Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
Welcome and Greetings "Sisters & Brothers"!
After watching the entire speech by our friend and "Brother" Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel before a joint meeting of the American Congress yesterday the world has become a far better place, at least for a while!
"We The People" are now witnessing more discussion over the finer points of this so called agreement between America and Iran than the world has seen in the last 6 plus months which everyone feels is healthy to all concerned! Many truly believe this truth is the direct by-product of Mr. Netanyahu's visit and flawless presentation! To this I must agree in fact and in form. As expected, those individuals who chose to not attend this historic gathering, were quick to tear this presentation apart, piece by piece! To the many who watched this foolish tirade, many felt they further degraded themselves publically. As Will Rogers wisely observed :" Politicians should never miss the chance to shut up." Unfortunately these individuals once again failed to heed this advice!
We posted this article to offer you an opportunity to see things from the Israel citizen's point of view. We believe you will find this interesting indeed. Enjoy!
Peace be with you.
The decision to accept or reject a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program may be the most important foreign policy issue of the 21st Century.
Everyone of these 'applications' needs to be looked into for possible criminal charges.
On Tuesday, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials revealed that the agency processed nearly seven million immigration-related applications in just one year alone (fiscal year 2014). Because the agency does not have the resources to conduct in-person interviews with every applicant, officials noted that applicants for President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) program did not have to go though face-to-face interviews before being granted temporary amnesty.
Potential applicants for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty program for the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens will also not be given in-person interviews if the federal government is allowed to proceed with its implementation after the court case against it is resolved.
At a Senate Immigration and the National Interest Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the day the House passed a “clean” Homeland Security funding bill that did not defund Obama’s executive amnesty, Donald Neufeld, the Associate Director of Service Center Operations for USCIS, told the Senators that “USCIS administers the world’s largest immigration system that includes more than 100 immigrant and nonimmigrant classifications and more than 200 different forms and applications.”
He said that in fiscal year 2014 alone,”USCIS adjudicated nearly 7 million petitions and requests,” including applications for President Barack Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, naturalization and adjustment of status, visas, asylum and refugee requests, and humanitarian protections.
Neufeld also said that USCIS has four service centers throughout the country (Dallas, Texas; Laguna Niguel, California; Lincoln, Nebraska; and St. Albans, Vermont) in addition to its headquarters in Washington, D.C. to “adjudicate applications, petitions and requests that do not require face to face interactions with the public”–such as Obama’s executive amnesty program.
Daniel Renaud, the Associate Director of Field Operations at the agency, said that because executive amnesty applicants are not given “status-granting benefits,” they typically do not even undergo an FBI name check that other immigrants are put through. That is concerning in light of USCIS Council President Kenneth Palinkas’s belief that “by not scrutinizing each and every applicant to the fullest extent possible to ensure America’s security, we invite an even more catastrophic event then what occurred on 09/11/2001.”
“Our current immigration system leaves us vulnerable to terrorist threats and terrorism in general by providing entry avenues for people sworn to destroy America,” Palinkas said in a Tuesday statement. “This is accomplished by lessening the vetting of each and every alien who applies for permanent residency or citizenship in the U.S.”
Palinkas added that “it is more than likely that any attack from terrorists will come from within the borders of the U.S, and it is further likely that ISIS or Al Qaeda would try to launch these attacks by obtaining a visa or working with elements already here on visas.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who chairs the subcommittee, pointed out that lawful immigrants who apply for visas in various countries around the world have to be personally interviewed, and that illegal immigrants who are seeking temporary amnesty are processed with “less standards” and less scrutiny than those trying to come to the United States legally. Sessions noted that Palinkas has also criticized the agency’s assembly-line adjudication process that often rubber-stamps applications.
When Renaud said that there is a “layered” process to reading and processing applications in which different officials look at different parts of the application, Sessions said that is a “dangerous” system. He said that because one official does not read the whole file, it removes the responsibility on the certifying officer because he can claim that another official “did not pick up something” in the application.
Sessions told the officials that they have been “asked to do more than is physically possible” in trying to vet all of the executive amnesty applicants for ties to gangs or other past criminal activity.
“You just don’t have the ability to do this,” Sessions said, emphasizing that Obama should never have demanded amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants when there is not even enough staff and resources to process legal immigrants.
Sessions also asked Renaud what officials would do if, for instance, an applicant named “John R. Smith” submitted a high school diploma that looked like a photocopy belonging to “John Smith.” Sessions noted that if documents look suspicious, officials cannot ask the applicant in-person questions because “they are not going to come to Crystal City to file their papers.”
Renaud said officials must “use their judgment” to determine if the evidence meets the very low “preponderance of evidence” standard before admitting that the agency did not even have standard operating procedures in place for cases in which an applicant without a middle initial on the application submits suspicious documents with a middle initial.
Citing the recent case of an illegal immigrant who may have murdered a former “America’s Top Model” contestant after being granted executive amnesty, Sessions pointed out that USCIS lacks the resources to interview executive amnesty applicants on the ground if there is evidence that an applicant is a gang member.
“You don’t have any staff to do those interviews,” he said. “This is not going to work. You know it and I know it.”
Subject: Fw: Really upset!
I don't think 'pissed' really covers it!!!!
Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming, calls senior citizens the "Greediest Generation", as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!
"Hey, Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!!!
1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.
2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in 'an interest bearing account' for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
4. Recently, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.
5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from day one, and now "you" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.
6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetents" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
7.To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" to your incompetence . Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU:
1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?
2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?
3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes, your job and retirement security at our expense, you leech.
That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it. And you can take that to the bank you miserable son of a bitch.
NO, I did not stutter.
P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!!
I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years. It's my money-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks.
If you like the way things are in America delete this.
If you agree with what a Montana citizen, Patty Myers, says, please PASS IT ON.
Welcome "Sisters & Brothers"!
We are posting a commentary from one of America's foremost thinkers our dear "Brother" Thomas Sowell! We've read his works for many years and continue to marvel at his understanding of current events! Please enjoy this bit of wit!
Peace be with you, Amen
The Center for Security Policy has considered the President's "Countering Extremism" theory -- that theory is missing a leg to stand on.
by Liam Bamford
March 3, 2015
" Countering Victory over Extremism "
In his closing remarks at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama asserted, “we’ve got to discredit these ideologies. We have to tackle them head on. And we can’t shy away from these discussions.” A positive sign that finally, America would hear an honest assessment of the Global Jihad.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration spent the three days of the Summit shying away from genuine discussion through excuses of poverty or grievances, never once tackling them head on or discrediting the ideology of jihad. But while the Administration’s counterterrorism efforts are hampered by this refusal, ISIS recruiting efforts on social media continue to proudly declare that jihad, not jobs, await foreign fighters.
The President still signaled confidence in an eventual victory because of “…the overwhelming response of the world community to the savagery of these terrorists — not just revulsion, but a concrete commitment to work together to vanquish these organizations.”
Secretary of State, John Kerry, recited the Administration’s stance in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: Our Plan for Countering Violent Extremism. His assertion was: “…that violent extremism can’t be justified by resorting to religion. No legitimate religious interpretation teaches adherents to commit unspeakable atrocities.”
A deeper examination of the response to ISIS atrocities, such as the burning of the Jordanian Pilot or beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, throws into doubt claims the Islamic State has no religious legitimacy and no part of Islam.
Salafism – the very Sunni movement from which the totalitarian theologies of Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and all other major threats take their cues – puts serious stress on the word “legitimate.” An authority no less prestigious than Sheikh Aadel Al-Kalbani, the former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, declared, “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”
What never seems to accompany attempts to deny the Islamic part of that curiously named state are convincing refutations of ISIS’s own religious justification. The central premise of Salafism [is] lethally straight forward: follow the example of Muhammad and his earliest companions. Rather than twisting passages selectively as President Obama has claimed, Salafist’s pride themselves on their literalism to the distress of true reformers. Some such as Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa write an impassioned plea, asking honestly in a titular article Will It Take The End of the World For Obama To Recognize ISIS As ‘Islamic’?
“ We have to own the issue of extremist Islamic theology in order to defeat it and remove it from our world. We have to name it to tame it. Among Muslims, stuck in face-saving, shame-based cultures, we need to own up to our extremist theology instead of always reverting to a strategy of denial, deflection, and demonization. “
Even with the immolation of the Jordanian pilot that sparked outrage and this last week’s summit, the Islamic State issued a religious ruling or fatwa which claimed that not only were they still following the example of Muhammad, but that two of the four mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence permit burning people to death.
The response from Islamic authorities, such as al-Azhar, is extremely troubling since they refuse to condemn the Islamic State as apostates. They state: “No believer can be declared an apostate, regardless of his sins.” Additionally, those same authorities take the stance that is no different in substance from the actions of the Islamic State by declaring: “Islamic State militants merit punishments under Islamic law such as ‘killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs.”
Before the immolation of Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, were not the brutal decapitations, murders, and crucifixions of the Islamic State decried as having nothing to do with Islam by our President? Objections from various Sheiks and Imams were taken as proof by the President and his Administration that the Islamic State is warped, twisted, and illegitimate. Yet how can these terrorists be accused of perverting Islam if the Islamic State is using established penalties under mainstream Islamic law?
The objection from some Muslim religious scholars seems to have been made on the basis of legal jurisdiction rather than a moral condemnation against brutal atrocities. Compare the Islamic State to Saudi Arabia, a country that no one could possibly claim as having nothing to do with Islam, and one will notice the beheadings, strict religious law, and nonexistent human rights are all common attributes of Shariah law.
John Kerry said in his WSJ piece: “There is no room in this fight for sectarian division. There is no room for Islamophobia…” Examining the words and deeds of the Islamic State and the wider Muslim world, it would be more accurate to say this fight, the war for the free world against the Global Jihad Movement, is entirely over sectarian divisions within Islam. As for there being no room for Islamophobia, if the Islamic State is successful in expanding their Caliphate across the Muslim world and establishing themselves in centers of religious learning like al-Azhar and Mecca, it will no longer be a matter of if America and the West are at war with Islam. Islam, under the banner of the Islamic State, will be at war with us.
The military focus on airstrikes are not deterring new recruits to the cause. A new focus on socio-economic opportunity will not deter well-off Muslims coming from Europe, or stop the plunder-rich Islamic State’s conquest. The President refuses to recognize that the Salafi narrative that animates contemporary terrorism is actually grounded in Islamic legal tradition. Blind to the dark irony that he is actually recruiting extremists. In a self-defeating attempt to counter extremism, President Obama’s Summit on Countering Violent Extremism might as well be called the Summit on Countering Victory over Extremism. By contrast, the Defeat Jihad Summit and the Secure Freedom Strategy that it showcased offer exactly what they say they do, rather than obfuscation about the Global Jihad Movement.
We all know they are lying so why even try to cover?
This formulation should not provide much comfort to Israel.
Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Monday, American Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers declared, “the United States will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Period.”
Does that sound familiar?
It should. It sounds a lot like the formulation Obama used to make promises about Obamacare.
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” President Obama declared in a 2009 health care speech. “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
If You Don’t Have An Electric Vehicle Then You Should Be Using This Card To Buy Gas
A New Solution That Stops Snoring
My Snoring Solution
by TaboolaSponsored Links
Well, those promises didn’t pan out so well.
The reason Benjamin Netanyahu is in America to warn about the Iranian nuclear threat is probably because he fears that to the Obama administration, “period” means “don’t believe anything we’re saying.”
Nancy Pelosi has said some pretty ridiculous things in the past. The California Democrat made headlines a few years ago by desperately trying to pass Obamacare and declaring that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
However, the former speaker of the House just said something that might take first place on the list of Pelosi puzzlers. The lawmaker recently revealed how out of touch she truly is.
“I think almost everybody I know cannot live without having our paycheck on time,” stated Pelosi. “Members of Congress, even.”
Yes, a woman who is addicted to spending millions of other people’s dollars wants the American people to think twice about giving Congress a pay cut. If she didn’t get her monthly check on time, how would she survive? (H/T Laura Ingraham)
The first glaring problem is there isn't ‘a’ convention of states there are several, the groups calling for a convention can’t even get together on a course of action to move forward on. How can “We The People…” get behind a plan that isn’t even a agreed upon plan by the Leaders calling for it? John wants a ‘Convention of States’ so does Sue, Joseph, Kevin, Lance, Donna and others.
The first glaring problem is there isn't ‘a’ convention of states there are several, the groups calling for a convention can’t even get together on a course of action to move forward on. How can “We The People…” get behind a plan that isn’t even a agreed upon plan by the Leaders calling for it? John wants a ‘Convention of States’ so does Sue, Joseph, Kevin, Lance, Donna and others. But, John’s petition isn’t the same as Sue, Joseph, or Lance’s petition and theirs is the same as Donna or Kevin’s never mind each other’s.
But, let’s get past this for a moment and look toward another larger matter ‘the types of Amendments to the Constitution’; this is very slippery ground here. If we go with Amendments that are not thoroughly work out by individuals, hopefully knowledgeable groups of individuals studying and researching the history of the Constitution before acting instead of jumping based on emotional talking points, we WILL MAKE IT WORSE.
Let us take a few examples:
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: This one sounds awesome to me right off. But, after the emotion wears off and thought comes into play what does this actually mean and how do you accomplish this? 1) We all should be able to agree that if families have to have a balanced budget so should the federal correct? One would think that and rightfully so; but, what happens in a family when the washing machine stops working or the vehicle used for transporting the breadwinner[s] back and forth to the work has transmission trouble? Easy, ‘dip into the rainy day fund’, simple right? Wrong the federal is not allowed by current rules to hold onto money [wealth] and rightfully so; this is one of the checks and balances to ensure the federal doesn’t have means to overpower or oppress the people [you, me our children’s children]. That plan doesn't work. . . so we as families have a line of credit [credit cards, equity etc…] so the federal dips into the line of credit if a disaster or attack on America happens, right? WRONG, the balanced budget does not allow for loans or lines of credit . . . we have that now and it is abused, so how would that change anything? SO THIS TYPE OF AMENDMENT WOULD ACTUALLY DO MORE HARM THEN GOOD.
But, no you say; ‘we could limited the amount of increase each year…’, okay to what percentage can we guarantee the coverage of the disasters or attacks on the nation totaling in a given year; 10%, 15%, 3%? Again sounds go emotionally, but how many people have been in the military, government service or know someone in or that was involved in the government? Anyone that was in and paid attention can tell you, the federal sends every penny it has budgeted. So, this type of guaranteed increase will not do anything to help, but again will hurt the republic.
So we should all be able to see a “Balanced Budget Amendment” is just emotional fodder much as is ‘impulse buying’, and we all know how well impulse buying helps the household or budget.
I hope to post information to each of the Convention of States ‘important’ Amendment lists to ensure we start, or get educated enough to make proper decision’s on the Document that 55 men spent their lives studying ‘all’ of scholarly history, all the previous great nation’s reason for rise and fall, the most intelligent minds of the time for finance, taxation, freedoms and power as well as the Holy Bible. Add to this the great minds conveying knowledge such as Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, John & Samuel Adams and John Hancock which lent their vast knowledge to the documents during ratification . . .
It should pain all of us to think that with this arrangement of knowledge we might think us better equipped to change their words with our lack of equal study on the matter; I would liken this to our 16 year child explaining finance to us when it comes to shopping when we say we can’t afford to spend money on this right now, and their answer to us being “well, there’s a money machine right over there; just stick your card in there and get more.
They believe they are accurate and more intelligent in the matter as well.
…and our thoughts?
Your support keeps freedom alive!