NEW BLACK PANTHER BOMB PLOT IN ST. LOUIS – Were Going Explode Bombs During Protests

(by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit) -- Olajuwon Ali is the local leader of the New Black Panther Party in St. Louis. Last year he released a video inviting local blacks to join his group. 

He also explains how to become a sovereign person, separate from the corporate structure. And babbles on about challenging the St. Louis City court over his status and their illegal arrest of Mr. Ali.

On Friday Olajuwon Ali and Brandon Muhammad were indicted in federal court for illegal firearms purchase — in a bomb plot.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

Two men have been indicted on weapons charges in federal court here for allegedly making straw purchases of two handguns at the Cabela’s sporting goods store in Hazelwood.

The indictment was handed up Wednesday and unsealed Friday accusing Brandon Orlando Baldwin and Olajuwon Davis of making false statements to obtain firearms. The defendants’ ages and addresses were not made public.

According to the indictment, between Nov. 1 and 13, Baldwin, also known as Brandon Muhammad, and Olajuwon, also known as Olajuwon Ali and Brother Ali, acquired two Hi-Point .45 ACP pistols at the store, claiming that Baldwin was the buyer when, in fact, the weapons were intended for someone else.

Notices of sealed search warrants suggest federal agents searched three locations during their investigation. Those warrants were not made public and did not identify the person for whom the guns were allegedly being purchased or for what purpose.

Stacy on the Right reported that Olajuwon Ali was trying to purchase a pipe bomb!

UPDATE: Law enforcement sources confirmed to local News 4 that two men were arrested in connection with a plot to explode pipe bombs during protests.

A 1787 Warning About Obama’s Exec Order?

(by Benjamin WeingartenThe Blaze) -- Previously we have written about the stern warnings against the executive branch as empowered under the Constitution from Anti-Federalist “Cato” — presumed to be George Clinton — he not of George Clinton and Parliament Funkadelic, but rather the fourth vice president of the United States under presidents Jefferson and Madison.

While Cato’s Anti-Federalist Letter IV may have anticipated unconstitutional usurpation of power by presidents, it is perhaps the language of his Letter V, dated almost 227 years ago to the day, November 22, 1787, that is most striking when juxtaposed with President Obama’s executive order on immigration.

Below we excerpt the most pertinent language [link and emphasis ours]:

In my last number I endeavored to prove that the language of the article relative to the establishment of the executive of this new government was vague and inexplicit, that the great powers of the President, connected with his duration in office would lead to oppression and ruin. That he would be governed by favorites and flatterers, or that a dangerous council would be collected from the great officers of state, — that the ten miles square, if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious, and that the court would possess a language and manners different from yours; that a vice president is as unnecessary, as he is dangerous in his influence — that the president cannot represent you because he is not of your own immediate choice, that if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and odious aristocracy or monarchy that the president possessed of the power, given him by this frame of government differs but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain, and I warned you to beware of the fallacious resemblance that is held out to you by the advocates of this new system between it and your own state governments.

And here I cannot help remarking, that inexplicitness seems to pervade this whole political fabric: certainty in political compacts, which Mr. Coke calls the mother and nurse of repose and quietness, the want of which induced men to engage in political society, has ever been held by a wise and free people as essential to their security; as, on the one hand it fixes barriers which the ambitious and tyrannically disposed magistrate dare not overleap, and on the other, becomes a wall of safety to the community — otherwise stipulations between the governors and governed are nugatory; and you might as well deposit the important powers of legislation and execution in one or a few and permit them to govern according to their disposition and will; but the world is too full of examples, which prove that to live by one man’s will became the cause of all men’s misery.

Before the existence of express political compacts it was reasonably implied that the magistrate should govern with wisdom and Justice, but mere implication was too feeble to restrain the unbridled ambition of a bad man, or afford security against negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind. It is alleged that the opinions and manners of the people of America, are capable to resist and prevent an extension of prerogative or oppression; but you must recollect that opinion and manners are mutable, and may not always be a permanent obstruction against the encroachments of government; that the progress of a commercial society begets luxury, the parent of inequality, the foe to virtue, and the enemy to restraint; and that ambition and voluptuousness aided by flattery, will teach magistrates, where limits are not explicitly fixed to have separate and distinct interests from the people, besides it will not be denied that government assimilates the manners and opinions of the community to it. Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security. — You are then under a sacred obligation to provide for the safety of your posterity, and would you now basely desert their interests, when by a small share of prudence you may transmit to them a beautiful political patrimony, that will prevent the necessity of their traveling through seas of blood to obtain that, which your wisdom might have secured: — It is a duty you owe likewise to your own reputation, for you have a great name to lose; you are characterized as cautious, prudent and jealous in politics; whence is it therefore, that you are about to precipitate yourselves into a sea of uncertainty, and adopt a system so vague, and which has discarded so many of your valuable rights. — Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant? If this be the case you rest on a weak basis; Americans are like other men in similar situations, when the manners and opinions of the community are changed by the causes I mentioned before, and your political compact inexplicit, your posterity will find that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire.

Obama’s Claims on Illegal Immigration Get Fact-Checked -- and AP Calls him a Liar

Jason Howerton, The Blaze

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama made some notable omissions Thursday night in his remarks about the unilateral actions he’s taking on immigration.

A look at his statements and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: “It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

THE FACTS: He’s saying, and doing, more than that. The changes also will make those covered eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs.


Obama Never Learns

BY FRED BARNES, The Weekly Standard

There’s a lesson from President Obama’s first term that he should have learned long ago. It’s simple: On an issue that affects many millions of Americans, it’s best—even necessary—to have bipartisan support in Congress. Going forward in a purely partisan fashion is bound to cause national discord, increase polarization, and heighten distrust in Washington. Worse still, it means the issue will be controversial for years to come.

The enduring unpopularity of Obamacare—indeed, the Republican commitment to repeal it—is an example of what can happen when bipartisanship is spurned. In this case, Obama and congressional Democrats made no effort to attract Republicans. They declined to compromise, offering Republicans zilch. They were mesmerized by their huge majorities in the Senate and House.

Now they own Obamacare, including all its troubles. Republicans own none. And the health care law lacks full legitimacy. Four years after it was enacted, Democrats are still suffering politically. For them, Obamacare is a drag.

The same is likely to occur with Obama’s executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. It is doubly doomed to be regarded as illegitimate—first, because it stretches presidential authority beyond the breaking point, and second, because it has no bipartisan backing. Obama’s action is supported by many (but not all) Democrats in Congress but zero Republicans.


WARNING: Congressional Hearing Reveals that China Can Now Take Down Entire U.S. Power Grid


(CNN) -- China and “probably one or two other” countries have the capacity to shut down the nation’s power grid and other critical infrastructure through a cyber attack, the head of the National Security Agency told a Congressional panel Thursday.

Admiral Michael Rogers, who also serves the dual role as head of U.S. Cyber Command, said the United States has detected malware from China and elsewhere on U.S. computers systems that affect the daily lives of every American.

“It enables you to shut down very segmented, very tailored parts of our infrastructure that forestall the ability to provide that service to us as citizens,” Rogers said in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

Rogers said such attacks are part of the “coming trends” he sees based on “reconnaissance” currently taking place that nation-states, or other actors may use to exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. cyber systems.

Read more

'DANGEROUS & RECKLESS': Obama releases more Gitmo detainees without Congressional approval...

(The Washington Examiner) -- President Obama has opened a new front in his hard line against the incoming Republican Congress by releasing more detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, against lawmakers' objections.

The Pentagon announced Thursday that four al Qaeda fighters from Yemen, including a senior figure who facilitated travel to Afghanistan for Arab extremists, and a Tunisian extremist would be transferred to Slovakia and Georgia.

The transfers leave 143 detainees at Guantanamo, which Obama has vowed to close. Republican lawmakers, who have been pressing the administration to stop releasing detainees amid reports that some former prisoners had joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, were furious.

    "If just one U.S. soldier loses their life over these transfers, we will have failed in our duty to the American people,” said outgoing House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon.

    "What the Obama administration is doing is dangerous and, frankly, reckless. They have chosen many times to put politics above national security. It’s time they stop playing with fire and start doing what’s right. Until we can assure the terrorists stay off the battlefield, they must stay behind bars," the California Republican said.

    Keep reading...

    Immigration Speech: Does Obama See Himself as an Elected Dictator?

    (by Warren Mass, The New American) -- Speaking from the White House on prime-time television on November 20, President Obama did not deliver any surprises as he unveiled his plan to use executive action to grant protection from deportation to millions of illegal immigrants.

    After all, the administration had already repeatedly made clear its intent to rule by decree on immigration and other issues, despite the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress may make law.

    Under the president’s plan, two groups of illegal aliens would qualify: those who have been in the United States for more than five years; and those who have children who are American citizens or legal residents. Obama promised those who fit his criteria: “If you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes — you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

    ABC News reported that those who qualify for deferred action through a son or daughter that is a U.S. citizen will receive immediate amnesty from deportation.

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have been instructed to “immediately begin identifying persons in their custody” who meet the criteria; as well as consider the new criteria for “all individuals encountered.”

    Heading off criticism from those who would label his plan for what it is — amnesty — the president said:

    I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today — millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.

    Obama justified his use of executive authority to shield illegal aliens from deportation on the failure of Congress to pass what he termed “common sense law.” “But until that happens,” he said, “there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President — the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me — that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.”

    The executive action that Obama announced last night was a complete about-face from his comments on the proper use of presidential authority during a Univision Town Hall held on March 28, 2011 at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington, D.C.

    When the moderator of that event presented a question, “What if at least you grant temporary protective status (TPS) to undocumented students,” Obama answered, in part:

    With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. And I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that there we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The Executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the Judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms on how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply though executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

    Obama made the same point during his 2008 campaign for president at a Town Hall meeting in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in which he condemned President Bush’s attempts to bypass Congress. “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America,” he said.

    From his description of his planned actions during last night’s address, it is apparent that what Obama had previously stated would not conform with his “appropriate role as President” is very different from what he now deems appropriate, legal, and constitutional.

    The plan drew immediate criticism from Republican members of Congress, with much of the criticism based not so much on immigration as on Obama’s blatant usurpation of authority and disregard for the separation of powers he meticulously referred to in his 2011 talk at Bell School in D.C.

    “[The president’s] actions are not only unconstitutional and in defiance of the American people who said they did not want amnesty in the 2014 elections, but they are also unfair to every immigrant who has come to our nation legally,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) posted on his Facebook profile.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he “will not sit idly by and let the President bypass Congress and our Constitution.”

    “President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue executive amnesty. His actions blatantly ignore the separations of powers and the principles our country was founded on. The President has said 22 times previously that he does not have the power to legislate on immigration,” Paul said in a statement.

    In a November 20 article in USA Today, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) wrote:

    Only a short time ago, President Obama himself admitted this action would be illegal and unconstitutional: “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own” he explained, adding “that’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” President Obama also said that: “The problem is “that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

    Apparently, America now has its first emperor.

    “That’s just not how our democracy works,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement after the White House released the details of Obama’s plan. “The president has said before that he’s ‘not king’ and he’s ‘not an emperor,’ but he’s sure acting like one.”

    King? Emperor? How about elected dictator?     

    Eric Holder Tells Law Enforcement to 'Behave'

    AP Phone Records Subpoena

    (Weekly Standard) -- Ahead of the grand jury in Ferguson announcing whether it will indict a police officer for killing a man in Ferguson, Missouri, Attorney General Eric Holder has released a video announcement telling law enforcement to behave.

    “The Justice Department encourages law enforcement officials, in every jurisdiction, to work with the communities they serve to minimize needless confrontation,” Holder says.

    “Over the past few months, we’ve seen demonstrations and protests that have sought to bring attention to real and significant underlying issues involving police practices, implicit bias, and pervasive community distrust.  And in most cases, these demonstrations have been both meaningful and responsible, and have brought vital issues to the attention of the public at large,” the top cop says in a video. 

    “I know, from first-hand experience, that demonstrations like these have the potential to spark a sustained and positive national dialogue, to provide momentum to a necessary conversation, and to bring about critical reform.”

    BREAKING: Ferguson Verdict Imminent, Prosecutors Preparing News Conference To Announce Grand Jury Decision…

    (Reuters) – Prosecutors are preparing a news conference to announce the decision of the grand jury weighing whether to bring charges against a white police officer who shot dead an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, officials said on Friday.

    The grand jury was still in session on Friday and no date or time for the decision announcement was known, the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said. Officials have said a decision by the grand jury is expected by the end of the month.

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urged police to show restraint in dealing with any protests that may follow the grand jury’s decision on whether to indict the officer, Darren Wilson, in the Aug. 9 shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

    New DHS rules: Drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, gun offenders not top deportation priorities...

    (The Washington Examiner) -- The Department of Homeland Security has just released new "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants." Designed to fill in the details after President Obama's announcement that at least four million currently illegal immigrants will be given work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation, the DHS guidelines are instructions for the nation's immigration and border security officers as they administer the president's directive.

    The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.

    Keep reading...

    FBI Sends 100 Agents to Ferguson Ahead of Grand Jury Decision...

    (ABC News) -- The FBI has sent about 100 agents to the St. Louis area to help deal with any problems that could arise from the grand jury decision in the police shooting of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown.

    In addition to the FBI, other federal agencies have also mobilized staffers to get to St. Louis today, sources told ABC News.

    A decision by the grand jury is expected soon, but St. Louis authorities said today that the grand jury is still meeting. The panel will decide whether or not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Brown, who was unarmed, on Aug. 9.

    Authorities are braced for a recurrence of angry protests that turned violent at times during the summer.

    The FBI has ordered its Ferguson contingent to mobilize and arrive in the St. Louis area today. In addition to FBI personnel already in the St. Louis area, about 100 more are being dispatched, law enforcement sources said. Additional FBI personnel have been put on alert so that they could be called in as part of a second emergency wave if necessary, ABC News has learned.

    The FBI is opening up its special St. Louis intelligence center today. This facility will be in constant contact with the Missouri and St. Louis County Emergency Operations Center.

    The FBI declined to comment.

    Keep reading...

    OBAMA CITES UNSPECIFIED “SCRIPTURE” WHEN ADVOCATING AMNESTY -- President likely never read scripture, much less the Constitution

    (CNS News) -- President Barack Obama said in a primetime address to the nation last night that he will travel to Las Vegas today and meet with an illegal alien whom he intends, unilaterally, to allow to stay in the United States in violation of the nation's immigration laws.

    In explaining why he thinks this is the right thing to do, Obama cited an unspecified passage of "Scripture."


    Obama said, "Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid, or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?" said Obama. "Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger--we were strangers once, too."

    Both times that Obama was sworn in as president of the United States, he took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the nation.

    Exodus 23:9 says, "Also, thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for you know the heart of a stranger, seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

    Maybe Obama  hasn't seen the other verses, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Sean Hannity Thursday night: "You must not spread a false report. Do not join the wicked to be a malicious witness. You must not follow a crowd in wrongdoing. Do not testify in a lawsuit and go along with a crowd to pervert justice. Do not show favoritism to a poor person in his lawsuit," Gohmert translated.

    Here are the verses that come before the "heart of a stranger" passage in the Standard King James Version:

    1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

    2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

    3 Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

    4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

    5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

    6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.

    7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

    8 And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.

    Watch: What Geraldo Just Said About Obama’s Immigration Order Made Megyn Kelly Lose It

    Fox News Senior Correspondent Geraldo Rivera was an in-studio guest on The Kelly File Thursday night after President Barack Obama’s speech outlining his executive action plan on immigration.  Megyn Kelly asked why the president did not tackle the immigration issue early on in his presidency when he had a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Rivera was dismissive of the past and applauded Obama’s bold action:

    “It’s not relevant to me.  Charles [Krauthammer] is absolutely right.  The president could have done it.  It really made me angry that he chose to go with Obamacare rather than immigration reform, even though he had told the Latino community and the Asian-American community that immigration reform was his priority, but it doesn’t matter tonight.  What matters tonight is he is doing, finally, the right thing.  He may be doing it for awful, base reasons, political reasons, I don’t know and I don’t care.  I care that he is finally doing the right thing for law-abiding, otherwise law-abiding family immigrants who have been here five years or more, who have in every other way followed the law.  These are people that are the seeds of the earth.  These are people who make America strong.  I’m glad he’s done it.”

    Kelly pointed out to her colleague that President Obama, himself, has said no less than 25 times that he does not have the authority to pass amnesty without Congress.  Geraldo repeated himself that he doesn’t care.

    “This is legal.  It is legal.  It may be hypocritical.  It may be done for the worse reasons, but it is legal.  I guarantee you.  Ask 100 constitutional scholars.”

    Rivera blamed the House for their inaction, saying “they had it coming.” He said the House Republicans have blamed the illegal immigrants for ISIS and Ebola. Rivera went on to say that Republicans would make the undocumented immigrants scapegoats for climate change “if they believed in it.”

    Rivera explained to Kelly that the people who benefit are the law-abiding families who are seeking a better life.

    “You see them on the bicycles delivering pizza.  You see them caring for children, mowing lawns.  You see them working in factories and in fields.  Those are the people who benefit.”

    (h/t: Mediaite)

    ALERT: Ferguson Police Families Go Into Hiding...


    Police families in Ferguson fear for their safety and many have gone into hiding or left town after receiving assault and death threats

    • Spouses and children of cops in Ferguson, Missouri, have received assault and death threats after the shooting of Michael Brown 
    • Tensions continue to rise in Ferguson as a grand jury nears its decision on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson in Brown's shooting
    • One police wife says many families have already left town after receiving anonymous threats on their phones 

    Read full article via UK Daily Mail...

    Ferguson Protestors Erupt, Want Officer Wilson 'Dead'...


    (National Review Online) -- Protesters in Ferguson, Mo., have taken to the streets and chosen not to wait for a grand jury’s decision before clashing with police once again. A grand jury is expected to decide whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson, who is accused of shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown, in the coming days. But protesters made their voices heard outside the Ferguson Police Department on Thursday night shouting, “What do we want? Darren Wilson! How do we want him? Dead!” 

    Protesters gathered on South Florissant Road outside the police department and halted traffic. olice responded by coming out of the station and forming a line behind the barricade protecting the department. The protesters grew visibly angry and began challenging the police officers. In this video, a protester verbally assaults a police officer who is filming the demonstration outside the department. Warning: Video contains foul language. 

    Some women protesters taunted a couple of female police officers by yelling, “Who’s taking care of your husband?” This video shows another protester, who threatened a police officer in a K-9 jacket by saying he would go get his own dogs and start a dogfight. Warning: Video contains foul language.

    I, Barack: Immigration Order a Sorry Day for America's Republic

    The Wall Street Journal

    President Obama ’s decision to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants by his own decree is a sorry day for America’s republic. We say that even though we agree with the cause of immigration reform. But process matters to self-government—sometimes it is the only barrier to tyranny—and Mr. Obama’s policy by executive order is tearing at the fabric of national consent.

    The first question to address is Mr. Obama’s legal rationale. At least he finally rolled out a memo from the experts on presidential power in the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, but it’s fair to wonder how much time he gave them. The OLC made its justification public about an hour before the speech.

    The President’s rationale is “prosecutorial discretion,” but he is stretching that legal concept beyond normal understanding. The executive branch does have discretion about whom to prosecute. But this typically extends to individual cases, or to setting priorities due to limited resources such as prosecuting cocaine but not marijuana use.

    Mr. Obama claims he is using his discretion to focus on such high deportation priorities as criminals, but he is going much further and is issuing an order exempting from deportation entire classes of people—as many as five million. Justice’s OLC memo claims there is no such categorical exemption, and that immigration officials can still deport someone if they want to, but the memo offers no measures by which to make that “complex judgment.” In practice it will almost never happen.


    Would Obama be getting away with all of this if he were white?

    (by Allen B. West) -- I know everyone is talking about Obama’s unconstitutional actions, granting legal status to some 5.2 million illegal immigrants. If there’s one thing Obama and his spinmeisters are experts at, it’s the ability to change the dialogue in the country to a topic of their choosing.

    Here we see Obama trying to make himself relevant again after a monumental drubbing on November 4th. What was a massive loss has been converted into a lawless triumph for an intransigent ideologue — you can’t spin this executive action in any other way. The carefully-crafted rhetoric of President Obama Thursday night may fool a few, but not the many. Obama is a man angry with America for rejecting him and he is firmly focused on imposing his will “by any means necessary,” as for him and the progressive socialist left, the ends justifies the means – the end being their fundamental transformation of America.

    But the master of deception — as we have learned from Jonathan Gruber — has once again distracted America. Heck, I bet most folks have already forgotten Jonathan Gruber, if they even knew who he was in the first place.

    And so we’re not talking about economic growth and how many Americans still remain out of work or working extra part-time jobs to make ends meet. We’re no longer going to talk about the second enrollment period of Obamacare and the incredible increase in deductibles and premiums facing Americans. We’re not discussing the employer mandate delay — also implemented unconstitutionally – which will end early next year and the adverse effects it will have on employer-based health insurance plans.

    We’ve moved on from analyzing the horrible climate change agreement signed by President Obama with the Chinese that of course forces no restrictions on the Chinese but massive restrictions on America — which will result in higher energy costs for Americans.

    And we’re certainly not talking about whether America is engaged in a combat operation. Y’all remember those fellas called ISIS that we were told would be degraded, defeated, and destroyed — kinda like al-Qaida is on the run and has been decimated? Sometimes you have to go outside the U.S. press to find out what’s really happening “over there” because our own media doesn’t seem to care.

    According to a report from Reuters, “U.S. air strikes on a Syrian border town with Turkey killed at least two militants from Nusra Front, in the fourth such attack against the al-Qaida affiliate group since September, a monitoring group and Syrian activists said on Thursday. The U.S. military said in a statement on Wednesday the strikes, which a monitoring group and several activists said took place late on Tuesday, destroyed a “storage facility run by veteran al-Qaida operatives” known as The Khorasan Group, whose members Washington says are plotting external attacks against the United States.”

    I don’t mean to sound dismissive but an airstrike that killed two bad guys? Heck, we could do better if they’d just had a truck accident. And notice that the two “militants” were not even from ISIS but rather al-Qaida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra front — but I thought al-Qaida was decimated and on the run. So are we now engaged in combat against al-Qaida’s Nusra front? And a storage facility run by al-Qaida operatives? What is the operational intent of our air combat operations?

    This all has the trappings of “mission creep” and unseen escalation of combat actions in lieu of a dedicated and focused strategy. And when you don’t have strategic surveillance, “two residents near the rural border area of Harem in Idlib province said at least six civilians including two women and a child were injured in a residential house close to the house hit by the U.S. strike” — yes, collateral damages which could be reduced if you had “boots on the ground” providing accurate targeting information — or else you bomb a milk factory.

    What is my point? America under President Barack Hussein Obama is a nation adrift, going from crisis to crisis with nothing ever resolved — just another new adverse situation.

    Heck, I even forgot we have Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program — and that is falling apart as well. You see, the Iranians know that Obama is the lamest of lame ducks and has no stomach for foreign policy issues. Oh, not to mention, we just had Russian bombers circle the Pacific island of Guam — where we have forces stationed. Not to mention that Vladimir Putin has made his move into Ukraine with his forces.

    How has America allowed all this to happen? I’m going to ask that singular question that no one wishes to bring up — is it because we’ve lowered the bar so low just to satisfy the requirement of having the first black president? America, would we tolerate this from a white president?

    Is the reason why Obama can act in such a manner is because he truly knows we will not hold him to any standard or make him accountable? After all, it’s all the fault of those white men — Republicans. Or the travails of the country are because of the white racist Tea Party people. Doggone, even Al Sharpton says his tax evasion issues are because we don’t like having a black president. Have we become so blinded to truth and devoid of a national character that we will allow a “historical moment” to be more important than the sanctity of our Constitutional Republic?

    Nothing is going right for America under Obama — the first black president — and so will we continue along this path because it’s time for the first woman president? Oops, and I forgot, there’s that grand jury decision we’re awaiting in Ferguson, Missouri — who cares about justice and truth there? And this was supposed to be our post-racial America.

    I do believe America will survive Barack Hussein Obama and his destructive policies — accompanied by a lawlessness and incompetence never before witnessed in the history of America. However, ask yourselves — at what cost to America?

    Rand Paul: Obama is Betraying the Founding Principles of America... "I will not sit idly by"

    (by Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars) -- Rand Paul shot back at Barack Obama’s vow to use executive orders to implement his amnesty program by accusing the President of betraying the founding principles of America.

    The Kentucky Senator issued a statement in the immediate aftermath of Obama’s immigration speech vowing not to let him violate the Constitution;

    “President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue Executive Amnesty. His actions blatantly ignore the Separations of Powers and the principles our country was founded on. The President has said 22 times previously that he does not have the power to legislate on immigration,” Sen. Paul said. “I believe that immigration reform is needed, however for true and effective reform, we must first secure the border. I will not sit idly by and let the President bypass Congress and our Constitution.”

    Meanwhile, Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs has dared to suggest the possibility of impeaching Obama over his executive action, featuring a poll on his website which includes impeachment as an option on how Republicans should respond to Obama’s amnesty plan.

    Establishment Republicans are loathe to consider impeachment because they fear it would create a rallying point point for Democrats and lead to Hillary Clinton becoming a serious contender for the 2016 presidential election.

    Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News Radio that impeachment may be the only “lawful remedy” to Obama’s amnesty program, noting that the President is limited to prosecutorial discretion when it comes to immigration.

    “At some point, the extent to which the President exercises his prosecutorial discretion runs the risk of re-writing the law or nullifying the law, so if there are 11 or 12 or 13 (million) foreign nationals living in the United States illegally and the President says to half of them we will not deport you if you do A, B, C, D and E, and he makes up the A, B, C, D and E, it does not come from the law, he is effectively re-writing the law or nullifying the law and that the Constitution doesn’t permit,” said Napolitano, adding that Obama is violating his oath.

    The Judge added that Obama went ahead with his action because he knew that Republicans in the leadership would not push ahead with impeachment.

    However, U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) went further, suggesting that Obama could even face prison, noting that there is a federal statute which punishes anyone who, “aids or abets, encourages, or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States of America” with up to five years jail time.