No NSA Spying on Mosques? Surveillance off limits on Muslims? FBI banned from investigating radical jihadists?
Now this makes perfect sense doesn’t it? Obama’s NSA snooping exempts one part of America from their spying. Muslim mosques. You couldn’t make this crap up if you tried. Mosques being off limits by the NSA isn’t something that was started in the Bush administration either. Exempting Mosques from the NSA began in October 2011 and they are off-limits to FBI agents. Kind of defeats the purpose of ‘protecting America’ by snooping when 95% of terrorism in this country is from Muslims. But the President just won't allow it. Well, what the hell do we expect from a President who brought Muslim Brotherhood terrorists into the White House,...the People's House, for a chat?
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee. Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret. We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
The above comentary came from Investors.com
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Wasserman Schutz - One Way Player
WH ‘absolutely outraged’ Wasserman Schultz using DNC for own ambitions
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/04/wh-absolutely-outraged-wasserman-schultz-using-dn
c-for-own-ambitions-80924
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz hasn’t spent the last 18 months as the head of the Democratic National Committee just for the good of the Party. It appears she plans to use the experience, and the Rolodex, for her own ambitions – and not everyone is happy about it.
The congresswoman will use the DNC’s donor network to expand her political operation, so she can “double” the money she gives to Democrats in the House, Senate and state capitals around the country, according to Politico.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been the top House Democratic fundraiser, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is perceived as the heir apparent when she steps aside. But Wasserman Schultz’s political team explicitly said her goal this cycle is to match Hoyer’s contributions to candidates — $2.5 million —positioning her to be a player.
“I don’t really do anything halfway,” Wasserman Schultz told Politico in an interview at DNC headquarters. “We thought with the higher profile I have at the DNC, and the donor relationships I’ve been able to build — and thankfully, a lot of people who want to help me be successful, because we share the same goals. We kind of put the leadership PAC on steroids. That’s the best way to describe it.”
Wasserman Schultz did not give specifics about her plans, and wouldn’t rule out running for leadership, governor or senator.
“So far, the people of the 23rd Congressional District still continue to want me to represent them, and I don’t have any immediate plans to run for statewide office,” she told Politico. “But I can’t tell you I would never run for statewide office.”
But not everyone is happy about her ambition, and one senior Democratic source said the White House was “absolutely outraged” by Wasserman Schultz’s comments in Politico, according to BuzzFeed.
“This is unbelievable. So much for supporting the president or electing Democrats,” a top Democratic political adviser told BuzzFeed. “She was honest that this is about her.”
A DNC official defended Wasserman Schultz, referring to her travel schedule and plans to stump for Democratic candidates like Terry McAuliffe in Virginia, as proof she is still focused on the national scene.
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz hasn’t spent the last 18 months as the head of the Democratic National Committee just for the good of the Party. It appears she plans to use the experience, and the Rolodex, for her own ambitions – and not everyone is happy about it.
The congresswoman will use the DNC’s donor network to expand her political operation, so she can “double” the money she gives to Democrats in the House, Senate and state capitals around the country, according to Politico.
While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been the top House Democratic fundraiser, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is perceived as the heir apparent when she steps aside. But Wasserman Schultz’s political team explicitly said her goal this cycle is to match Hoyer’s contributions to candidates — $2.5 million —positioning her to be a player.
“I don’t really do anything halfway,” Wasserman Schultz told Politico in an interview at DNC headquarters. “We thought with the higher profile I have at the DNC, and the donor relationships I’ve been able to build — and thankfully, a lot of people who want to help me be successful, because we share the same goals. We kind of put the leadership PAC on steroids. That’s the best way to describe it.”
Wasserman Schultz did not give specifics about her plans, and wouldn’t rule out running for leadership, governor or senator.
“So far, the people of the 23rd Congressional District still continue to want me to represent them, and I don’t have any immediate plans to run for statewide office,” she told Politico. “But I can’t tell you I would never run for statewide office.”
But not everyone is happy about her ambition, and one senior Democratic source said the White House was “absolutely outraged” by Wasserman Schultz’s comments in Politico, according to BuzzFeed.
“This is unbelievable. So much for supporting the president or electing Democrats,” a top Democratic political adviser told BuzzFeed. “She was honest that this is about her.”
A DNC official defended Wasserman Schultz, referring to her travel schedule and plans to stump for Democratic candidates like Terry McAuliffe in Virginia, as proof she is still focused on the national scene.
Assault on the First Amendment
Great writeup on yet another assault on the Constitution and our God given rights which are only verified by the Constitution. Thanks to Lee Camp and the Huffington Post for their article titled: Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President.
So I have some great news folks! The Republicans and the Democrats in Congress and the White House FINALLY came together and agreed on something. This is HUGE. These guys disagree on EVERYTHING! Getting them to see eye-to-eye is like getting the Jews and the Palestinians to do a trust fall together. Or getting Eskimos and polar bears to play Jenga.
I'm referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That's nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday.
What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, "is or will be temporarily visiting." So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.
This is all lovely except for that bitchy bothersome document, the Constitution. I believe somewhere in the back it says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Aw shit! That musta sucked when Congress found that out! To get that close to passing it and then shot down? It musta been like getting hired to rub baby oil on the contestants of Miss Universe before the bathing suit portion of the competition and then losing your hands in a freak exploding cell phone accident! So when Congress heard about that first amendment they musta been like, "God damnit! That really f**ks up all our plans. That f**king line in the Constitution says not to do EXACTLY what we just did." That's what they must've said, right? ... They didn't just pass it anyway ... Right?
But the bill doesn't stop there. I mean, when you have the entirety of Congress with the exception of Ron Paul agreeing on something, why not swing for the fences? The bill also says it could be a federal crime to protest near an event of, quote, "national significance." Well, that's not vague at all. So you could be convicted of a federal crime and locked away for a year or more for the following things:
1) Marching outside the Democratic or Republican National Conventions
2) Yelling "C**k-face corporate whore" outside a barber shop where Mitt Romney is getting his ear hair trimmed.
3) Marching in front of the entrance of the New York Stock Exchange.
4) Sprinkling magic homosexual glitter on Rick Santorum, or even anyone near Rick Santorum, or even just making fun of his stupid sweater vest!
5) Going to the gates of the White House and demanding the President read the Constitution. ...You know, if he gets a chance.
Well, Congress gets to stomp on the Bill of Rights, I want to do it too. I want to bring back cruel and unusual punishment, and then we could demand that every man or woman who voted for the Anti-Protest Law or signed it from the Oval Office be tied up in the town square naked for a week while everyone gets to throw fire ants and bumble bees at their naughty parts. Deal??
So I have some great news folks! The Republicans and the Democrats in Congress and the White House FINALLY came together and agreed on something. This is HUGE. These guys disagree on EVERYTHING! Getting them to see eye-to-eye is like getting the Jews and the Palestinians to do a trust fall together. Or getting Eskimos and polar bears to play Jenga.
I'm referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That's nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday.
What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, "is or will be temporarily visiting." So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.
This is all lovely except for that bitchy bothersome document, the Constitution. I believe somewhere in the back it says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Aw shit! That musta sucked when Congress found that out! To get that close to passing it and then shot down? It musta been like getting hired to rub baby oil on the contestants of Miss Universe before the bathing suit portion of the competition and then losing your hands in a freak exploding cell phone accident! So when Congress heard about that first amendment they musta been like, "God damnit! That really f**ks up all our plans. That f**king line in the Constitution says not to do EXACTLY what we just did." That's what they must've said, right? ... They didn't just pass it anyway ... Right?
But the bill doesn't stop there. I mean, when you have the entirety of Congress with the exception of Ron Paul agreeing on something, why not swing for the fences? The bill also says it could be a federal crime to protest near an event of, quote, "national significance." Well, that's not vague at all. So you could be convicted of a federal crime and locked away for a year or more for the following things:
1) Marching outside the Democratic or Republican National Conventions
2) Yelling "C**k-face corporate whore" outside a barber shop where Mitt Romney is getting his ear hair trimmed.
3) Marching in front of the entrance of the New York Stock Exchange.
4) Sprinkling magic homosexual glitter on Rick Santorum, or even anyone near Rick Santorum, or even just making fun of his stupid sweater vest!
5) Going to the gates of the White House and demanding the President read the Constitution. ...You know, if he gets a chance.
Well, Congress gets to stomp on the Bill of Rights, I want to do it too. I want to bring back cruel and unusual punishment, and then we could demand that every man or woman who voted for the Anti-Protest Law or signed it from the Oval Office be tied up in the town square naked for a week while everyone gets to throw fire ants and bumble bees at their naughty parts. Deal??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)