Obama’s Incompetent Confidence: The White House & the Failed “Fix”

“How could a White House appear so confident and incompetent at the same time?” -Nancy Gibbs
Photo-illustration of a pill enscribed with the words Related post - ObamaCare Not “Law of The Land” ONLY House Can Tax!
read more

WH Blackout Creates Obama Protest – WH Press Pushback Along with Independent Media Outlets

The American people and the media think the President is untrustworthy.  The President is “pretty much” able to now do whatever he wants.  See related article Nuclear Option Now Real – Pure Evil, by Pure Evil,  and while we are seeing the truth revealed, let’s share why Obamacare is NOT legal or the law.

The **expletive*** has hit the proverbial fan in every US household due to every lie covering every previous lie from the “most” switch it, least, transparent Presidency ever. Finally, the WH Press club along with MSM media everywhere is catching on due to the fallout now hitting them square in the journalistic jaws. Unable to see or hear anything in their official ‘brown shoe leather pounding’ official capacity on or inside the White House grounds or calendar. True frustration has set in from all sides on all levels from photojournalists to editors. Partisanship has nothing to do with censorship. The Dictator’s walls have officially been built to now be seen by all. Welcome to Obama’s Press service where one size government-owned only photo ops and government approved and released statement fits all.

Famously touting that his Presidency would be the most transparent in US history, read more

Nuclear Option Now Real – Pure Evil, by Pure Evil

Stopping the parasites of the progressive party will be even harder now. Protecting the American people is secondary to the selfish me-first Communist Progs. 251 years of Senate rules out-the-window, God help us. Pray -PBN

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries. read more

ObamaCare Not “Law of The Land” ONLY House Can Tax!

ObamaCare.Cartoon_acaonthefritzObamaCare was not written as a tax. Only the House of Representatives in Congress can write a law that creates revenue through a tax, per Article 1 Section 7, of the US Constitution. ObamaCare was presented as a penalty. Thereby rendering it null and void.

We here at PushBackNow.comUSDefenceLeague.com have been effusively attempting to educate the American populace of the factual truth regarding the legality and Constitutionality of: ObamaCare aka The Affordable Care Act. It is NOT in any way, shape or form the “Law of The Land!”

Why?

Because ONLY The US House of Congress can initiate a law, a tax law, a bill or a resolution that demands money from the American People. The bill or law cannot be re-written from a penalty to a tax, created after the fact in SCOTUS, in the midst of a Constitutional review in the highest court of the land:  The United States Supreme Court. As powerful of a court as they are, they cannot create, initiate, birth, write, draft, re-write, implement or mandate ANY laws, bills, taxes, resolutions or Constitutional Amendments period. They can ONLY review the Constitutionality of a case before them!

Again, ObamaCare was not written as a tax. Only the House of Representatives in Congress can write a law that creates revenue through a tax. ObamaCare was presented as a penalty, thereby rendering all Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch offspring, clones, twins and any variations pertaining to ObamaCare aka ACA (Affordable Care Act) null and void. And Here’s proof… One last thing, after you read it, share it, teach it and preach it. This is Truth, and Truth always prevails.

Article 1. Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.7

This should be the end of the conversation, but alas the proponents of the anti-ethical and burdensome ObamaCare Socialist One Payer Anti-American dream repeat their false mantra that it is the “law of the land” so deal with it. It is not. You deal with that! Liberals and radical Democrats and, unfortunately even some RINOs, have similar dreams for illegals to be supported by the ‘one-percenters’ and middle-income Americans amidst this great Republic of The United States of America. The Affordable Care Act’s weight will be shouldered by the healthiest and hardest working and doled out indiscriminately. The method of administering ObamaCare via its ‘Marketplace’ is another discussion entirely. And the means, using the IRS The Internal Revenue Service to regulate after such partisan assaults would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous! The facts are facts and ObamaCare/Affordable Care Act is a reprehensible illegal mandate pushed onto the American people via unauthorized, illegitimate and UN-Constitutional means. It is therefore NULL and VOID. Take that Mr. President, Democratic Congress, RINOs, et al, or, submit yourselves unto the legislative mulch you created and languish thusly by applying ObamaCare to yourselves at once! We The People will stand up against this, and every unlawful mandate and protect our Republic.  Now let’s hear from another Wide Awake Conservative voice. ~-PBN read more

Gun Control Sprouts from Racists Soil – NRA Has Standing to Fight Gun Control with The Militia Act of 1903

Gun control springs from racist soil. Dixiecrats (Dems) wanted to control people.

[jwplayer config="PBN" mediaid="46324"]

“God created man, Sam Colt made them equal.”

It’ is only because of the lies of the Democrats that all blacks are not Conservative. How blacks can be so supportive of Democrats who continuously  seek to own them  through handouts, and the fear of being  independent. Dems talk about freedom but the Democratic brand of freedom is  apathy and continuous enslavement to govt programs.

Fortunately the NRA has standing with The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick act of 1902.
Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable.  

Progressives in the House and Senate, be very afraid of failure, because you will fail!  Any gun control law breaking.

We have laws on the books that the lawmakers are ignorant of.  Maybe Congress, the Judiciary and Executive branches should get busy keeping the laws we have but first they’ll need to know the present laws prior to trying to enact  any more!

Benghazi: Retaliation For Brennan’s Secret Wars

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Cabinet-Agency-Candidates/john_brennan_barack_obama_reuters.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/---Xjyo-qrm8/UI1yFFvZnBI/AAAAAAAAAwI/-ynvI8tfmK0/s1600/A6LxsymCAAAs3J4.jpg

Many refer to the President of the United States, leader of the sole superpower in the world, as the most powerful person on the face of the Earth. It follows then that Barack Hussein Obama, as President, would be considered this person.

But that would be an incorrect conclusion. Even Obama with his “we can’t wait for Congress to act” meme, spurning the legislative branch, spurning the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put in place—even with Obama spurning the Courts in the recent NLRB ruling deeming his “recess” appointments unconstitutional, there is one man who wields more power than Obama: CIA appointee John Brennan.

How can that be? Brennan is man who is actually relatively low in the White House food chain, who is nothing more than an adviser to the President, with the title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Yet this man has a virtually unchecked amount of power—no, let us call it for what it is—unchecked power. Congress, the Courts, the CIA, even the Pentagon have no reign over this man as we shall see in a moment.

It was recently discovered that Brennan, running something akin to a fiefdom with his drone assassination program, has the power to decide who lives and who dies and doesn’t have to provide evidence to any entity that the “target” presents any threat to America—even if they are an American—even if the American is living in the United States!

Investigative Reporter Michael Isikoff uncovered a secret memo, entitled:

“Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”

The memo gives the Obama Administration—in effect Brennan—the authority to kill any American citizen at anytime for any reason without proof, without due process, and with absolutely no oversight.

The key passage in the sixteen page memo is the following:

The condition that an operational leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.

This was the basis for the drone strike against American-born al-Qaeda-linked terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki in September of 2011 in Yemen. And this was the basis of the murder of al-Awlaki’s sixteen-year-old son Abdulrahman, along with several other teenagers who were engaged in an outdoor barbecue. While it is debatable whether al-Awlaki as an American citizen should have received due process, it is doubtful that his son, murdered two weeks after al-Awlaki, had any connection to al-Qaeda.

But this unchecked power exercised by John Brennan is mild compared to what we learned with the recent release of an extensive book on the Benghazi consulate attack on September 11, 2012.

The book, Benghazi: The Definitive Report, released on February 12 makes the shocking claim that Obama’s chief counter terrorism officer, John Brennan, aside from having the authority to murder American citizens, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against Al Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-linked groups. How secret? So secret that he and his minions at JSOC, Joint Special Operations Command, operated not only outside the purview of Congress but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!

According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent,” but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the Libya-based terrorist group, Ansar al-Sharia. This was the group that we learned had taken responsibility within two hours of the attack, of which information was emailed directly to the White House Situation Room. After said information was uncovered, the Obama administration denied was true.

It turns out that, per the book, the West, particularly the United States, leading up to the 2011 Libyan civil war had been flooding Libya with literally millions of weapons. After the West—NATO, with Obama at the helm—decided to topple Gaddafi, these millions of weapons then fell into Al-Qaeda and associated groups’ hands. And what Team Obama wasn’t funneling to the Syrian rebels (what Benghazi: The Definitive Report calls an “open secret”)—they wanted to get back from groups such as Ansar al-Sharia. Brennan, throughout North Africa, had been conducting his secret JSOC wars against al-Qaeda and associated groups; and lo and behold, yes, Mr. Brennan, there was retaliation. And that retaliation resulted in the deaths of four Americans at the consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.

The whole Obama Benghazi cover-up was only partially about hiding the illegal funneling of Libyan weapons to Syria and was mainly about the real—but illegal—Commander-in-Chief John Brennan conducting secret wars in Libya—without approval from Congress, without approval from the Pentagon, and hidden even from the CIA, with only a behind-doors approval by Barack Hussein Obama.

How can the “adviser” to Obama—John Brennan—have the authority to make war on any country in the world?

The answer is he doesn’t have the authority.

Brennan should be arrested, not appointed to lead the CIA. And the man who is doing the appointing—Barack Hussein Obama—should be immediately impeached.

After he is impeached?

Prison will come in due time.

As a postscript, for the record, Benghazi: The Definitive Report makes it clear that when the Benghazi consulate was attacked and requested help, the CIA annex was told to stand down. They were ordered to stand idly by while Americans were slaughtered. They refused. According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report:

[Tyrone Woods’] leadership that day, and his refusal to sit by and all his fellow Americans to be overrun, is a testament to his character. His willingness to stand up to his CIA boss and do what was right is an example of true American heroism. Glen Doherty ran toward the sound of gunfire…

Impeaching Obama Gains Steam

impeach.obama.mko.

Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

120213obama2

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

by DREW ZAHN

Source & Complete Article Here.

Dirty Liar Harry Reid Lies About $2.6 trillion cuts in ‘This Week’ interview [VIDEO]

http://campaigntrailreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dirty.jpgSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) answers a reporters questions after the Democrat’s weekly policy luncheon, at the US Capitol, January 29, 2013, in Washington, DC. The leaders discussed pending immigration reform, bipartisan issues and the recent Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s recess appointments. UPI/Mike Theiler
Even the liberal leaning FactCheck.org called out Senator Harry Reid for being doubly wrong in his claim that Congress has already cut $2.6 trillion from projected future deficits by reducing non-defense programs alone.

The site explained that not only did the legislation he referred to applied to both security and non-security spending, but that a considerable part of the deficit reduction came from tax increases and not spending cuts.

The worst part? The senator made the same erroneous statement twice. Reid made the affirmations on ABC’s “This Week” on Feb. 3rd, were he also added that further deficit reduction should include more tax increases and cuts in military spending.

“The American people need to understand that it’s not as if we’ve done nothing for the debt. $2.6 trillion, $2.6 trillion already we’ve made in cuts. And all those cuts have come from non-defense programs. We need to keep our eye on the prize and continue doing something about spending, but I think that what we need to do is do some of the things that Mitt Romney talked about. He said there’s some low-hanging fruit; there are a lot of tax loopholes that should be closed. I agree with him. We haven’t done that.,” he said.

Later on, after host George Stephanopoulos probed the Senator on the issue, he repeated his claim saying,

“I repeat: $2.6 trillion already, all coming from non-defense. If we’re going to have a sequester, defense is going to have to do their share”

According to FactCheck.org Reid inflated the $2.6 trillion figure for the show. The senator referred to the same figure as being $100 billion less, three days before on the Senate Floor.

“We have already made nearly $2.5 trillion in historic, bipartisan deficit reduction,” he said on the floor Jan. 31.

UPDATE: Remember Who You Are USA, Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns Away [New Steve Vaus Music Video]

UPDATE: A Washington, D.C., conservative radio station has refused to sell airtime for a political statement from the writer-actor-singer who performed for years as television’s Buck Howdy – deeming it too “controversial.”“How sad that we live in a time when a message supporting the Constitution is deemed too controversial,” Grammy-winning musician Steve Vaus, creator of the Buck Howdy character, told WND today. D.C. conservative station shuts down political speech

Law abiding citizens do not possess assault weapons, they own defense weapons. And just so we are clear to the gun grabbers. The phrase “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands” is not simply a saying, it is a constitutional right and way of life. For those who are not apprised of the phrase “Molon Labe” it means “Come and take”.  Spoken by King Leonidas in response to the Persian King Xerxes (Persia is now Iran) army’s  demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. It is a classical expression of defiance. So we will succinctly say it, Molon Labe!

Freedom has never been free.  It has been paid for with the blood of Patriots since the birth of our Great Republic USA.  As time passes, it is up to true Americans to teach the next generation the Truth about Liberty and its cost.  The greatest Country of all time has been the most free and the most brave due to the Faith by Grace of its Citizens upon The Rock, The Cornerstone of our Country, The Lord Jesus Christ Who is the Only Mediator between God The Father and all of Mankind, which includes woman too, of course. 

Our Freedom of Speech and of Worship has always been contingent on the Safety and Security of Keeping that Freedom.  The Right to Bear Arms, the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution was not given to the People for the People by the People so that we could continue to Deer or Bear Hunt, or even to simply and rightfully protect our homes. 

The MAIN reason has ALWAYS been to keep “We the People” safe and secure from the eventual possible reality of a corrupted, atheistic/agnostic, and ever-emboldened tyrannical government bent on usurping our God Given Freedoms away from “We The People”.  Our Founding Fathers knew this grave potential for it was from whence they had come.  The King of England had shown them no mercy and had followed those Freedom seekers to the shores of this Great New Land.  The founders had stated how important our God Given Freedoms and Rights were clearly in black and white in our US Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence, the Founding document upon which the US Constitution was based.  USA- The Home of the Free and the Brave. 

Stay strong. Stay courageous. Our strength is in the Lord, the Joy of the Lord.  His name is JESUS.  There is No Other Name by which we can be saved!- PBN

MolonLabe

[jwplayer mediaid="32523"]

Come and Take It,” the song that has rallied gun owners with its remember-the-Alamo-like message, now has an accompanying music video with a special message for Barack Obama and members of Congress.

Grammy-winning musician Steve Vaus, creator of the Buck Howdy character, recorded the song that defies those advocating gun confiscation with one of the slogans of the Texas Revolution, “Come and take it.”

Though the song itself is more vague, the video leaves no doubt who Vaus is talking to in the lyrics.

“Mr. President, members of Congress,” Vaus says in the opening to the video, “you’ve been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away. But you might want to review history.

“1835. Gonzales, Texas Territory,” Vaus continues. “The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony. You know what the people said? ‘Come and take it.’ Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns. So are we.”

The video then launches into the pointed chorus: “Come and take it if you want it. Come and take it if you think you can. Come and take it, but we’ll warn you, you’ll have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.”

The lyrics continue, “We want the freedom that God gave us, so you best not cross that line. If you want this gun you gotta to come through us and take it, one shot at a time.”

The slogan, “Come and take it,” became the battle cry and banner of the Texas Revolution after the 1835 Battle of Gonzalez, in which Texians defied the Mexican government’s demand to return a cannon that had been given them for self-defense. Rather than surrender the cannon to Mexican dragoons, Texians stormed the Mexican camp and drove the soldiers away.

As Vaus’ song sings, “You just don’t mess with Texas, especially when it comes to guns.”

Full article here.

Feinstein Gun Ban Exempts Feinstein and Government Officials

Gun Ban ResultsFeinstein was the target of terrorists in the mid-90′s which led to her proudly and publicly declaring she had a licensed gun and concealed carry. She stated “if someone was going to take me out then I was going to take them out with me.”

It turns out that Rep. Ellison’s and Nancy Pelosi’s friends were the terrorists who bombed her home.  They were unsuccessful in their attempt however as Feinstein explained in her statement to Congress.  Ellison and Pelosi had in their inner circle (and probably still do) a group of murderers and traitors.  “He who walks with the wise grows wise but a companion of fools suffers harm.” Proverbs 13:20 -PBN -

Sen. Dianne Feinstein rolled out sweeping legislation that would ban more than 150 types of military-style semiautomatic rifles on Thursday, kicking off the congressional debate on a new assault-weapons ban that both sides say faces a steep uphill climb on Capitol Hill.

The measure is by far the most ambitious of the number of gun-control bills introduced in the wake of the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., last month.

“This is hard to do. It’s not easy to do,” Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat, said. “I think if the people in a red state want their representative to vote for this, they should weigh in, and the representative should listen.”

Her bill seeks to reinstate and expand the ban on assault weapons that was first enacted in 1994, but which lapsed in 2004.

It would prohibit semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature, such as a pistol grip or telescoping. Purchasing the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, which was used by the shooter in Newtown, would be illegal under the ban.

Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.

It would also ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden said in a White House video chat Thursday that high-capacity magazines are a bigger focus for him right now than assault weapons, though he did say that fewer police officers were “outgunned” when the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004 was still in effect.

He argued that such a ban might have made a difference in Newtown if the shooter had been forced to reload.

“Maybe if it took longer, maybe one more kid would be alive,” Mr. Biden said.

The Sandy Hook shooting has created an opening for pushing through broader background checks and some gun controls, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat.

“The center of America has moved in a sea change as a result of Newtown and other tragedies,” he said. “I think that elected officials may be politically vulnerable, but what we see is ordinary citizens physically and emotionally vulnerable as a result of assault weapons, but most importantly criminals, mentally ill people, domestic abusers, felons and fugitives all buying firearms and ammunition without sufficient background checks, and I think the assault-weapon ban and prohibition on high-capacity magazines is a part of that comprehensive strategy.”

In a statement, the National Rifle Association pushed back, saying that “the American people know gun bans do not work, and we are confident Congress will reject Sen. Feinstein’s wrongheaded approach.”

Efforts to renew the ban have repeatedly failed on Capitol Hill, where Second Amendment supporters have defeated nearly every gun-control measure for the past two decades.

Mrs. Feinstein acknowledged that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s recent comment in a television interview that an assault-weapons ban probably couldn’t pass the Senate “clearly wasn’t helpful.”

“He has a right to say it, and it doesn’t mean he’s always right,” she said.

But Mr. Reid insisted to reporters Tuesday that “this is an issue that we’re not going to run from.”

“It may not be everything everyone wants,” he said, “but I hope it has some stuff in there that’s really important.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has scheduled a hearing next Wednesday on gun violence. Mrs. Feinstein has already introduced legislation to combat illegal purchasing by straw buyers, where a person buys a gun for someone who is not able to buy one legally, and to strengthen existing laws to combat gun smuggling.

“I’m not going to go away,” she said. “I’m second in seniority on that committee, and I will do it on the floor if it’s not in the bill. I am not going to quit.”

Her legislation also requires background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered by the legislation, mandates that “grandfathered” assault weapons be stored safely, and prohibits the sale or transfer of high-capacity, ammunition-feeding devices currently in existence.

Full article here.

Obama and Netanyahu – More Than a Bad Feeling, Total Dysfunction

israel_flag_animatedEven Obama could understand this video. Please share it with your friends and any anti-semite that crosses your path. Every American, especially the Secretary of Defense should want to ally with our long time friends Israel. Ever believer understands the scriptural reasons. “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:3
[jwplayer mediaid='32159 ']
Obama: The Enemy of Israel

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama heads into his second term weighed down by an American government snarled in partisan gridlock, but also by an unproductive relationship with the leader of Israel, the bedrock U.S. ally in the tumultuous Middle East.

And the puzzle that is the U.S.-Israeli relationship under Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is only growing more complex.

“It’s troubled. It’s the greatest dysfunction between leaders that I’ve seen in my 40 years in watching and participating,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who served under six secretaries of state in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He was deeply involved in negotiations involving Israel, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians.

“I don’t think we are headed for a showdown,” he said, “but the relationship will continue to be dysfunctional.”

Even so, the United States routinely backs Israel when much of the world is deeply critical of the Jewish state. For example the U.S. was among the few nations opposing the Palestinians’ successful bid for upgraded status at the United Nations and did not criticize Israel’s bombardment of Gaza late last year in retaliation for rocket attacks from the tiny Palestinian enclave.

Still, an array of issues muddies the alliance.

Netanyahu likely will win re-election on Jan. 22, two days after Obama is sworn in for a second term. Netanyahu is a hardliner on making peace with the Palestinians, a goal that Obama said was foremost on his foreign policy agenda at the beginning of his first term. Beyond that, Netanyahu has been pressing Washington to adopt policy specifics that would trigger a military strike if Iran does not pull back on its nuclear program — widely believed to be aimed at building an atomic bomb. Iran claims its program is for generating electricity.

A further complication is Obama’s nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary.

Known as a maverick when he represented Nebraska in the Senate, Hagel is viewed by many in Washington and Israel as insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state. He has castigated what he called the “Jewish lobby” in the U.S., prompting some to label him anti-Semitic. While he voted for billions in aid for Israel, he has also called for engagement with its Hamas and Hezbollah enemies.

What’s more, he opposed unilateral American sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, which the Netanyahu government believes is an existential threat to Israel.

Netanyahu’s office refused comment on Hagel when contacted by The Associated Press in Jerusalem. But Reuven Rivlin, parliament speaker and member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, told AP that Israelis are worried because of Hagel’s “statements in the past, and his stance toward Israel.”

But Ori Nir, a spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, a Jewish group that pushes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, said fears of Hagel are wrongheaded.

“Talk of anti-Semitism is unjust and over-the-top,” Nir said.

Republican lawmakers’ opposition to Hagel is the latest in the partisan battles that have snarled the U.S. government.

Disputes over the budget almost led to major tax increases for middle class taxpayers, which neither party wanted. Other fights are pending over spending cuts and the government’s borrowing authority — both with potentially dire consequences for the economy. The newly elected Congress, with a Republican-led House of Representatives and a Democratic-led Senate, is similar to the previous one, which passed fewer laws than any Congress since the end of World War II.

While most of the partisan disputes have been on domestic issues, Republicans have continually accused Obama of not doing enough to support Netanyahu’s government.

The bad blood between Obama and Netanyahu began early.

In their first public appearance together at the White House in 2009, Netanyahu pointedly rebuffed Obama’s call for Israel to stop building Jewish housing on land the Palestinians want in a future state. Obama dropped the issue after it became obvious that it was a waste of political capital at home and that Netanyahu would not budge. Netanyahu’s government has continued to announce plans for new settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.

During the presidential campaign, Netanyahu hosted Obama opponent Mitt Romney in Israel as if he were already a world leader. Netanyahu denied backing either candidate, but his words and actions clearly showed favoritism for Romney.

On Iran, Netanyahu called at the United Nations in September for the United States to draw a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program, beyond which Iran would face military action. Obama continues to insist there is time for diplomacy, but has said he would not countenance a nuclear-armed Iran.

“The more Netanyahu believes Obama is serious about preventing Iran from getting a bomb, the better they will manage their relations,” said David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If not, the issue of an Israeli first strike on Iran becomes more likely.”

Miller, of the Woodrow Wilson Center, said Obama will be too consumed with battling Congress on the budget, gun control legislation and other issues to spend much time on disagreements with Netanyahu.

“Is he going to go after Israel-Palestinian peace talks or war with Iran given all his domestic challenges?” Miller asked. “He will go to extreme lengths to avoid war with Iran.”

He said the two leaders are moving further apart on the Palestinian issue, but have found some consensus on Iran. “For the next six to eight months, I don’t think the president is going to push on those issues.”

But Nir, of Peace Now, says time is running out for a peace deal with the Palestinians and Israel could face another armed uprising like the one that bloodied the region in 2000.

“There’s more and more an atmosphere among Palestinians that there is no political horizon,” he said, “a feeling that diplomacy doesn’t work.”

___

Associated Press writer Amy Teibel in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Full article here.

Know Your First Amendment Rights, Hold Those Who Break Them Accountable to the Law

Seeking verifiable submissions. Email us your story or one you want PBN to be apprised of, and we will verify and may publish. We may invite you on a future broadcast.

Every day, those who live in the USA are afforded the opportunity to our free speech. But all too often, the liberal left abuse the limits to that rule and get away with it.  We here at PBN have consulted with our legal department and have been compelled to share some truths about our rights we feel you should be apprised of.

On  October 16, 2009 Legislative Attorney Henry Cohen prepared a document with the Congressional Research Service. The document, “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment” Yes exceptions.

Here is what we want to bring into the light for a Call to Action by all Patriots.

Below in bold, is an excerpt from the summary that speaks particularly into the area of today’s verbal climate, predominantly on the liberal side of the aisle.  The Supreme court interprets our free speech laws that Congress has given us, based upon our founding documents, not to be Politically Correct, but to be Constitutionally correct and mindful of our freedoms within our Great Republic, the United States of America. Our Great Nation is not a capital “D” Democracy, if it were it would be “Mob Rule”. Without digressing into a University course on the Constitution, every legal citizen should understand that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. If you want to take a course, Hillsdale College offers one here. This is a 10 week course and all PBN staff and management have completed it.

“speech that constitutes advocacy of the use of force or of law violation … where such advocacy
is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action.”

As you read you will notice how leftist Unions/ Government employees and contractors have continuously broken the law along with the MSM who have lost all credibility due to their obfuscation of truth and manipulation of data. Political correctness is the enemy of liberty and freedom, we have declared Political Correctness dead on PBN.

Summary:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no
law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This language restricts government both
more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it
applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of
state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some
types of speech and only limited protection to others.

This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment—of the ways
that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide
no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech. For example, the Court has
decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or
speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation … where such advocacy
is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action.”

The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to
commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children,
speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys
the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place,
and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant
government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore,
even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the
basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny” (i.e., if the government shows that the
restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further
the articulated interest”).

Here are some of what this document for Congress discusses:

Obscenity

Child Pornography

Content-Based Restrictions

Non-Content-Based Restrictions

Prior Restraint

Commercial Speech

Defamation

Speech Harmful to Children

Children’s First Amendment Rights

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

Incidental Restrictions

Symbolic Speech

Compelled Speech

Radio and Television

Freedom of Speech and Government Funding

Free Speech Rights of Government Employees and Government Contractors

Government Employees

Government Contractors

1

2

3

4

5

6

12

13

15

16

18

19

21

24

26

30

30

34

 

Full Freedom of Speech and Press Exceptions to the First Amendment .pdf file