Mexico Gun Bust-Not From Gun Shows. Military Weapons, Uniforms, And Police Uniforms. Look At These Graphic Pictures.

This is a email I received. 

The reporter who wrote and took the pictures must have needed anonymity.  "It appears they are getting ready to wage war, to me.
A PRIME example of why we MUST support our neighbors in Arizona, and bolster the Texan border. 
This was a Zetas camp (a Mexican cartel w/ Guatemalan ties) that was found near Higueras, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
The "state" of Nuevo Laredo borders the Rio Grande, and this town is a little over 100 miles away from Laredo, TX.
The Mexican army found makeshift camp in Higueras, where they encountered a massive arsenal.

At least 25 suspects managed to get away.

They found 12 trucks/SUVs under a shaded canopy.

The vehicles contained military & police issue accessories.

Its estimated that they found around 200 rifles, and 30 pistols.

 

 They also found grenade and rocket launchers.

There were over 300 magazines and uniforms.

They also found a box of 60 grenades.

Thank God for the border patrol that this did not come over the border. There is one "graphic picture" but it tells the story. 
It's not racist, and it's not xenophobic. I hope we won't have to lament or wonder just how many of the illegal aliens legalized (synonymous with rewarded) under the latest attempt to legislate away the millions who have spit on our laws, are MS-13, Zetas, cartel members, and other scum that would be "legal". There are many Hispanic men and women that I both love and respect that understand and support Arizona and any citizen's desire to keep our country a safe place to live and raise our children and grandchildren. It's not racist, and it's not xenophobic. I hope we can ignore and recognize the majority of the naysayers for the photo-op, attention-loving clowns they are, and start coming together as  AMERICANS that want what's best for AMERICA"!

Law Suit To Determine-Unalienable Rights OR Government Granted Rights!

On June 14, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed its brief in resistance  to FDA’s motion to dismiss. “FDA made some pretty incredible arguments in their motion to dismiss,” said Fund President Pete Kennedy. “Our research shows that this nation has a long history of consuming raw dairy products and that FDA’s prohibition against taking raw dairy for human consumption across state lines runs counter to that national history,” stated Kennedy.

See videos below

FTCLDF filed a lawsuit earlier this year to overturn the federal ban that prohibits raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce. The lawsuit claims that the federal regulations (21 CFR 1240.61 and 21 CFR 131.110) are unconstitutional and outside of FDA’s statutory authority as applied to FTCLDF’s members and the individual plaintiffs named in the suit.

See videos below

Contrary to FDA’s claims, the Fund argues in its brief that everybody has the right to travel across state lines with raw dairy products in their possession, that everybody has the right to consume the foods of their choice, that parents have the right to feed their children the foods of their choice, and that everybody has the right to be responsible for their own health.

See videos below

“We believe we are breaking new ground in this case,” said the Fund’s General Counsel Gary Cox, “yet in a way, we are really asking the Court to expressly recognize what our Founding Fathers implied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.” 

FDA's Views on Freedom of Choice

Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]

"It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]

"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]

"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

See videos below
Click here to read FDA's brief   this a PDF

Click here to sign support HR 778 Now petition!

Click to read Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund-- RAW MILK
     
See Videos Below


So, The FDA Does Not Need A Warrant For Search And Seizure?


H/T to  World Net Daily

Did This Really Happen In Dearborn Michigan? Police Arrest People For being Christian At Arab Festival!

"Officers arrested four Christian missionaries and illegally confiscated their video cameras which were recording the events surrounding their arrests," said a statement today from the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich.

Who can believe that this will happen in your town?

 These 2 videos from 2009.

 

 And another video from the opposition. See this one.

 H/T to  > World Net Daily

H.R. 5175 Disclosure ACT

H.R 5175 Disclose Act

The DISCLOSE legislation was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that unexpectedly upheld the Constitution and free speech. President Obama and special interest groups along with liberals wanted to curb the effects of that Supreme Court decision, so Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.) who called the Supreme Court’s ruling “radical,” and 114 cosponsors acquiesced by introducing H.R. 5175. 

• Schumer was very clear that DISCLOSE was carefully crafted to “embarrass companies [inclined to get involved in the fall elections] out of exercising those rights,” according to Kim Strassel in the Wall Street Journal. “The bill will make companies ‘think twice’, [Schumer] rejoiced. ‘The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.’ ” Even though the bill is considered by many to be unconstitutional, the Democrats’ “goal here isn’t lasting legislation. The goal is to have this [law] in place for this election, when Democrats are at a low point, and when an empowered union base and a silenced corporate presence could make the difference between keeping the House and losing it.”  

The bill would require all groups, corporations, advocacy and lobbying groups, unions, etc., to reveal donations used to support political campaigns. “The top five donors to a group underwritten by corporate or labor money would have to be listed on the screen,” of TV ads explained CQ Today. In addition chief executives would have to appear at the end of political TV advertisements that are funded by their organizations.

N R A
The details of the deal the NRA carved out for itself were revealed by the Washington Post: The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations. Democrats say the new language would apply to only the NRA, since no other organization would qualify under these specific provisions. The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.

• Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) who normally supports gun rights, said he was satisfied with the new language. Cosponsor Walter Jones (R. N.C.) who didn’t know the details as of Tuesday evening said he would support the bill anyway.
• Rep. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had another opinion though: “If there is one thing Americans loathe about Washington, it’s the back-room dealing to win the vote of organizations with power and influence at the expense of everyone else. Taxpayers are still fuming over a health care process where their money was thrown around like a high roller in a hotel lobby to win last-minute votes, and now the same back-room dealing is being repeated with their freedom of speech.” 
• “This is nothing more than a special deal for the NRA, negotiated behind closed doors, without transparency or public input,” said Jeff Patch, communications director for the Center for Competitive Politics, a free speech advocacy group. He noted that the bill would put a financial strain on small grass-roots organizations with limited resources to comply with “onerous” disclosure requirements, literally taking them out of the political game.

It’s really disturbing that an organization that is supposedly dedicated to ensuring Second Amendment rights for all wouldn’t be just as concerned about helping to ensure First Amendment rights for everyone as well. Instead they are willing to muzzle themselves regarding this DISCLOSE bill and help this onerous legislation snuff out free speech for the little guys as long as they have their own exemption. But one cannot help wondering if there will be more ramifications down the road; will strings be pulled and the NRA made to dance to a new political tune or be muzzled on other pieces of legislation? Certainly their credibility is now greatly in question with this cavalier politics-as-usual attitude.

Regardless of the NRA’s private exemption, H.R. 5175 should be opposed by all who value free speech. 

Regulating the raising and spending of money on political campaigning is not the government’s job. In fact, such a thing is unconstitutional. As Jack Kenny wrote earlier this year, "[C]orporations are made up of people who have constitutionally-protected rights. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that people lose their right to free speech when joined together in a corporation. And though money is not speech, it is a medium of exchange used to pay for many things, including newsprint and printing presses, TV cameras, microphones, and broadcast towers, as well as advertising." Will the government soon be limiting what publishers and media outlets can spend on their own privately owned businesses that produce newspapers, magazines, or TV broadcasts?

• A member of the NRA’s Board of Directors, Cleta Mitchell, wrote in the Washington Post, that:    For its part, the NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind… This is not just “disclosure.”  It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

In it’s defense, the NRA’s statement was revealing: “The NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide… We refuse to let this congress impose [the bill’s] unconstitutional restrictions on our Association… There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk of a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.” 

See Raven Clabough's article in The New American magazine, “NRA Trades First Amendment Rights for Second Amendment Rights," for further information about the DISCLOSE Act. 

On June 17, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she was pulling the bill from the floor vote scheduled for the next day due to lack of support.

Read more ...

More reading...

Pelosi And Reid Cancels Your Insurance-Unintended Consequences?

Insurance-what Insurance?
Read This-->Insurance for the part-time employees Canceled!

Obama Meets With Az. Gov. Brewer

 "My experience is when you talk to a guy like B.P.'s CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me," Obama said. "I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."

Jan Brewer, Arizona governor said Thursday she got few other results from her meeting with the commander-in-chief, including any details about where 1,200 National Guard troops will be deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border. Brewer met with Obama to discuss the state's new law clamping down on illegal immigrants that the White House opposes.

Governor Brewer could have said,  My experience is when you talk to a guy like Pres.Obama, he's going to say all the things he wants to do (Immigration Reform), not necessarily all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions. 

Alvin Greene (D) S.C., If Elected, Should Feel Right At Home.

COLUMBIA, S.C. A day after an unemployed veteran charged with a felony shocked South Carolina's Democratic establishment by winning the U.S. Senate primary, party officials were still scratching their heads: What happened?

Alvin Greene, 32, didn't raise any money. He didn't have a website. And his opponent was a relatively better-known former legislator, Vic Rawl, who was already preparing for the general election.

Greene was considered such a long shot that his opponent and media didn't even bother to check his background. If they had, they would have discovered he faces a felony obscenity charge after an alleged encounter with a college student last fall.

After The Associated Press reported Greene's charge Wednesday, the leader of the state Democratic party said she asked Greene to withdraw from the race.

"I did not do this lightly, as I believe strongly that the Democratic voters of this state have the right to select our nominee," Fowler said. "But this new information about Mr. Greene ... would certainly have affected the decisions of many of those voters."

South Carolina state law prohibits convicted felons from serving in state office. Felons can serve in federal office, although the U.S. House or Senate could vote to expel any member deemed unfit to serve.

Rawl said he didn't know about Greene's arrest until reading media reports about it.

"It's an absolute surprise," Rawl said. "I can't really make any comments, because I don't know what's going on."

But Greene said that he will not step aside.

Read More  > Huffington Post

Lets see;

William Jefferson (D-La.) 2007

James Traficant, (D-Ohio) 2001

Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) 1995

Walter R. Tucker III (D-Calif.) 1995

Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) 1994

Carroll Hubbard (D-Ky) 1994

Larry Smith (D-Fla) 1993

Albert Bustamante (D-Texas) 1993

Nick Mavroules (D-Mass.) 1992

Floyd H. Flake (D-N.Y.) 1991

Robert Garcia (D-N.Y.) 11-21-88

John W. Jenrette Jr. (D-S.C.) 7/15/80

Raymond R. Lederer (D-S.C.) 5/18/80

Claude Leach (D-La.) 7/20/79

The list is to long to continue.

Suspected;

Chris Dodd

Barney Frank

Charles Rangel

Timothy Geithner

William Jefferson Clinton 

Hillary Clinton

and again-to many to list.

Alvin Greene-If Elected, should feel right at home.

Democrats For The Little Guy-NOT INSIDE THE BELTWAY! Alvin Greene For U.S. Senate S.C.; To Poor-For The Democratic Party.

The candidate, a 32-year-old unemployed black Army veteran named Alvin Greene, walked into the state Democratic Party headquarters in March with a personal check for $10,400. He said he wanted to become South Carolina’s U.S. senator.

Needless to say, Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler was a bit surprised.

Fowler had never met Greene before, she says, and the party isn’t in the habit of taking personal checks from candidates filing for office. She told Greene that he’d have to start a campaign account if he wanted to run. She asked him if he thought it was the best way to invest more than $10,000 if he was unemployed.

Greene says he decided to run for the United States Senate two years ago when he was serving in Korea.  

As for the $10,400 he used to get on the ballot, Greene says it was money he’d made from being a soldier.

“That was my personal pay,” he says. “Money out of my pocket.”

 Several hours later, Greene came back with a campaign check. The party accepted it, and Greene became an official candidate for the U.S. Senate. He was eager to have his picture put on the party’s website to show he had filed, says state Democratic Party executive director Jay Parmley.

Parmley says he finds the whole thing odd.

He says running for any other office in the state would cost much less money. “If you’re going to file for something and not do anything, why waste $10,000?”

Greene, however, remains optimistic.

Asked if he thought it was a good investment to spend so much of his own money in a two-way Democratic primary to run against a popular Republican with millions in campaign cash, Greene replied: “Rather than just save the $10,000 and just go and buy gasoline with it, just take [it] and just be unemployed for [an] even longer period of time, I mean, that wouldn’t make any sense, um, just, um, but, uh, yes, uh … lowering these gas prices … that will create jobs, too. Anything that will lower the gasoline prices. Offshore drilling, the energy package, all that.”

“It’s sad to see an unemployed veteran be so naïve as to believe that using his savings to file for office is the best use of his money,” Fowler says.

 To Poor for the Democrats inside the Beltway.

Read More...

Hat Tip to > LoneStar Times

A New Experience/Experiment. Madison Writes...

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United Sates. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers and designed for different purposes.

It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congress was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens.

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.

The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess to resist and frustrate the measures of each other.

From the Federalist Papers 45,46

Sexual Harassment Charge Of U.N. Diplomat; Petitioned To U.S. Supreme Court. Top U. N. Officials Above The Law?

Cynthia Brzak filed the petition-stemming from a December 2003 incident implicating ex-UNHCR chief Ruud Lubbers.

He was never charged in the case thanks to the diplomatic immunity granted to top UN officials.

The infamous affair, and frenzied media coverage surrounding it, eventually prompted Lubbers to quit his post in February 2005, four years after he took office. He has long denied the allegations.

The lawyers noted that the case was not an isolated one, in terms of sexual misconduct among UN agencies,and pointed to a "systematic array of sexual misconduct that continues to go unaddressed at the UN."

"My client, an American citizen, experienced criminal behavior that would land any other employer in jail. But at the UN, it's just another day at the office," said attorney Edward Flaherty.

"Because of where she happens to work, her assailant is beyond the law. The question being placed today before the Supreme Court is whether this system should be allowed to stand in the United States, where no one is supposed to be above the law."

The Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on the matter before this fall if it accepts to take up the case. It would mark the first time the high court intervenes on the question of diplomatic immunity granted to top UN officials.

Read more  HERE...