Now Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wants 165 Million rounds of ammunition; sign a petition to stop the fear.

Now Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wants 165 Million rounds of ammunition; sign a petition to stop the fear.(AP).By James Smith.The Department of Homeland Security, through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has requested another 33 million rounds of .223 caliber 62 grain ammunition in the base year, and for 4 subsequent years, with a limit of 165,000,000 rounds. The documents can be read here.
The base year, 2012, allotment of 33 million rounds will be due sixty days after the contract is awarded.
All the ammunition that has been contracted for purchase by the US Government in this month alone is staggering.The Prepper Podcast Radio Network has started a petition directing dialogue between the President and the American People about this matter.
Please take a moment to sign it. You can find the petition at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-the-fear/. Read the full story here.

"We don't Need Congress" - Obama Administration Already Tossed the Food Stamp Work Requirement.

"We don't Need Congress" -  Obama Administration Already Tossed the Food Stamp Work Requirement.(Heritage).By Kiki Bradley.The Obama Administration sure is getting defensive about its recent action to waive all work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash welfare program. But this isn’t the first time or the first program in which Obama Administration policy has undermined work requirements.
The welfare reform of 1996 requires that after three months on food stamps, recipients be engaged in some kind of work activity for at least 20 hours a week. Tucked away in the mammoth 2009 so-called “stimulus” spending bill was the suspension of this requirement for able-bodied adults with no children. The suspension expired on September 30, 2010. His next two budgets then requested that the suspension be extended each year. However, he did not wait for Congress to act on these requests; instead his Department of Agriculture issued waivers to 44 states and the District of Columbia freeing them from implementing the food stamp work requirement.
What has been the result?
The number of able-bodied adults without children on food stamps has doubled, increasing from 1.7 million people in 2009 to 3.9 million in 2010 and costing taxpayers an extra $400 million per year.
It’s not surprising, then, that the work requirements in the TANF program are now on the chopping block. As my colleague Robert Rector points out, liberals have a long history of opposing work requirements in welfare.
The sad outcome of the Obama Administration’s action is that millions of families on welfare will no longer be engaged in job preparation activities to help them enter the workforce and become self-sufficient. Instead, the days that welfare reform was supposed to put behind us—of cutting welfare checks to poor families and forgetting about them—are back. The future for these needy families just got bleaker.Hmmm........Obama: "All the Choices We've Made Have Been the Right Ones"Read the full story here.

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that the Obama MSM is keeping silent about.

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that the Obama MSM is keeping silent about.(Liberty Blitzkrieg).Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!
In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.
Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian. Here are some key quotes:
I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.
In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.
Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.
This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.I Would also take the time to watch this short video from one of the co-counsels on the case as to exactly what the government is arguing in court. Not a word from the mainstream media on the most important court case in American history. One that will decide the fate of a law that will effectively dismantle at least a third of The Bill of Rights.Read the full story here.

 

Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans.(RT).The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge’s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge. Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.The plaintiffs “cannot point to a single example of the military’s detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention,” Obama’s attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn’t be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it. Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.
In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later. "There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote in her 68-page ruling. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."
At the time Just Forrest made her injunction, attorney Carl Mayer told RT on behalf of the plaintiffs that, although he expected the White House to appeal, “It may not be in their best interest.” “[T]here are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law that they ought to just say, 'We're not going to appeal,’” Mayer said. "The NDAA cannot be used to pick up Americans in a proverbial black van or in any other way that the administration might decide to try to get people into the military justice system. It means that the government is foreclosed now from engaging in this type of action against the civil liberties of Americans." The original plaintiffs, who include Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges, have asked Just Forrest to make her injunction permanent. Oral arguments in the case are expected to begin this week.Read the full story here.

Obama 'Amnesty' Program Could Legalize 1.8 Million Young Immigrants.

Obama 'Amnesty' Program Could Legalize 1.8 Million Young Democrat voters Immigrants.(TL).

As many as 1.76 million young illegal immigrants could qualify for temporary legal status under President Obama’s deferred action program, says a new report from the Migration Policy Institute. 

That’s more than double the Obama administration’s initial estimate of 800,000 people who would benefit from the program. The new number reflects the Obama administration’s updated guidelines released last Friday depicting who qualifies for the temporary legal status. Initially, only young illegal immigrants under 30 who entered the country as children, graduated from high school and had no criminal record would make the cut. Now, young people who didn’t graduate or receive their G.E.D. can still apply for the legal status as long as they re-enroll in high school by the time they apply. The government will begin accepting applications online on August 15, and administration officials said the nearly $500 application fee will completely pay for the administrative costs of reviewing the applications. Those accepted will also get work permits, and will have to renew their legal status every two years.Hmmmm......Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But..."I will keep plotting"Read the full story here.

Vatican says religious liberty under attack in America.

Vatican says religious liberty under attack in America.(RA).The Vatican is alarmed at what it sees as the erosion of religious freedom in the United States, warning of a threat of “unprecedented gravity” to the Catholic Church’s “liberty and public moral witness.” Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone conveyed a message from Pope Benedict XVI in a letter to the Knights of Columbus’s annual convention in Anaheim, Calif., suggesting a concerted effort is being made to “redefine and restrict the exercise of the right to religious freedom.” The Pope has long been an admirer of the First Amendment and the balance that the American system has struck between church and state until recently, hence his particular concern. The letter warns that a brand of secularism is taking hold in America that seeks to exclude the Catholic Church from participating in the debate about issues affecting the future of the nation. It concludes urging the Knight of Columbus and other Catholic laity to counter the spread of militant secularism in American culture.Read the full story here.

Justice Scalia: Guns May be Regulated, "Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns."

Justice Scalia: Guns May be Regulated, "Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns."(NJ).Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons. "It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday.
But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted. 
When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided." 
 As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.
In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."
Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked.Hmmmm....."CHANGE"?Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But..."I will keep plotting"Read the full story here.


RELATED: 3 Steps Obama Can Take on Gun Control

New Evidence shows Hillary a mastermind behind Gunwalker.

New Evidence shows Hillary a mastermind behind Gunwalker.(Examiner).By Anthony Martin.Last week it was reported that the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were deeply involved in the scandal known as , or . Today, however, new evidence has surfaced indicating that not only was Hillary deeply involved in the scandal but was one of the masterminds behind it. According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office. Vanderboegh relates the following:

My sources say that as Hillary’s trusted subordinate, it was Shapiro who first described to the Secretary of State the details of what has become the Gunwalker Scandal. The precise extent to which Hillary Clinton‘s knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Gunwalker Plot, lies within the memories of these two men, Shapiro and Steinberg, sources say. The sources also express dismay that the Issa committee is apparently restricting itself to the Department of Justice and not venturing further afield. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, they say, needs to summon these two men and their subordinates — especially at the Mexico Desk at State — and question them under oath as to what Hillary Clinton knew about the origins of the Gunwalker Scandal and when she knew it. There is one other thing those sources agree upon. The CIA, they say, knows “everything” about the “Mexican hat dance” that became the Gunwalker Scandal.

The ‘Steinberg’ mentioned in the quote above is Hillary Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State, who was appointed directly by Barack Obama and was considered from the start to be an ‘Obama man’ whose objective was to carry out the wishes of the President in the State Department. Hillary had said of Steinberg,

Clinton said Steinberg had been a “fixture” at meetings with the National Security Council (NSC) and frequently represented the US State Department at the White House.

That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy concerning the euphemism the Administration used to designate Gunwalker, ‘strategy meetings on Mexico and the problem of drug and gun trafficking.’ Hillary’s absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico. According to sources, Hillary was obsessed with gun statistics that would prove that ’90% of the firearms used by Mexican criminals come from the United States.’ As previouly reported, that meme, repeated incessantly by Democratic Senators, Barack Obama, certan members of the ATF, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton was patently and blatantly false. The fact that they all knew it was false is borne out by the lengths to which each of the above named co-conspirators went to attempt to ‘prove’ that the 90% figure was true. Again, Vanderboegh relates the following:

My sources say that this battle of the “statistics” was taken very seriously by all players — the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players? If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them? No. This statistics mania is similar to the focus on “body counts” in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING. Why? Recall what the whistleblower ATF agents told us right after this scandal broke in the wake of the death of Brian Terry: “ATF source confirms ‘walking’ guns to Mexico to ‘pad’ statistics.”

Thus, from the beginning the scheme was to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico in order to be in a strengthened position to call for gun bans and strict gun control at a time when it was politically unpopular. Further, the scheme would involve a made-up statistic, out of thin air–90%–which then had to be proved by using civilian gun retailers along the southern border as unsuspecting pawns to walk U.S. guns into Mexico by ATF agents, straw purchasers, and others with connections to Mexican drug cartels. And the evidence points to the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the original Administration officials who was ‘in the loop’ on the scheme from the very beginning. Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere. Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries. Subscribe by clicking the links at the top of the page, or below, and you will receive free notifications of new articles plus a free newsletter.Read the full story here.

Day Three: At the Arms Trade Treaty Conference, the U.S. Speaks.

Day Three: At the Arms Trade Treaty Conference, the U.S. Speaks.(Heritage).By Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.After the dictatorial circus of the morning, the afternoon session of the ATT Conference was comparatively calm.
The lowlight was the address by Saudi Arabia, which seemed to be doing its best to outbid Egypt in the “we support Palestine” sweepstakes. No demand was too extreme: Palestinian state membership in the U.N., nuclear disarmament, no parallel meetings at the conference, an attack on Israel for not respecting the right of Palestinian self-determination in the “Occupied Territories” (someone needs to tell the Saudis that Hamas, not Israel, controls Gaza), a demand that the treaty respect the “rights of importing states” (i.e., the rights of autocracies to buy the guns they want), and the need for states to be able to import arms for “internal security” (a demand that is wide open to abuse by authoritarian regimes).
The highlights of the session were, thankfully, more numerous. Spain and New Zealand made solid statements urging that the ATT apply strictly to genuinely international arms traffic. Canada’s statement, too, was helpful on what in the U.S. would be Second Amendment grounds, though regrettably it chose to defend the legitimacy of hunting and sport shooting in the context only of the treaty’s preamble, not its scope.
And then there was the U.S. statement, made by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Thomas Countryman. As in July 2011, the U.S. spoke on behalf of the Permanent Five (P5) Members of the Security Council. The statement was banal but obviously important.
The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT.
Finally, the ATT should not enter into force until a reasonable number—Countryman suggested 65—states had ratified it, and he “expects” this number to include the main arms trading states.
Little if any of this is shocking—most surprising was the U.S. support for U.N. propaganda, i.e. activities to “promote the value” of the ATT—but a few points are worth making.
First, Countryman did not mention including small arms, light weapons, or ammunition in the ATT. Second, he made no reference at all to domestic constitutional protections or the need for the ATT to respect hunters and sport shooters and the right of personal self-defense. Finally, he emphasized the need for the national definition of the goods and services covered by the ATT.The U.S. is kicking the can down the road. But in so doing, it’s moving ever closer to a treaty that will be bad for U.S. interests and will keep U.S. diplomats busy fending off more bad ideas for years to come.Read the full story here.

2ND Amendment 'Again' under fire - Lawmakers tell Obama to back off U.N. gun treaty.

2ND Amendment 'Again' under fire - Lawmakers tell Obama to back off U.N. gun treaty.(WND).By Jack Minor.Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.
As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the path of a quiet, Marxist revolution, blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.

“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. 

“That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”
Now some 130 lawmakers, consisting of mostly Republicans, but also including Democrats such as Reps. Jason Altmire, Sanford Bishop, Jerry Costello, Danny Davis and Peter DeFazio sent off a letter to the Obama administration opposing the treaty.
The letter states that Congress is concerned the treaty could “pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
The letter goes on to declare that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.

The treaty was opposed by the Bush administration, but President Obama’s administration reversed direction on the treaty. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would support talks towards ratifying the treaty.
While the treaty is still in a draft stage, the United Nations is beginning a month-long process beginning this week to craft the final details of the treaty.The congressional letter also takes issue with the “moral equivalence” of comparing America to totalitarian regimes and calls upon the administration to break consensus and reject the treaty. It goes on to remind the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone.”
This is not the first time Congress has sent letters to the administration opposing the small arms treaty. Last year, Congress sent off a similar letter addressing many of the same concerns. This letter was signed by 12 Democrats who joined 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.
The letter stated, “The Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition.”
It went on to state, “The establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”Read the full story here.

Video - Obama Blamed “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”.But..."I will keep plotting"

Another "Obamination" - Obama uses Fourth of July naturalization ceremony to push DREAM Act.

Another "Obamination" - Obama uses Fourth of July naturalization ceremony to push DREAM Act.(Twitchy).

Hmmm.....Some way of 'celebrating' the Fourth of July?Read the full story here.

Video - Allen West - Obama Wants Americans To "Be His Slave".

"He does not want you to have the self-esteem of getting up and earning, and having that title of American. He'd rather you be his slave," Rep. Allen West.

Video - ObamaCare must die a political death.

HT: DailyCaller.

15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America

15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America.(EOTAD).By Michael Snyder.You can almost always count on the Supreme Court to do the wrong thing. In fact, just about every major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last 40 years has been bad for America. Many were hoping that the Supreme Court would strike down Obamacare, but the truth is that we all should have known better than to expect them to get something right. So now America is headed for a complete and total disaster as Obamacare is fully implemented over the next several years. Obamacare is going to absolutely shred the infrastructure of our medical system, it is going to send health insurance premiums soaring, it is going to dramatically expand the size and the scope of government, it is going to fundamentally alter the relationships between doctors and their patients and it is one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Not only that, it is also going to add about a trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade. 
So no, the Obamacare decision is not good news. Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history, and now we are stuck with it. It was a 5-4 decision to uphold Obamacare, and the swing vote was Chief Justice John Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush. After the vote today, it is hard to have any faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. Many constitutional conservatives kept voting for Republicans in the hope that the direction of the Supreme Court would change, but it hasn't. Prior to the Obama administration, Republicans controlled the White House for 20 out of 28 years. If Republicans were going to fundamentally change the nature of the Supreme Court, that was their opportunity. But it didn't happen. Instead, what we have is a Supreme Court that is dominated by judges that have very little respect for the U.S. Constitution.
When I was in law school I got to study the Supreme Court pretty closely and I quickly realized that most of the time they simply do whatever they want to do and they make up whatever reasons they can to justify their decisions. That sounds really bad, but that is the truth. And thanks to the Supreme Court, we are stuck with Obamacare - at least for now. The following are 15 reasons why the Obamacare decision is a mind blowing disaster for America....


#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?

#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars "outside the normal appropriations process" to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.

#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

#15 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will add more than a trillion dollars to government spending over the next decade. Considering the fact that the U.S. government is already drowning in debt, how in the world can we afford this?Hmmmmm......How much will your taxes INCREASE to afford this increase of Gov Debt?Read the full story here.

Political 'dysfunction' threatens US security: Panetta.

Political 'dysfunction' threatens US security: Panetta.(AP)."WASHINGTON — The "dysfunction" in the US Congress, where Republicans and Democrats have failed to compromise on debt reduction, threatens US national security, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. "One my greatest concerns as secretary is the dysfunction that we see in Washington," he said late Thursday at a ceremony in which he received an award for public service. "It threatens our security and it raises questions about the capacity of our democracy to respond to crisis."Bitterly divided legislators have been struggling for the past year to reach a deal to rein in the debt, with Republicans demanding steep cuts in spending and Democrats calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.Hmmmmm.....Let me guess.......Cancel Democracy?Read the full story here.

Russian Official: US unilateral sanctions against Tehran by Washington will be a "blow" at US-Russia relations.

Russian Official: US unilateral sanctions against Tehran by Washington will be a "blow" at US-Russia relations.(Fars).Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov told reporters on Sunday that US unilateral sanctions on Iran would "run against international law and affect third countries." Moscow could not accept if Russian firms and banks become potential victims of such unilateral actions from the US, Ushakov warned. "Russia is in principle against the imposition of unilateral sanctions on Iran which are against the international law," he said. The remarks came as Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama are to meet on the sidelines of the upcoming Group of 20 summit Monday in the Mexican city of Los Cabos. Russia has always supported Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology. Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month assured his Iranian counterpart that Moscow strongly supports Tehran's atomic program, a highly remarkable stance with clear political implications for the upcoming talks between Iran and the six world powers in Russia. "We have always supported the Iranian people's right to have modern technology, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Putin told Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of a regional security summit in Beijing. "But I would like to stress that this must be precisely for peaceful purposes."Hmmmmm........Time for President Obama to be 'inflexible' ?Or kick Congress further down the road?Read the full story here.

Video - GOP Rep. Steve King To Sue Obama Regime Over New Immigration Policy.

HT:  The Daily Caller.

Video - In 2011, Obama said what he did today was unconstitutional!

HT: AstuteBlogger.

WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO TO GET IMPEACHED IN AMERICA?

Pentagon Lists 110 Potential Drone Bases in U.S.

Pentagon Lists 110 Potential Drone Bases in U.S.(SN).The Department of Defense has identified 110 sites in the United States that could serve as bases for military unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or drones. A new report to Congress lists each of the 110 sites “and the UAS likely to fly at that location.” See “Report to Congress on Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability,” Department of Defense, April 2012 (pp. 9-12).
The newly disclosed DoD report was first reported by InsideDefense.com.
The actual or potential drone bases are located in 39 of the 50 states, from Fort McClellan in Alabama to Camp Guernsey in Wyoming, as well as Guam and Puerto Rico.
Currently, the DoD and the military have “88 active certificates of authorization (COAs) at various locations around the country” that permit them to fly UASs outside of restricted military zones, the report to Congress said. COAs are issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.
But “The rapid increase in fielded UAS has created a strong demand for access within the NAS [National Airspace System] and international airspace. The demand for airspace to test new systems and train UAS operators has quickly exceeded the current airspace available for these activities,” the report said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, evidently receptive to this demand, said in its report on the FY2013 defense authorization act that integration of drones into domestic airspace should be accelerated. See “Senate: Drones Need to Operate ‘Freely and Routinely’ in U.S.,” Secrecy News, June 8, 2012.
The website Public Intelligence previously identified 64 U.S. drone site locations.
See also “Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil” by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, Wired Danger Room, June 13:
“UAS will not achieve their full potential military utility unless they can go where manned aircraft go with the same freedom of navigation, responsiveness, and flexibility,” the new DoD report to Congress said.
A bill “to protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles” (HR 5925) was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 7 by Rep. Austin Scott. A companion bill (S.3287) has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul.Hmmmm.........Obama Blames “Founding Fathers” For Making It Difficult For Him To “Bring Change”But......"I will keep plotting".Read the full story here.