‘ISIS takes notes': Fence-jumper makes his way into White House’s front doors

The White House fence-jumper on whom Twitchy reported Friday afternoon actually made it through the North Portico doors before he was eventually apprehended, the Associated Press reports:

The intruder sprinted toward the White House after leaping over the fence and ignored commands from officers to stop, Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said. He was ultimately apprehended just inside the North Portico doors, the grand, columned entrance that looks out over Pennsylvania Ave.

Donovan said the man appeared to be unarmed to officers who spotted him jumping the fence, and a search of the suspect turned up no weapons. The suspect, identified as Omar J. Gonzalez, 42, of Copperas Cove, Texas, was placed under arrest and transported to nearby George Washington University Hospital after complaining of chest pain.


Twitchy » US Politics

Share

1 in 4 Americans Want To Secede From the United States

We Are Change

Posted by Austin Petersen http://thelibertarianrepublic.com

A new Reuters poll which asks Americans if they would want their state to secede from the UNION of the United States has found that 1 in 4 Americans would say “yes.”

Reuters reported that secession was supported mostly from the usual suspects such as Republicans over Democrats, right leaners, lower income brackets, high school over college grads, etc. However, there was also a surprising amount of support in almost every group and region overall.

From Reuters:

Secession got more support from Republicans than Democrats, more from right- than left-leaning independents, more from younger than older people, more from lower- than higher-income brackets, more from high school than college grads. But there was a surprising amount of support in every group and region, especially the Rocky Mountain states, the Southwest and the old Confederacy, but also in places like Illinois and Kansas. And of the people who said they identified with the Tea Party, supporters of secession were actually in the majority, with 53 percent.

Libertarians generally support the idea of secession in principle. The right of self determination for individuals and states is a commonly accepted belief for those who are skeptical of big government. However, not every historic attempt at secession is seen as legitimate in libertarian circles, and many who are such individualists can still believe in this perpetual UNION of states, while holding the principle of secession as a right.

The American Civil War is a contentious issue amongst American libertarians even today. Some argue that the South was legitimately within their rights to break away from the North, citing the tyranny of Northern tariffs and the right of self determination. Still, many other libertarians argue (myself included) that there is no right of secession when the expressly stated purpose in doing so is to maintain chattel slavery. The Southern states did claim the right in their articles of secession and founding documents to hold men in slaves, and to expand the “peculiar institution” to new territories.

The act of the United States seceding from England is a much less contentious issue, and one that almost all American libertarians agree was done in a manner consistent with individual rights and self determination. British libertarians might disagree.

The issue today is whether or not the United States is better off as a perpetual UNION, or if these territories might be better off going their own ways. It’s entertaining to fantasize about what a free Texas republic may be like, or how much better off the rest of the country might be if we were free of Californian socialists. But there is strength in numbers, and the Founders of the United States made powerful, convincing arguments for why these states should remain together.

Libertarians generally tend to distrust the federal government, however, there are strong libertarian arguments for the federal government to exist as a check and balance against state level tyranny. Jim Crow laws are the simplest example to cite, but what of the issue of war? If the states were to break away and form independent commercial republics, would they not be jealous of one another? And if so more prone to go to war with one another? Alexander Hamilton feared this, and cited strong arguments for why the UNION should be created, strengthened and maintained.

From Federalist #6

The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well regulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league, which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.

Certainly it was the case that after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation were in force, the states did levy outrageous taxes and tariffs against the trade of goods between themselves. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sr. Judicial Analyst at Fox News has argued that the origins of the Commerce Clause of the constitution began as a reaction to these tariffs, and that the true meaning of the act is to keep commerce “regular,” not to serve as a blank check for politicians to justify everything from the amount of wheat a farmer can grow on their own property to Obamacare.

This flies in the face of many libertarian’s biases towards the beliefs that trade, in and of itself, is a good enough reason for independent states to avoid war with one another. “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will,” they say. But that has not been the historic example, as Hamilton has cited above in the case of Carthage, and indeed many nations during World War II traded with Nazi Germany right up until the first hostilities began breaking out.

A seceding Texas might sound sweet to those who believe it would be a libertarian leaning nation, but that is only if you consider strictly the positive aspects of the state such as the pro-business environment. It is also unfortunately the nation’s leading death penalty state. It also shares a border with Mexico, and could be prone to hostilities with our friends south of the border due to territorial disputes, as it has in the past when it was an independent republic. These passions are bridled thanks to the cooling effect of the non-border states. Texas, and Texans, arguably, benefit from their attachment to the UNION in ways that natives may not wish to admit.

As I have argued before, I believe it is not the time for the advancement of the issue of secession in the United States. Perhaps nullification, but not separation. Despite my sincere, strong beliefs in the principle of secession, I do not believe that any state of this UNION seceding would advance the principles of individual liberty in any way. It would most likely only engender hatred, jealousy, and the encouragement of hostility and alienation between newly strange people, who were once familiar.

The post 1 in 4 Americans Want To Secede From the United States appeared first on We Are Change.


We Are Change

Share

Pray For and Actively Support Local Servicemen against ISIS

You need to support local servicemen. Here’s why: From Fox News: “Law enforcement bulletin warned of ISIS urging jihad attacks on US soil.”

A law enforcement bulletin obtained by FoxNews.com warned that Islamic State fighters have increased calls for “lone wolves” to attack U.S. soldiers in America in recent months, citing one tweet that called for jihadists to find service members’ addresses online and then “show up and slaughter them.”

There will be “a continued call – by Western fighters in Syria and terrorist organizations – for lone offender attacks against U.S. military facilities and personnel,” warned a July law enforcement intelligence bulletin from the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, a state-run agency that gathers, assesses and shares threat information and works with the Department of Homeland Security. “These threats will most likely increase should the U.S. or its allies attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) in Syria or Iraq.”

In one example cited in the bulletin, a British jihadist encouraged radicals still living in the West to use Facebook and LinkedIn to find and target soldiers.

“You could literally search for soldiers, find their town, photos of them, look for address in Yellowbook or something,” the tweet read. “Then show up and slaughter them.”

There are so many related issues we could discuss in response to the above story—I freely admit that. But let me be precise and focused here (and let’s keep the comments targeted, too).

I have little doubt our service members would protect us, were there to be an assault by an enemy force on the homeland. The reason many of them signed up to serve, was to have our backs.

In the case of this threat, if you have military members or police living near you, consider letting them know you have their back, should any “lone wolves” show up in the neighborhood. Say you’ll be keeping an eye out for strangers, especially on behalf of their families, when they’re on duty.

You have to know our men and women in uniform are concerned about what could happen, so I’m confident your vigilance and words of support will mean a lot to them.

(I am so very tempted to ensure that we always have bacon, pork chops, or ham in the house to “decorate” the body of any “lone wolf” who would show up. Gotta have something good for presentation on the YouTube video.)








The post Pray For and Actively Support Local Servicemen against ISIS appeared first on Political Outcast.

Political Outcast

Share

The Smoking Gun in the Obama Eligibility Case: Stanley Ann Dunham’s Passport

While Barack Obama has taken numerous and expensive steps to keep his past secret (and yes, other presidents have did the same), one thing that cannot be missed is what may be the smoking gun in the eligibility case: The passport information of Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother. It has been said that young Barry went to Indonesia with his mother to live with Lolo Soetoro and in doing so, because of his age, he was placed on his mother’s passport. According to the documents obtained from the US State Department, under the Freedom of Information Act, Barack Hussein Obama’s name was stricken from the original application. According to the State Department, they “could not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents.”

Why are these documents so important? Under US Passport laws, in order to add a child to one’s passport, they would simply have to have the child’s birth certificate and a photo of one’s self and the child so that they could be matched when boarding a plane for their destination.

Upon the release of Dunham’s passport files, they were examined and in her renewal application, dated August 13, 1968, she lists Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah). Obama would have been eight years old at the time, just about to turn nine.

However, if you take a look at the application, young Barry’s name is scratched out on page two of the application, which means he was not in the application for his mother’s passport renewal in 1967.

obama passport 2

So what does this mean? Well, consider a brief timeline.

  • Stanley Ann Dunham allegedly married Barack Obama, Sr. in 1961.
  • Barack Obama, Jr. was allegedly born on August 4, 1961 to Stanley Ann Dunham
  • Later in August of the same year, Dunham moved to Washington to attend University of Washington
  • Obama, Sr. continued studies in Hawaii until June 1962 and then went to Harvard.
  • Dunham met Lolo Soetoro in 1963
  • Obama and Dunham divorced in March 1964
  • Soetoro and Dunham married in 1965 in Hawaii (according to P3 in the files obtained, but 1964 in P5)
  • Soetoro leaves Hawaii for Indonesia in 1966, leaving behind Dunham and little Barry
  • Dunham and Barry would travel to Indonesia in 1967
  • From ages 6-10 Obama was in school in Indonesia; first at a Catholic School where he was registered as a Muslim and then at Besuki School, one of the three best public schools in Indonesia. (Consider that Obama was labeled a citizen of Indonesia at the time and that it is extremely rare for non-Indonesians to go to Indonesian public school.)
  • Obama returned to Hawaii to live with grandparents in 1971

So, first let’s be honest here. Dunham had a passport that was valid at the time Obama took his first trip to Indonesia (1967). However, when she chose to renew the application (August 1968), she listed Obama and then scratched him out. Since records are not available for her initial passport application due to them being destroyed, one wonders if Obama was listed on the passport. For the sake of argument, I’ll assume he was. He’s in Indonesia for four years.

He then returned to Hawaii and attended Punahou School and meets his alleged father Barack Obama, Sr. for the only time in his life (by the way, they look nothing alike). Here’s where it seems there is a problem. Who did Obama travel with when he came back to the states? If it was his mother, consider that she had not properly listed him in her 1968 renewal application. She would have had to do this in order for Barry to travel with her to Indonesia.

The real kicker comes in her application dated June 1971. There is no listing for Barack Obama as her son on her passport. How is Barry getting from Indonesia to Hawaii now?

According to the man I was named after, who was a Christian missionary for decades to various parts of Indonesia beginning in 1967, he told me that he always had to list his children on his passport until they were 18. Then they could get their own passports. So why is Barack Obama, the son of Stanley Ann Dunham not listed on any of her passport applications? How was he able to travel to and from Indonesia?

The convenience of the 1965 passport records being destroyed is curious. For one might make the claim that there is a coverup (albeit circumstantial) regarding Obama’s presence in his younger days. Age 5-6 is when kids normally began school in the US. I assume it would be similar overseas, such as in Indonesia.

But the question remains that Soetoro never listed him as her son on future applications, even when he was ten years old, which would have been when he came to Hawaii and stayed.

Perhaps there is an explanation, but without previous travel records for Obama, we may never be able to get a definite answer.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) theorizes:

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10. This file indicates via the 1967 passport amendment application (document marked P3) that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama had a passport for certain issued to her 1965 and she was applying to amend it. Thus, she had one for sure in 1965. Since a passport was good for 5 years, that means if the 1965 issued passport was a renewal that she likely got her first passport possibly as early as late 1960 or early 1961. How does that fit the narrative to explain the information coming out of Kenya that Obama was born there? Why did she need a passport at age 18? She would not need it to have a baby in Hawaii or to go to college in Seattle Washington. What was the real reason this pregnant teenager got a passport in late 1960 or early in 1961? I believe it was likely to be able to travel to Kenya to have the baby over there where it was her intent to leave the baby there to be raised by the paternal family in Kenya. She was to then return to re-start her life as a young teenager going to college in Seattle Washington. And then when Stanley Ann did not follow the plan because maternal instincts kicked in and she returned to college in Seattle WITH the new baby, grandma Dunham had to take action and filed the fraudulent action in Hawaii to falsely register the baby as born at home there in Hawaii, with no witnesses, to get her newborn grandson U.S. Citizenship … because it was very easy to do this in Hawaii in 1961. Listen to the Bill Cunningham Radio Show for how it was likely done [continued below video]:

I grant that CDR Kerchner’s assumption that Dunham’s passport was obtained at eighteen is just that, an assumption. However, it is interesting that he links to a story with similar documentation that we have provided documentation in a previous article as it relates to the Kenyan Parliament and the acknowledgment that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Too many things don’t add up with Barack Hussein Obama: his selective service form, his social security number, his lack of being able to be verified to hold a job in the US and his birth certificate all point to a man who is a fraud and an illegal president.

So, I ask you, is this passport information the smoking gun in the Obama eligibility case? If so, what are people like Markwayne Mullins and a host of other elected officials doing by not pursuing this to verify the truth? I’ll tell you what they are doing. They are being complicit in this and looking out for what they perceive as their political futures, plain and simple. Demand your congressmen pursue this and present the truth to the American people.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

The post The Smoking Gun in the Obama Eligibility Case: Stanley Ann Dunham’s Passport appeared first on Freedom Outpost.

Freedom Outpost

Share

Obama Says ISIS Isn’t Islamic?!? Does he Really Believe Islam is Peaceful?

Obama said its important not to lump ISIS in with Islam, because it is a peaceful religion. Is it though? Really? See what Zo has to say. via AlfonzoRachel

The post Obama Says ISIS Isn’t Islamic?!? Does he Really Believe Islam is Peaceful? appeared first on ConservativeVideos.com.

ConservativeVideos.com

Share

You can now go to jail for toy gun in Atlantic City

(National Review ) Atlantic City’s city council just unanimously voted to ban selling or owning “realistic-looking“ toy guns.

The ordinance bans the “sale, possession or use of any imitation firearms … which aren’t bright, fluorescent colors or transparent,“ according to an article published in the Press of Atlantic City.

Anyone caught with an illegal toy gun can face a $ 50 fine and 30 days in jail.

WND

Share

‘It’s inexcusable’! Fed-up citizen details her ‘Obamacare nightmare’

It may not be dominating the news these days, but rest assured: Obamacare still sucks as much as ever.

Here’s today’s reminder, courtesy of tweeter Brittany Cover:

Godspeed, Brittany.

So there’s that …

Editor’s note: This post has been updated with additional tweets.


Twitchy » US Politics

Share

Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote

We Are Change

Russian observers say referendum count took place in rooms that were too big and did not meet international standards

Ballot boxes are opened as counting begins in the Scottish referendum in Aberdeen
Ballot boxes are opened as counting begins in the Scottish referendum in Aberdeen. Photograph: Scott Heppell/AP

Luke Harding http://www.theguardian.com
Friday 19 September 2014 08.12 EDT

Russia has said the conduct of the Scottish referendum “did not meet international standards”, with its observers complaining the count took place in rooms that were too big and that the procedure was badly flawed.

In an apparent attempt to mirror persistent western criticism of Russia’s own elections, Igor Borisov – an accredited observer – said the poll failed to meet basic international norms.

Borisov and three other Russians arrived in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening, the state news agency Ria Novosti reported. The team from Moscow’s Public Institute of Suffrage watched voting take place in the Scottish capital and the surrounding area. It also met with Scottish politicians, voters and representatives from non-governmental organisations, Ria said.

Advertisement

Borisov said he was unimpressed by what he saw. He said the room where he watched the count on Thursday night was a cavernous “aircraft hangar” next to an airfield. It was difficult to see what was going on, he said, adding: “The hangar is approximately 100m by 300m. There are tables, with voting papers stacked upon them, but the observers are stuck around the perimeter. Even if you want to, it’s impossible to tell what’s happening. It’s also unclear where the boxes with ballot papers come from.”

Borisov said the US state department, the UK and other western countries loudly hectored the Kremlin about Russia’s supposed democratic deficiencies. But in this instance, he said, London and Edinburgh had not “fully met” the requirements of a proper referendum.

“Nobody was interested in who was bringing in the voting slips. There were no stamps or signatures as the bulletins were handed over,” he said.

Supporters of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had been fervently hoping for a yes vote. Some Russian nationalists had even fixed yes badges to their Twitter profiles, with one –Konstantin Rykov – adding a “Mc” to the front of his Cyrillic surname. (The badge and “Mc” had disappeared by Friday morning). The Kremlin apparently saw Scottish independence as a way of justifying its own hasty annexation of Crimea in March, following a “referendum” conducted in just three weeks and condemned by the west, as armed Russian forces and irregulars swarmed over the Crimean peninsula. Moscow also felt that a yes vote would weaken the UK and bring to power a post-independence Scottish government more amenable to Moscow’s wishes. Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, expressed qualified admiration for President Putin in an interview with GQ in March.

The Kremlin propaganda channel RT, meanwhile, speculated that the result might have been rigged and expressed surprise at the “North Korean” levels of turnout.

Afshin Rattansi, the presenter of RT’s Going Underground show, said there were “international considerations”, such as the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which had affected the outcome. He said: “With the vote as close as this, with the mainstream media on one side, with a massive amount of people from Westminster running up to beg Scotland the other way, and certain recounts in certain bits of the poll, which way did the vote go, really?”

He added: “It is normally the sort of turnout you would expect in North Korea. Usually media here would go ‘we don’t believe it. How can it be nearly 90%?’”

On Friday the Donetsk People’s Republic – the Ukrainian rebel enclave – said that it, too, believed the Scottish referendum had been falsified. Miroslav Rudenko, a member of the republic’s self-declared supreme council, said he suspected the UK government was guilty of foul play. “I don’t rule out that the British authorities have falsified the results of this referendum. The difference between those who voted in favour of independence and against it is not so great,” he told the Russian news agency Interfax.

Rudenko said the west was guilty of “double-standards”. It had allowed a referendum in Scotland but refused one for Donestk and Luhansk, the rebel enclaves where separatists backed by Kremlin firepower are fighting Ukrainian troops.

The post Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote appeared first on We Are Change.


We Are Change

Share

Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote

We Are Change

Russian observers say referendum count took place in rooms that were too big and did not meet international standards

Ballot boxes are opened as counting begins in the Scottish referendum in Aberdeen
Ballot boxes are opened as counting begins in the Scottish referendum in Aberdeen. Photograph: Scott Heppell/AP

Luke Harding http://www.theguardian.com
Friday 19 September 2014 08.12 EDT

Russia has said the conduct of the Scottish referendum “did not meet international standards”, with its observers complaining the count took place in rooms that were too big and that the procedure was badly flawed.

In an apparent attempt to mirror persistent western criticism of Russia’s own elections, Igor Borisov – an accredited observer – said the poll failed to meet basic international norms.

Borisov and three other Russians arrived in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening, the state news agency Ria Novosti reported. The team from Moscow’s Public Institute of Suffrage watched voting take place in the Scottish capital and the surrounding area. It also met with Scottish politicians, voters and representatives from non-governmental organisations, Ria said.

Advertisement

Borisov said he was unimpressed by what he saw. He said the room where he watched the count on Thursday night was a cavernous “aircraft hangar” next to an airfield. It was difficult to see what was going on, he said, adding: “The hangar is approximately 100m by 300m. There are tables, with voting papers stacked upon them, but the observers are stuck around the perimeter. Even if you want to, it’s impossible to tell what’s happening. It’s also unclear where the boxes with ballot papers come from.”

Borisov said the US state department, the UK and other western countries loudly hectored the Kremlin about Russia’s supposed democratic deficiencies. But in this instance, he said, London and Edinburgh had not “fully met” the requirements of a proper referendum.

“Nobody was interested in who was bringing in the voting slips. There were no stamps or signatures as the bulletins were handed over,” he said.

Supporters of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had been fervently hoping for a yes vote. Some Russian nationalists had even fixed yes badges to their Twitter profiles, with one –Konstantin Rykov – adding a “Mc” to the front of his Cyrillic surname. (The badge and “Mc” had disappeared by Friday morning). The Kremlin apparently saw Scottish independence as a way of justifying its own hasty annexation of Crimea in March, following a “referendum” conducted in just three weeks and condemned by the west, as armed Russian forces and irregulars swarmed over the Crimean peninsula. Moscow also felt that a yes vote would weaken the UK and bring to power a post-independence Scottish government more amenable to Moscow’s wishes. Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, expressed qualified admiration for President Putin in an interview with GQ in March.

The Kremlin propaganda channel RT, meanwhile, speculated that the result might have been rigged and expressed surprise at the “North Korean” levels of turnout.

Afshin Rattansi, the presenter of RT’s Going Underground show, said there were “international considerations”, such as the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which had affected the outcome. He said: “With the vote as close as this, with the mainstream media on one side, with a massive amount of people from Westminster running up to beg Scotland the other way, and certain recounts in certain bits of the poll, which way did the vote go, really?”

He added: “It is normally the sort of turnout you would expect in North Korea. Usually media here would go ‘we don’t believe it. How can it be nearly 90%?’”

On Friday the Donetsk People’s Republic – the Ukrainian rebel enclave – said that it, too, believed the Scottish referendum had been falsified. Miroslav Rudenko, a member of the republic’s self-declared supreme council, said he suspected the UK government was guilty of foul play. “I don’t rule out that the British authorities have falsified the results of this referendum. The difference between those who voted in favour of independence and against it is not so great,” he told the Russian news agency Interfax.

Rudenko said the west was guilty of “double-standards”. It had allowed a referendum in Scotland but refused one for Donestk and Luhansk, the rebel enclaves where separatists backed by Kremlin firepower are fighting Ukrainian troops.

The post Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote appeared first on We Are Change.


We Are Change

Share

New Fundraising Campaign to Help Out Barack Obama

America is broke, so please participate in this fundraising campaign for World War III.








The post New Fundraising Campaign to Help Out Barack Obama appeared first on Political Outcast.

Political Outcast

Share
2016 Obama’s America
USA Debt
national debt
free shipping 120x60
Archives
September 2014
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
Uccupy Unmasked
Categories
HOPE & CHANGE
I Hope you will Spare Some Change

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.