that these sneaks are the people who'll do the jobs gringos won't. Well, I have a news flash: With unemployment hovering at 10 percent, if those jobs ever existed in the past, they don't exist today. Besides, why should they get the jobs that could go to people waiting patiently for their names to be called in Ghana, Poland and Vietnam?

The only people who oppose Arizona's new law – a law based, by the way, on our own federal law – are members of the Catholic Church hierarchy who are anxious to fill church pews; drug lords who want to maintain a steady flow of product, users and salesmen; President Calderon, who wants those American dollars to continue flowing south to keep the Mexican economy afloat; American politicians with names like Hernandez and Gomez, who want to increase their power base; and punks like Mayor Gavin Newsome who represent places as left and loony as San Francisco. We shouldn't overlook the DNC, an organization so corrupt that Mafia dons attend their seminars to pick up tips from the likes of James Carville and Rahm Emanuel.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!