header

header

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

*VIDEO* OBAMA ELIMINATES OATH OF LOYALTY FOR 19 MILLION LEGAL IMMIGRANTS #o4a #RT

t’s not only illegal aliens who are escaping enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.
 Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority, legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s Naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.
Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service.
According to the Naturalization Fact Sheet on the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website, In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the nation welcomed 729,995 Legal Permanent Residents into full citizenship.
Over the past decade 6.6 million have been naturalized through a process that ends with the Oath of Allegiance.
In the decade 1980-1990, the average number completing Naturalization was only 220,000 annually, but from 1990 to 2000 that number jumped to over 500,000 annually.
1,050,399 new citizens were welcomed in the year 2008.
18.7 million immigrants are eligible to eventually become citizens, and 8.8 million already meet the 5-year residency requirement.
The pledge to help defend America was good enough for the 6.6 million immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in the coming year.
New United States citizens stand for the administration of the oath during the naturalization  ceremony at the Gerald R. Ford Museum Tuesday afternoon. (Mark Copier | The Grand Rapids Press)
New United States citizens stand for the administration of the oath during the naturalization ceremony at the Gerald R. Ford Museum Tuesday afternoon.
(Mark Copier | The Grand Rapids Press)

This radical change was announced a year ago, in July of 2015. Congress did not enact the change in new legislation.There was no congressional debate, no filibuster in the US Senate, and no sit-in in the House to demand that a bill to repeal the USCIS action be brought to a vote.

No, this radical change was implemented while Congress slept. Like other Obama actions to undermine our immigration laws, the Republican-controlled Congress led by Obama lapdog Paul “RINO” Ryan has not used its constitutional powers to reverse the administrative action. Thank God many states are stepping up to fill that void.
This week, the US Supreme Court let stand a federal district court ruling invalidating Obama’s unconstitutional “DAPA” amnesty.
By a 4-4 tie vote, the Supreme Court declined to review the Circuit Court’s ruling upholding the Houston district court decision. Therefore, it is now the law and Obama’s DAPA amnesty is voided. If Justice Scalia were still alive and participating in the case, it would have been a 5-4 ruling because the “swing vote,” Associate Justice Kennedy, voted with Justices Alito, Roberts and Thomas.
Where was Congress? Why did it take a lawsuit by the Governors and Attorneys General of 26 states to overturn Obama’s unconstitutional actions?
It’s true that other Presidents have made changes in the Naturalization process by administrative decree and without congressional approval. In 2002, in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack, President George Bush by executive order expedited the naturalization process for 89,000 immigrants serving in the armed forces. While many will agree with Bush’s action and even applaud, that change should have been done by act of Congress, not a presidential executive order.
In fact, most Americans will think it extremely odd that the USCIS action with regard to the Oath of Allegiance is not illegal. But the fact is, unelected bureaucrats at the USCIS can change the wording of the Oath without approval of the people’s representatives in Congress. Strange as it sounds, the law as it stands today allows USCIS bureaucrats great leeway in managing the Naturalization process, so Obama’s actions will not be challenged in federal court.
Yet, in view of Obama’s actions, why doesn’t Congress change the law and take control of the Oath of Allegiance? So far, there is no indication that the Republican leadership will do so. If they won’t even bar Islamic terrorists from the refugee program, why should we expect them to protect the Oath of Allegiance? Some members of Congress will grumble, make speeches and issue press releases, but the Republican leadership will do nothing.
Such is the state of the nation as we approach this 240th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Some Americans see great irony in the British declaring their independence from the tyranny of Brussels while Americans quietly accept the new tyranny of Washington, DC.
For more important news,CLICK HERE


Overpasses For America is a grassroots organization with tens of thousands of volunteer patriots who choose to stand for their nation without an ounce in pay.
This website is not free, so if you would be so kind as to click on one of our advertisements to help pay for the costs of operation, it would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you, and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=30833

Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Committee Releases Full Report On Attacks

After more than two years, the Republicans on the House Benghazi committee on Tuesdayreleased a final report on its findings.
Four Americans died in the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The special committee to investigate the attacks was formed in 2014.

Do You Think This Report Proves Hillary Clinton Handled The Benghazi Attacks Poorly?

  Yes         No       

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
“I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions,” committee chairman Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina congressman, said in a statement. “You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”
According to a document released by the committee, here are the “new facts” uncovered by the probe, with corresponding page numbers in the released report:
  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.'” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference — from Cairo to Benghazi — had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]
  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012 — roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks — security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]
Democrats — in defending former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — have opposed the committee since before it was formed. Still, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appointed Democrats to the committee.
On Monday, the Democrats on the committee released their own report, which they used to call the probe a waste of time.
“Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation,” the Democratic report states. “They will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars — and the formidable power of Congress — to attack their political foes.”
  •  http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/28/trey-gowdys-benghazi-committee-releases-full-report-on-attacks/

 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/select_committee_releases_benghazi_report.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/06/28/truth_vs_narrative_benghazi_exemplifies_what_has_happened_to_our_country


Trump wasn't even in the spotlight back then and these Bottom Feeders are so full of shit and lies to kiss Hillary's  Ass its sick

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/06/28/democrats_mention_donald_trump_23_times_in_their_benghazi_report

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/06/28/hillary_picks_up_the_narrative_the_benghazi_committee_found_nothing

A Few More Shared Facebook Post



























Monday, June 27, 2016

Chicago Is Pushing For A Massive Bailout Of Its Public School System

Leave it to Illinois to suck more Taxpayer money into Liberal Progressive Promises courtesy of the Taxpayer.

It is well known that Chicago's pension liabilities have completely decimated the city's finances and currently stand at close to $20 billion. Faced with a significant challenge of meeting funding obligations as a result of a 2010 state law, Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently won a slight reprieve in the amount of money the city would have to contribute to fund the liabilities over the next few years, as recentlyIllinois lawmakers overrode Governor Bruce Rauner's veto and will now change the legislation in order to allow the city to defer payments to fund pensions.
Under the prior legislation, Chicago was required to have its public safety workers pensions 90% funded by 2040, and called for an $834 million payment to be made in 2016 alone. The revised legislation reduces that amount to $619 million, and allows for smaller increases through 2020 while pushing the timeline for 90% funding out to 2055 - at which time the timeline will be extended once again of course, as it will never be possible for the City to come up with such funds.
Perhaps riding high on that small victory, Rahm Emanuel is now quietly asking the city to change investment rules that would allow Chicago to purchase debt from sister agencies such as the Chicago Public School system - said differently, Rahm Emanuel wants to bail out the Chicago Public School system.
Although as expected, nobody wants to refer to the maneuver as a bailout, only as an "investment."
Sponsored by Optionshouse

Get an Edge with OptionsHouse

Get More Control at OptionsHouse. Experience powerful technology that delivers the control you want. Technology that doesn't just help you trade. It helps you trade better. Proprietary trading tools that help you better manage risk and find new strategies and ideas with our fully-customizable trading platform and integrated tradeCYCLE process. Open and fund a new OptionsHouse account today and seize on opportunities.
From the Chicago Tribune
Emanuel this past week quietly proposed a change to city investment rules that would allow the city to buy debt from so-called sister agencies, including CPS, no matter the creditworthiness of that debt. He said he was making the request on behalf of city Treasurer Kurt Summers as part of the Summers' annual investment policy update.

Aides for both Emanuel and Summers said the proposal was not designed to give the city a way to provide temporary funding to CPS as it seeks state help to right its teetering financial ship. "That's not what's happening," city spokeswoman Molly Poppe said. "This is not some contingency plan or bailout for CPS."

Instead, they said, it's meant to give the treasurer the option of investing in bonds, short-term loans or other types of debt from CPS — and other agencies like the Chicago Housing Authority, Park District, CTA and City Colleges — just as the city has the option of buying its own debt.
CPS carries roughly a $6.2 billion debt load, and recently borrowed $725 million through a bond issuance. In March CPS indicated it would have to tap an existing $370 million credit line with Barclays to help pay a June 30 pension obligation in the amount of $676 million. CPS already carries a junk rating by all three major rating agencies.
Nonetheless, the narrative that the bailout is actually an investment is fully in play.
"This change means that our sister agencies would no longer be treated any differently from an investment perspective than the city, as is commonplace throughout the country," said Alexandra Sims, senior adviser to Summers. "The city has always had the ability to invest in municipal and state bonds. This expands and allows us to invest in the city and all sister agencies as part of the treasurer's plan to invest in Chicago."
* * *
While Emanuel and other city officials pretend that the city is making an investment, it is quite likely that the bailout will mean a significant loss for taxpayers, who already feel the burden of severely under funded pensions as noted above. The reality is that tax hikes are coming, and this "investment" will need to be covered by future revenues from the taxpayers as well.
Eventually the reality that debt can't be forever used in place of honest fiscal reforms will be introduced to Chicago (and everyplace else, Detroit for example). Until then, those who actually do have a little money are going to continue to flee cities such as Chicago, as they see the writing on the wall.
As a reminder, here is a heat map of where $100,000 pensions reside - notice anywhere in particular?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-27/chicago-pushing-massive-bailout-its-public-school-system

Illegal Immigration Advocate & Congressman Busted Funneling Campaign Money to Family

Great, another from Illinois

luis gutierrez

Liberal Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is easily recognizable among those who keep an eye on the goings on in Washington, D.C. He’s most well known for his undying support of immigration reformand his efforts to open our borders and to grant amnesty to every illegal alien… ever.
However, Gutierrez may soon become infamous for more than just his foolhardy approach to immigration reform. He’s gotten himself caught up in a bit of a scandal, and while Democrat scandals don’t seem to cause as much of a ruckus as they should, this one could still end up ruining the Illinois congressman’s career.
According to a new report from the Washington Free Beacon Rep. Gutierrez has paid his wife and daughters hundreds of thousands of dollars, from campaign funds, over the last 5 or 6 years. While the practice is not strictly illegal, it is illegal for the candidate to personally gain from funds raised to campaign. Which means that while the fact that Gutierrez’s wife has made more than $300K over the last four election cycles is not illegal, it is ethically very questionable.
The first time Soraida acted in an official capacity for the campaign, in 2010, she pulled in over $44,000 and was the top recipient of cash from the Gutierrez campaign that year.
Soraida then pocketed over $93,000 in 2012, making her the biggest beneficiary of campaign funds for the second election cycle in a row. The committee disbursed $383,848 in 2012, so Soraida’s payments constituted roughly 25 percent of all campaign expenditures.
Soraida was yet again the top beneficiary of cash from Gutierrez for Congress during the 2014 election cycle, receiving $110,000. Herman Andrew, a vendor, was the second highest-paid individual at $24,000.
Soraida has pocketed $65,000 during the 2016 election cycle to date. She has been paid a total of $312,000 from the Gutierrez for Congress campaign committee since 2010.
However, it doesn’t stop with the $300K to Gutierrez’s wife…
Gutierrez’s daughters have also benefited from their father’s campaign coffers, though nowhere near as extravagantly as the candidate and his wife.
While I don’t expect the Obama administration to do anything about Gutierrez’s questionable behavior, I’d hope that his constituents in Illinois will find these disclosures worrisome. Gutierrez’s actions with the money entrusted to his campaign proves that he cannot be trusted with much larger and more important funding issues.
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost
Onan Coca is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA. He is also the chief editor at EagleRising.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/06/27/illegal-immigration-advocate-congressman-busted-funneling-campaign-money-to-family/

Fast And Furious II? CIA Guns Sent To Syrian Rebels Stolen, ‘Possibly Used To Kill Americans’

Fast And Furious II? CIA Guns Sent To Syrian Rebels Stolen, ‘Possibly Used To Kill Americans’

We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of the Fast and Furious scandal, and now comes word of possibly another, very similar, scandal. On Sunday,the New York Times reported that weapons sent by the CIA and Saudi Arabia to arm the Syrian rebels may have been stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to black market gun dealers. Those weapons, in turn, were apparently used to kill Americans.
The Times reported:
Some of the stolen weapons were used in a shooting in November that killed two Americans and three others at a police training facility in Amman, F.B.I. officials believe after months of investigating the attack, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The existence of the weapons theft, which ended only months ago after complaints by the American and Saudi governments, is being reported for the first time after a joint investigation by The New York Times and Al Jazeera. The theft, involving millions of dollars of weapons, highlights the messy, unplanned consequences of programs to arm and train rebels — the kind of program the C.I.A. and Pentagon have conducted for decades — even after the Obama administration had hoped to keep the training program in Jordan under tight control.


Screen Shot 2016-06-27 at 12.21.03 PM
Allies, indeed…
The Times further added:
President Obama authorized the covert arming program in April 2013, after more than a year of debate inside the administration about the wisdom of using the C.I.A. to train rebels trying to oust Mr. Assad.
The decision was made in part to try to gain control of a chaotic situation in which Arab countries were funneling arms into Syria for various rebel groups with little coordination. The Qataris had paid to smuggle shipments of Chinese-made FN-6 shoulder-fired weapons over the border from Turkey, and Saudi Arabia sent thousands of Kalashnikovs and millions of rounds of ammunition it had bought, sometimes with the C.I.A.’s help.
Crosshttp://lidblog.com/fast-and-furious-ii-cia-guns-sent-to-syrian-rebels-stolen-possibly-used-to-kill-americans/-Posted from Conservative Firing Line

LEFT WING HYSTERIA over Brexit dubbed a “victory for xenophobia, economic nationalism and the biggest blow to the liberal new world order since WWII”

Again its always about race? Liberalism as I see it is a  Sickness, or the talking points from the White House are out early and the bottom feeders are using them

CNN’s Christine Amanpour, in a show of self-righteous indignation, expresses disbelief that the little people dared to defy the “overwhelming preponderance of experts, independent analysts, scientists, academics, economists, business leaders and allies of the UK,” who recommended Britain “stay” in the EU.


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/06/27/left-wing-hysteria-over-brexit-dubbed-a-victory-for-xenophobia-economic-nationalism-and-the-biggest-blow-to-the-liberal-new-world-order-since-wwii/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/06/27/brexit_shouldn_t_have_been_a_shock