Monday, April 2, 2012

We Muslims have rights and if the infidels won’t respect our religious demands, we have ways to force them to comply

From: Bare Naked Islam


Mama Muslim instructs her little baghead on the art of ‘dhimmitude’ – forcing Islam down the throats of the unbelievers.  She says Americans need to be educated about Islam and must give us time off to pray and days off for Muslim holidays. If they resist, we have CAIR who will sue them. The only reason we are here, in America, is for ‘dawa’ – to spread Islam and make good little ‘dhimmis’ out of the filthy kuffar (unbelievers).

See the video here:

SPOTTED: Rick Santorum Stands and Applauds at Pro-Choice Rally with Arlen Specter

PHONY!!!  Santorum is a PHONY!!!
See it here:

My petition calling for Obama's immediate arrest for treason

Please sign and share everywhere!

High court rules strip search reasonable after traffic stop

By Bill Mears, CNN

Albert Florence poses with lawyer Susan Chana Lask in this undated photo.
Albert Florence poses with lawyer Susan Chana Lask in this undated photo.
  • Man strip searched twice after imprisonment for alleged failure to pay fine
  • Judge later found he had paid fine
  • High court divided 5-4
  • Majority concluded "reasonable suspicion" standard could apply to new prisoners
Washington (CNN) -- A New Jersey man who was strip searched in prison after being accused of failing to pay a traffic fine lost his Supreme Court appeal Monday.

The 5-4 divided court found two county jails "struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the (correctional) institution."

The conservative majority concluded a "reasonable suspicion" standard could be applied when conducting examinations of newly admitted prisoners.

Albert Florence said he was subjected to what he called a pair of intrusive, humiliating searches six years ago.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said the policy was designed in part to protect the safety of Florence and other inmates.

"Exempting people arrested for minor offenses from a standard search protocol thus may put them at greater risk and result in more contraband being brought into the detention facility," said Kennedy. "This is a substantial reason not to mandate the exception (Florence) seeks as a matter of constitutional law."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito supported all or part of Kennedy's opinion.

Florence was challenging Burlington County rules allowing routine strip searches of everyone arrested, even for minor offenses, regardless of the circumstances.

The man was a passenger in his family's sport utility vehicle when it was stopped by a New Jersey state trooper in March 2005. His then-pregnant wife was driving and their 4-year-old son was in the back seat as they headed to a Sunday dinner.

Since Florence was the vehicle's registered owner, the officer ran his identification and discovered a bench warrant for an outstanding fine. He had already paid the fine and carried a letter attesting to that fact, since he claimed he had been stopped on several previous occasions. Nevertheless, the 35-year-old Bordentown resident was handcuffed and arrested, then taken to the jail in Burlington County, in the central part of the state.

Court records show Florence was subjected to an invasive strip and visual body-cavity search. He was then held for six days in the county lockup before being transferred to a Newark correctional facility, where, he claims, he was subjected to another more intrusive search before being placed in the general prison population.

"It was very disgusting. It was just a bad, bad experience," he told CNN's Kate Bolduan recently. "I was just told, 'Do as you're told.' Wash in this disgusting soap and obey the directions of the officer who was instructing me to turn around, lift my genitals up, turn around, and squat."

The next day a magistrate freed Florence, confirming what he had insisted all along, that the fine had been paid.

Florence then sued, claiming the search protocols violated his Fourth Amendment rights, since neither jail reasonably suspected he presented a security threat, or was smuggling contraband. But a federal appeals court in Philadelphia last year ruled the blanket search policy proper.

"The 5-4 decision was as close as we could get with excellent dissent in this political climate of recent law for indefinite detention of citizens without trial that shaves away our constitutional rights every day," said Susan Chana Lask, Florence's New York-based attorney. "Politics and the Constitution should not be mixed."

Kennedy said this ruling was limited, and that the court need not consider other more invasive prison searches, such as those involving touching an inmate, and for those detainees held in solitary confinement.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "I cannot find justification for the strip search policy at issue here -- a policy that would subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their privacy."

Another one of Florence's lawyers, Thomas Goldstein, had urged the court to rely on earlier precedent forcing jailers to use individualized discretion before searching inmates. "If the jail has the facts, as it did here, to affirmatively determine that there is no reasonable suspicion, which is what they decided about Mr. Florence," he said, "then it is an extraordinary intrusion on dignity and autonomy to strip him naked when they have no reason to do so."

But the county's attorney, Carter Phillips, said prison officials know their security system best. Noting that jail is "without question one of the most dangerous, most risky environments," he said he hoped the court would not ask "individual jailers to make decisions where they clearly will not have the kind of information" they would need and "where if they make a judgment wrong in either direction, all it means is litigation."

Federal courts before the September 11, 2001, terror attacks had been at odds over the constitutionality of strip searches. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The Supreme Court in 1979, in what is called the Bell precedent, upheld the kind of search Florence had undergone for prisoners who had contact visits with outsiders. Using a balancing test, the justices said the prison's security interest justified intrusion into the inmates' privacy. But subsequent appeals courts have found those arrested for minor offenses may not be strip searched unless authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person may be concealing a weapon or contraband such as drugs.

In 2008, however, appeals courts in Atlanta and San Francisco found searches of every inmate coming into the prison population are justified, even without specific suspicions. Those opinions were the first of their kind since the 9/11 attacks and, along with Florence's case, now give the high court the chance to clarify an issue that a number of civil and human rights proponents have tried to highlight.

Local jails in New Jersey at the time of Florence's arrest were subject to federal monitors after allegations that minority motorists and their passengers were being unfairly targeted for police stops and arrests, sometimes called "racial profiling." Stops of that nature are not at issue in the current appeal. Florence, who is African-American, is not alleging any racial discrimination by the state or individual officers.

The case is Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, New Jersey (10-945).

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld. 

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. 

The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress. 

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said. 

The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace. 

Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care. 

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional." 

Republican lawmakers slammed the president for his Supreme Court comments. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused the president of misrepresenting the implications of a ruling against the law. 

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" he said in a statement. "Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals' purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional." 

The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs. 

The leaders vowed a new effort to boost North American trade and cut needless regulation that stifles it. "Our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger," Obama said. 

Obama noted trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year, and he wants to see that number rise. 

But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Obama shelved the plan pending further review -- and has endured ferocious GOP attacks ever since, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs. He maintains GOP leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found. 

Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves -- more than 170 billion barrels -- after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Obama says health care law is constitutional

By Tom Cohen, CNN

President Obama says of the bill, "There's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."
  • NEW: Conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch says Obama attacks the high court for political reasons
  • Legal precedent should mean a favorable Supreme Court ruling, President Obama says
  • The Supreme Court held three days of hearings on the health care law last week
  • A high court ruling is expected later this year, before the November presidential election
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama weighed in Monday on last week's Supreme Court arguments about health care reform, saying he expected the justices to rule the act is constitutional.

"In accordance with precedents out there, it is constitutional," Obama said of the 2010 Affordable Care and Prevention Act passed by congressional Democrats with no Republican support. "That's not just my opinion, by the way, that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case."

At a joint news conference with visiting leaders from Mexico and Canada, Obama was asked about the three days of high court hearings last week and subsequent speculation that conservative justices would rule against the health care law's individual mandate, which requires people to have coverage or pay a fine.

The measure is the signature legislation of Obama's first term as he heads into a re-election campaign this year. Polls indicate the nation is divided over the issue on ideological lines, with conservatives opposing the measure as a government overreach and liberals supporting it as a necessary overhaul of the health insurance system.

Obama on Monday framed the issue as one affecting everyone, rather than an "abstract argument."

"People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordablity of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions," Obama said, later adding: "Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law."

In addition, the president noted, 30 million people will gain coverage when the individual mandate and the rest of the law is fully implemented in 2014.

"I think it's important and I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care," Obama said. "So, there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."

Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.

He also took a shot at critics of the health care bill, noting that such opponents now were calling for the kind of "judicial activism" they have opposed in the past.

"I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," the president said.

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama added.

The Supreme Court's decision is expected in June, in the middle of the campaign for the November presidential election.

Conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, hit back at Obama's comments later Monday, saying in a statement that "it must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.' "

"Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the court correctly applied the law," Hatch's statement said, adding: "Unfortunately these attacks come as no surprise, since the memo appears to have gone out from the president's campaign that criticizing the Supreme Court is going to help his re-election."
Hate Crime, Not Likely

Shaima Alawadi, 32, a mother of 5 was found unconscious by her 17 year old daughter, in the dining room of the family’s home in El Cajon, CA about 11:15 a.m. March 21. Alawadi was taken off life support about 3 p.m. March 24. She died shortly thereafter.
The daughter who found her told KUSI Channel 9/51 her mother had been beaten in the head with a tire iron and a note near her mother stated,
“Go back to your own country, you’re a terrorist".
The family also told police they had received a similar threatening note several days earlier but considered it a prank by teenagers.
Let me state here that this is a brutal murder and regardless of what the investigation reveals, a 32-year-old mother of 5 was cruelly taken from her family.
The death of Shaima Alawadi comes on the heels of the Trayvon Martin shooting and people throughout the country are taking sides over whether Trayvon was a victim of racism. Add to that the note left by Shaima’s body and it’s no wonder that people right away start yelling “hate crime”.
On March 26, Jim Redman, the Chief of the El Cajon Police Department, held a 15 minute news conference that lead to more questions than answers. His statement was less than two minutes long, the 14 remaining minutes was a question/answer session with the press. In the first minute of the conference Chief Redman explained the note,
“Based on the contents of this note we are not ruling out the possibility this may be a hate crime.”
He stated the note “was threatening in nature” but continued with,
“I want to stress there is other evidence in this case that we are looking at and the possibility of a hate crime is just one of the aspects of this investigation.”
Redman then stated it was “isolated”,
“Based on the evidence thus far, we believe this is an isolated incident.”
First red flag, how can this be an isolated incident if it was hate crime? Would the Chief make such a statement if he had evidence there were a person or persons running around murdering Muslims?
The very first question asked was about the note,
“Could the note possibly be a red herring or possibly family members or something like that as well?”
The answer that the Chief gave would remain the same for most of the questions,
“I can’t get into that; I just have to maintain my statement that we are looking at all aspects of this case”.
Questions that followed attempted to get the Chief to reveal more to no avail,
“What other evidence are you referring to, is it forensics?”
Chief Redman stuck to his initial statement and explained,
“Any further discussion on the evidence would compromise this investigation. I really have to stress that we can’t go any further in to the evidence of this case, I apologize for that.”
When asked if all the family members had been interviewed he answered, “Yes”. The reporter repeated “all of them, including the husband?” Redman stated “all of them, including the husband.”
The Chief refused to discuss the contents of the note found near the body. When told by a reporter that the 17-year-old daughter had specifically stated on TV what was in the note, the reporter asked if it was accurate. Redman stated,
“We’re not going to reveal any further details on the note other than it was threatening in nature.”
The Chief refused to confirm if a tire iron was the weapon used or if it had been found. He did explain that only one search warrant had been issued and that was on the home of the victim, where she was found.
Asked about another note that had been reported, the Chief explained that there was another “threatening note” that had been found by the family within the last month, but the family did not call the police or keep the note.
Red flag number two; so this other note was only mentioned to the police after Alawadi was beaten, it was not kept and never seen by police investigators.
Chief Redman stated “We’re confident that we’ll be able to solve this case, I can’t reveal any timeline, but we are examining evidence and we’re confident we’ll be able to resolve this case.”
When asked “Do you have any persons of interest”, the Chief stated “no, we do not.” Asked if “there is a description of the suspect”, he answered “not at this time.”
The answer to the follow up question of “There’s no suspect, correct, or is there?” is red flag number 3. The Chief stated “I can’t reveal any details of that at this time.”
When asked the question,
“If you think this is an isolated incident, or, how do you assure residents of El Cajon that they don’t need to be concerned if we don’t know a lot about this case?”
The answer goes back to the first red flag, Chief Redman stated,
“I wish I could reveal more, but I really can’t because it would compromise the investigation, but I just want to assure the citizens of El Cajon that we believe, we strongly believe that this was an isolated incident.”
When asked about hostility towards the Muslim community in the area, the chief stated that there was “no free flowing hostility” in the community.
Asked about finger prints on the note, Chief Redman said, “I can’t reveal that.”
When asked about Alawadi’s “whereabouts and activity that morning prior to being found” as well as “what happened that morning with the kids going to school”, Redman only stated, “I can’t comment on that.”
Asked “did you say it was a forced entry to the house”, Redman stated, “there was a broken window, but we can’t reveal any further information than that.” The reporter followed up with “and that looks like how they had gotten in?” the Chief said, “Can’t reveal any farther, sorry.”
When asked whether or not “there was a history of domestic violence”, Redman stated, “none that we know of so far.”
Red flag number 4 is the answer to the question why they were so sure it was “an isolated incident and does that mean it’s less likely that it was a hate crime?” The Chief stated,
“I can’t comment on the evidence or the reasons why we believe it’s an isolated incident other than to just assure the community that that’s our strong belief.”
The last red flag is because of the question that was asked about family interviews, the Chief was asked about follow up interviews with the family and Redman stated “We’ve conducted interviews” and then a reporter asked if any persons of interest were being interviewed and his answer was the same,
“We’ve conducted interviews; I can’t reveal the details of the interviews, so I won’t answer that question.”
So where am I going with all this you may ask. As explained in an article from August 2010 titled “Fake Hate Crimes: An Islamist Weapon”, by Ryan Mauro,
CAIR called on the FBI to investigate an act of arson at a Georgia mosque, saying that hate crimes were increasing because of a “vocal minority in our society promoting anti-Muslim bigotry.” The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) referred to it as one of the “incidents of Islamophobia [that] are on the rise in this country.” However, police later arrested a Muslim suspect.
He cites several cases within the article,
A classic example occurred in 2008, when a 19-year-old female Muslim student named Safia Z. Jilani at Elmhurst College in Illinois claimed that she had been pistol-whipped in a campus restroom by a male who then wrote “Kill the Muslims” on the mirror. The alleged attack occurred just hours after she spoke at a “demonstration called to denounce the anti-Islamic slurs and swastika she had discovered … in her locker.” A week later, however, authorities determined that none of this had taken place and she was charged with filing a false police report.
In other cases, individuals are driven to fabricate hate crimes not for political reasons, but to cover up more mundane criminal activity. Take the bizarre story of Musa and Essa Shteiwi, Ohio men who received media attention in 2006 after reporting several attacks on their store, the third being with a Molotov cocktail. A fourth “attack” then occurred, when an explosion was set off and badly burned the father and son, injuries from which they later died. CAIR highlighted it as a hate crime. However, investigators found that the two had set off the explosion themselves after they poured gasoline in preparation for another staged incident and one of them foolishly lit a cigarette. The pair had hired a former employee to carry out the previous attacks as part of an insurance fraud scheme.
There are several other cases within the article, but too many to list all here.
Daniel Pipes did a report back in 2005 on this same subject titled “CAIR's Hate Crimes Nonsense”, he lists 6 cases in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gave examples of anti-Muslim hate crime reports and he “discovered a pattern of sloppiness, exaggeration, and distortion”.
I myself have written on this subject before as well. My article last may on Fatima Abdallah was just one example of an ‘honor killing’ that was ruled a suicide. No, it was accidental, or was it both? The Tampa Florida police and the Medical examiner never did agree, but as I explained in the article,
Fatima Abdallah died after she allegedly beat her own head against a coffee table and then on the floor until she died. Her death was ruled accidental and the case was closed.
This goes much farther than the obvious ludicrousness that someone would commit suicide by beating their own head on a table. The inconsistencies in the police reports and statements, the 911 call report, the Tampa Fire Department medics and the Medical examiner are astounding.
My first thought when I heard about the beating and death of Shaima Alawadi was that it was another ‘honor killing’ that would be covered up. It’s not that I don’t believe that someone would murder a Muslim for being a Muslim, no; this was because of past history.
Now I am even more convinced due to the press conference by Chief Redman of the El Cajon Police. If a member of her family did kill Shaima in the name of honor, what better way to cover it up than by writing a note and breaking a window?
The reports on hate crimes by our FBI show that crimes against Muslims continue to go down each and every year. I touched on this in my article just last week,
…the recently released FBI crime statistics from 2010... The stats section of Religious bias once again shows that anti-Jewish hate crimes were far and above that of Islamic hate crimes,
Of the 1,552 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:
67.0 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
12.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
I have written too many articles on honor killings here in the U.S. and I am certain this one will be added to the list.
There is only one way that the El Cajon police could be so certain that this was “an isolated incident”. There is only one reason the Chief would make a public statement saying he wanted to “assure the citizens of El Cajon that we believe, we strongly believe that this was an isolated incident.”
That would be if they knew without a shadow of a doubt that whoever committed this murder was a threat only to Shaima Alawadi and no one else.
My hat’s off to Chief Redman and his department, it sounds to me thus far that they are truly looking in to every aspect of this murder and not jumping on the “Islamophobic” band wagon.
Only time will tell if I am right, but at least so far this case doesn’t look like it is going to end up like the Tampa, Florida case being swept under the proverbial prayer rug. Either way, as I stated in the outset, this is a brutal murder and regardless of what the investigation reveals, a 32-year-old mother of 5 was cruelly taken from her family.
If I am right, perhaps we will hear some outcry from the Women’s rights groups this time.
Then again…

Rep. Allen West speaks at Vietnam Veteran's Memorial 30th Anniversary

Click on the link below to see Allen's speech

What an Obama second term would mean

What will an Obama second term mean for the people of this nation? If our "Commander in Chief" gets re-elected, the national debt and record deficits may be the LEAST of our worries. This brand NEW GGW video show us a "Supreme" consequence of an Obama second term. This email and video should be forwarded to every voter in this nation! 

Click this link to watch the video.

Cutting Navy While Obama Pivots To Asia Does Not Add Up 


You know it's bad when the President's own national security adviser calls the Secretary of Defense over for a meeting at the White House to explain exactly how the administration is "pivoting" to Asia yet shrinking the Navy and the Air Force. But that's what happened earlier this year. It is no surprise given the administration's budget-strategy mismatch.

When President Obama unveiled his new strategic guidance in January, highlighted by a pivot to Asia, many assumed (incorrectly) that the Navy and Air Force would reap the benefits. But if the president's own 2013 defense budget request did not make it clear to policymakers already, the release of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan confirms this is a pivot in name only.

The Navy would have fared better merely holding steady at last year's resource levels before the pivot and budget cuts shrank the sea service. Five months later, the administration's new plan stops paying even lip service to a 313-ship Navy, the same 313-ship plan that was considered the minimum needed by the last Chief of Naval Operations.

The Navy spends the vast majority of its time assuring and deterring others, not fighting battles. Networks do not deter potential aggressors nor support and assure our friends and allies. Ships steaming the world's oceans and sailors home ported in foreign docks do that. Quantity is still important and even more so when the pivot is to a region defined by vast distances. But at no point over the next three decades will the U.S. Navy approach a fleet size totaling 313 ships. Under the new proposal, the fleet falls under 300 ships for nearly half of the 30 year span. The new fleet average is roughly 298 ships.

But even a fleet of 298 ships is optimistic given that the Navy's latest plan overinflates force levels due to excessive ship life estimates. The new plan assumes 40-year hull lives for DDGs and 35 years for cruisers. This means the gap in major surface combatants is now underrepresented in the revised proposal.

One of the Navy's most competitive advantages is its attack submarine fleet and capabilities. Yet the new shipbuilding plan drops the number of SSNs to 43 from 48 at the same time the service plans to build just one per year in 2026.

The shortcomings of the Navy's 2013 shipbuilding plan are especially transparent when compared to their updated plan of just a short half-year ago. In the Navy's September plan, it would have exceeded its target for 313 ships in 9 out of 30 yrs, or 30% of the time. Conversely, it would have fallen below a 300 ship floor for 11 of the 30 years, just over one-third of the time. Over the course of last year's long-term plan, the fleet would have averaged 306 ships in any given year.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the new shipbuilding plan and the 2013 budget is that they simply build fewer ships. As little as five months ago, the administration said the Navy needed to construct 276 ships. Today: 268. While the difference seems slight, what it means is that with fewer new ships, the Navy will be forced to put increased stress and strain upon the rest of the fleet as older ships are kept in service past their intended retirement dates. Ships are already sitting out missions because of decreasing readiness, and with an increased emphasis on the Pacific combined with an older fleet, still more ships will be unable to meet their responsibilities at sea.

The Navy faces a stark risk in the short term. Last year's Navy budget funded the construction of 57 ships from FY 2013 through FY 2017. The pivot budget cuts this to 41 ships, leaving the Navy with fewer than 280 ships in FY 2014 and FY 2015. Despite technological advances in battle networks, numbers still matter. Ships, no matter how capable, cannot be in two places at once. When it comes to maritime patrols, fewer ships at sea means the visible and stabilizing presence of American warships will rotate through foreign ports less often, undermining deterrence, and failing to resource America's commitment to its many allies.

Nonetheless, the Navy is prioritizing the fleet's most important warfighting ships: submarines, large surface combatants and aircraft carriers. The new 30-year plan averages more nuclear attack submarines in the fleet each year, builds nearly 20 more large surface combatants than the last plan, and keeps last year's goal of six new aircraft carriers over the next three decades.

The Navy didn't decide to make do with fewer resources. It was handed a budget number and forced to meet that diminished target.

The latest budget and associated plans that are supposedly emphasizing the Asia-Pacific are part of a hollow shell game. The bottom line is that this Administration's defense strategy proposes one thing while its own defense budget does the opposite. It's no wonder the President's national security adviser had trouble rationalizing the latest defense budget because it just doesn't add up.
If The Court Says No, Obama Is Toast!
Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
By Dick Morris on April 2, 2012

Dear Friend,

In this video commentary, I discuss how some Democrats are spinning that a rejection of the individual mandate would be good for Obama. Baloney. It will destroy his chances. Tune in!

View the video here:

Thanks for watching,

Hear No Racism, Speak No Racism

by Javier Manjarres / The Shark Tank

The unfortunate shooting death of seventeen year old Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, who is claiming self-defense, was likely to marred by political exploitation and racial division. When President Obama claimed that, “If I  had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” the dye had effectively been cast, as Obama made a cynical, calculated gamble to exploit the youngster’s death for political gain.  Some believe Obama’s move could quite possibly be a precursor for an Executive Order or legislation that could curtail our Second Amendment liberties.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has demanded the repeal of Florida’s 2005 “Stand your ground” law, and the race-mongering Reverend Al Sharpton has played his ‘race card’ and is planning “a wave of civil disobedience.”

Along with Wasserman Schultz, other Democrat members of Congress suchas Frederica Wilson are also racially exploiting Martin’s death to call attention to themselves as well as cover for their lack of accomplishment in Congress.  Wilson has stated that Zimmerman “hunted” down Martin because he was black and also said that, “I am tired of burying black boys.

When do you ever hear any non-black politician state that they are tired of burying Hispanic, Asian, or Caucasian boys?  A not-so little secret that Wilson and others continue to ignore are the statistically higher black-on-black and black-on-white crimes including aggravated assault and murder than there is against blacks by any other ethnicity.  Where is their outrage with this sobering fact?

While Sharpton’s skewed thinking that this so called “civil disobedience” he’s planning will bring “awareness” and perhaps affect the police’s investigation into the shooting, it’s more likely that Sharpton will incite more violence and arrests that further fuel his racist agenda.  But while Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and other so called ‘Black Leaders” invoke racial equality for all and cast blame on the ‘White’ race for the black races’ ‘oppression,’ they refuse to look in the mirror and seriously confront the real issues that afflict black community.   While it’s no secret that real racism exists throughout every demographic, arguably the least discussed type of racism is that which comes from blacks themselves, as the media rarely ever gives the issue the coverage it deserves.

Race-baiting black leaders and many pop icons for years have led many blacks to believe that they are still an oppressed minority that will always live under the thumb of the ‘whites.’  This racial propaganda is a key component of Democrat grievance politics and it tells blacks that they will never truly be able to overcome the systemic racism that permanently embedded in American society.  One inexplicable cultural connection among some of these blacks is the way they refer to themselves using derogatory terms such as ‘Niggas’ and other racially charged epithets that they conveniently condemn non-blacks for using the moment they are uttered.

Taking notes and following suit from Sharpton and Jackson are their compatriots in this ongoing racial divide- the new crop of pro-amnesty illegal aliens activists who understand the effectiveness of using racial threats to intimidate politicians into listening and in some cases advocating for their cause.  Meanwhile, the two leading causes of the woes that plague the black community- the alarming single-parent home epidemic and lack of education that results are largely ignored by race mongers like Sharpton & Jackson.

Instead of focusing on these problems, Sharpton focuses on the grief and rage that are the byproducts of these underlying problems and then profits off the pain of others- make no mistake, this is a business for Sharpton.  Without a racial divide to play off, Sharpton would be out of business and would wither away into obscurity.  It’s a sad commentary to see a man such as Sharpton free to roam the American landscape to further exacerbate the racial divide when he should actually be in prison for a long litany of criminal activity which his adversaries have been too reluctant to prosecute.

Michael Coren and Robert Spencer discuss the threat of Islamic jihad and the Islamic war on free speech

On Saturday Robert Spencer appeared on Michael Coren's Sun TV show to discuss the threat of Islamic jihad and supremacism, and the Islamic war on free speech.

See the interview here:

Video thanks to Blazing Cat Fur.

Brothers in arms, brothers in nuclear weapons?

Posted in Jihad Watch

Everything has a beginning and an end ...

Finally, after a long wait, the great bazaar was opened, the great Islamic Trade ...
Who is selling what? -- you ask.

The great atomic bazaar has opened in Tehran.

Yes, yes, yes, you heard right, the trade in nuclear material has begun...

Nuclear technology is being sold wholesale, and in parts. Who will pay what it takes to acquire it?

If you have nuclear technology, you're protected. If you have a nuclear bomb, your enemies are afraid; it means they respect you ...

I imagine that something like that is going on in Tehran now.

I have previously written at Jihad Watch about the arms market in Grozny. From 1996 to 1998 in Chechnya there was bought and sold every weapon, from pistols and revolvers to sniper rifles, antitank and antiaircraft missiles.

The nuclear bazaar has now opened. Want proof? Here it is.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to Tehran on an official visit. He held several meetings with the leaders of the Islamic Republic. At a press conference in Tehran, Erdogan said that no one has the right to act against Iran's peaceful nuclear program. He said that Iran has a legitimate right to this program, and that Turkey was against any pressure and threats against Iran.

The answer from the Iranian side was not long in coming. At the same press conference, the Vice-President for Relations with the Legislature and Parliament, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, said that the two countries have great potential for the development of economic relations, and that for the development of cooperation between Iran and Turkey there are no barriers. He said that Iran has spent a lot of capital on the progress of its program, and that he was ready to share this progress with those countries that believed in the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program. And that among those, Turkey was in the first place.

"Despite the fact that Turkey and Iran are independent states, they have common enemies, said Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is on an official visit to Tehran," said the official website of the President of Iran on Thursday.

"The hegemon does not want development of Turkey and Iran. Tehran and Ankara should not be deceived by the shrewd policy of hegemony, for we do not wish to strengthen their power in the region," said Ahmadinejad.

Reports said: "The Iranian president also noted that economic, political and energy cooperation between Iran and Turkey is at a high level."

Of course, this is a smart move, unless the deal falls through. Erdogan did not go to Iran just to chat. In addition, he went afterward to South Korea to discuss the issue of nuclear safety, and met with U.S. President Obama.

I'm not sure why the premier of Turkey dared to take this step alone. It is very risky act, even for him.

In Seoul, leaders of 53 countries signed a communiqué in which, inter alia, they undertook efforts to minimize the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes, as it can be used to build an atomic bomb.

"Nuclear terrorism is still one of the most challenging threats to international security," said the communiqué.

"Defeating the threat requires decisive action at the national level and international cooperation in view of its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences."

According to Reuters, the communiqué is general in nature. It called upon states "to provide control over all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years." Leaders also stressed the "important role" of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the "promotion of international cooperation."

If the alleged nuclear deal between Iran and Turkey is successful, the Iranians will return portion of the money spent, and thereby solve the problem associated with the financial and oil embargo. Turkey is not like Iran. Turkey is a NATO member. With her the West is more careful.

But the State of Israel will be in the worst situation. It is ever more difficult for it to justify any actions against Iran.

In any case, Iran's regime has won some time.

Yes, everything has a beginning and an end. There is even a beginning and an end to Islamic supremacy. It will come to an end, and so will the superiority of the Arab oil sheiks. There is a beginning and an end to Iran's nuclear program. The end will be, but what end, and when will it happen?

An interesting fact is that some time ago in Georgia leaders began to talk about nuclear power. The Minister of Energy said that in 20 to 30 years, Georgia may see nuclear energy. Shortly thereafter, Georgian politicians began to consider withdrawing the ban on transportation of nuclear waste. Maybe we are talking about Islamic nuclear waste?

We need this here in America...NOW

European Defense Leagues

Memorandum of Understanding 

‘Defending the right to defend free nations’

Memorandum of Understanding relating to the formation of a European network of advocates for human rights and personal freedoms, in opposition to Sharia Law and other forms of oppression.

Recognizing the need to make a statement outlining the shared principles that will act as the foundations for future cooperation, the above-listed organizations have agreed the following:

We believe that our nations, our people and our traditions, are all in need of defense.

Islamic extremism threatens our rights, our freedoms, and even our very lives.

But it would not be so dangerous a foe if, unlike previous generations, we had not become paralyzed in the face of this extremism.

We are paralyzed by moral relativism, political correctness, cowardly appeasement, strict self-censorship and self-loathing.

We should not be afraid to speak our minds, to fly the flags of our nations, to say plainly what we believe to be right and what we believe to be wrong.

But instead, we seem ashamed of our identities, our traditions, our heritage.

We are tolerant and accepting, but often only because we fear to make a stand against intolerance and hatred.

We have, it seems, already begun to surrender.

It is almost as if we no longer believe in all that should make us proud; all that makes our countries distinct, and all that unites them.

Our politicians refuse even to talk about it.

Our newspapers insult and attack those who refuse to bow down – those who refuse to submit or surrender their freedoms – as if they are responsible for the assaults on freedom about which they protest.

And all the while, we let the radicals decide the modern face of Islam in Europe.

We all know that a battle is being waged, not between Muslim and non-Muslim, but between fundamentalist and reformer.

But what are we willing to do?

The more we capitulate, the more we appease, the harder the reformer has to fight.

The more we abandon our own principles, the more we forget our pride, the more confident the fundamentalist becomes.

That is why we need to be loud.

We need to send a message to the fundamentalists, to our governments, to the press, and to anyone who may have given up on the people of Europe:

We believe in the rights enshrined in the laws of our nations.

We believe in the freedoms long-enjoyed in our lands.

And we believe in the democratic traditions that best protect both our rights and freedoms.

We believe in equality under the law and due process, regardless of race or religion.

We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of worship.

And we believe that it is our right to speak out against those who would threaten these freedoms, as well as those who would enable them to do so.

In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights declared that “freedom of thought, of religion, of expression and of association as guaranteed by the [European] Convention [on Human Rights] could not deprive the authorities of a State in which an association, through its activities, jeopardized that State’s institutions, of the right to protect those institutions.”

In other words, the European Court of Human Rights recognized that we have a right to defend our democratic institutions from those who, in attacking these institutions, would exploit the rights and freedoms granted to them in the Western world.

Unfortunately, much of the modern Islamic world continues to deny the rights of its people and to suppress their freedoms.

And there are also some – not just the supporters of Sharia Law – who wish to see this model of oppressive, divisive, supremacist religious totalitarianism imported into Europe.

Within some Muslim communities it has already begun.

Honour killings, child grooming, hate preachers, home-grown terrorists, and women encased in the burqa.

Much of the time it is Muslims themselves who are the first victims.

We must not be afraid to say what should be obvious to all:

Our way is better.

Not different, better.

Individual Muslims may well have plenty to offer, but there is much about Islamic culture that we cannot stay silent about.

We are committed to countering extremism, wherever it be found.

And we will guard against anything that would threaten our diverse and tolerant nations.

We are anti-extremist, anti-fascist, and anti-racist.

We will protest peacefully, but we will defend ourselves if need be.

We will be loud, and we will not back down.

Because the defense of our countries, our people, our rights, our freedoms, our values, and our futures demands nothing less.
Totalitarianism American-Style
Totalitarianism American-Style
Television pundits, political hacks, progressives in higher education, brainwashed educators and the elite rulers in the halls of the Washington, D.C., cesspool love to call America a democracy. Most of the people believe it. After all, it is what is they were taught in school. But it is not so. America is a totalitarian society.

When envisioning a totalitarian regime, most American people imagine concentration camps, soldiers roaming the streets demanding “papers” and people disappearing in the dead of night.

Totalitarianism American-style is more subtle. It has had to be, because the ancestors of today’s Americans believed in freedom and were willing to fight and die to preserve it.

Totalitarianism American-style has grown slowly and imperceptibly over many years.

This is gradualism.

Much like watching your child grow if you see him every day, there is no perceptible difference until one day you realize the boy you saw yesterday is now a man. American totalitarianism has suddenly become a man.

The signs are all around for those who choose to see. You no longer have to search for them. Thanks to the Internet, which somehow remains out of government’s control, the signs are now appearing in plain sight, even if still only a minority realizes what the signs mean.

The ruling elites — politicians, judges and bureaucrats in government agencies — claim to have our best interests at heart. (I speak here of the ruling elites at the Federal, State and local levels.) The people believe this despite the contrary evidence. In truth, the ruling elites — with few exceptions — are looking out for their own interests, and their own interests are gaining more wealth and more power. That they do so at the expense of those they rule over bothers them not a whit.

That’s because they view the masses as worker bees and themselves as wise and omnipotent rulers. The worker bees are always expendable and replaceable. The ruling elites think nothing of confiscating the fruits of the labor of the worker bees — even to the point of making it unprofitable for the worker bees to continue their efforts — or sending them into battle to die in phony wars under the pretense of patriotism.

Many people, as they read this, will be quick to blame Barack Obama or George W. Bush. They would be both right and wrong. Obama and Bush are but two in a long line of human parasites who live or lived off the masses through deception and manipulation. The line includes Presidents current and past, Congresses current and past, Governors and State legislatures current and past, and local governments current and past.

They are the true 1 percent.

The mindset that drives the ruling elites has been around for thousands of years. The actions of the ruling elites are evident throughout history and their methods and results can be studied. Unfortunately, there are few people today who study and understand history (that is to say history that has not been varnished by the elites). That’s why the elites are able to continue their ways.

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted by men who understood history and how the political and social order is the creation of evil men who wish to rule humanity. So they created a document meant to put shackles on those who would impose authoritarianism and tyranny. But the Founders didn’t count on Americans becoming ignorant and complacent. They presumed that Americans would be ever vigilant against the evil forces of the ruling elites and would value their freedom and liberties more even than their creature comforts.

How wrong they were. Americans have grown more ignorant, given into fear and sloth, and chosen to cede their freedoms and liberties for the false hope of protection and leisure. As long as the elites, aided by their propaganda ministers in the mainstream media, proclaim they are not stealing any liberties but are simply doing what must be done to keep everyone “safe,” Americans readily accept it as gospel.

America has played right into the hands of the ruling elites who demonstrated the patience of Job while waiting for this to occur.

We now live in a state of perpetual war. The so-called War on Terror has been going on for decades; it began long before it was ever given that name. There is no end in sight. Our government tells us that there are enemies to the left of us and enemies to the right. And when those enemies run out, there are enemies in our own neighborhoods and in our own families.

Over the past few years, we have learned that enemies of America are people who:
  • Believe in smaller government.
  • Believe the 10th Amendment is still valid.
  • Buy items using cash.
  • Store food and water for their own use.
  • Buy weapons.
  • Served in the military.
  • Display Gadsden flags (once a symbol of America’s struggle for freedom).
  • Photograph landmarks.
  • Videotape police officers.
  • Oppose gun laws.
  • Petition government (which was once a right guaranteed under the 1st Amendment).
Even people who support Ron Paul’s Presidential candidacy are considered domestic terrorists and feared by the elites, who work overtime in back rooms in order to ensure Paul’s message of liberty is contained.

We now have a President who has determined he can be the sole judge and jury and decide who should be executed. Congress says little and does nothing and is, therefore, complicit. This effectively annulled the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

We have a President who has decided he alone — with approval of the United Nations or NATO and in direct violation of the Constitution — can decide whether to send American forces into battle. A meaningless Obama impeachment bill has been introduced, but it is a minor triviality and of no consequence.

Congress passed and the President signed a bill in 2001 — and then reauthorized it on multiple occasions (the USA Patriot Act) — that gives government the authority to conduct warrantless searches of our finances and our communications, regardless of whether we are suspected of being an enemy of America (see above).

Congress passed and the President signed a bill that authorizes government to arrest Americans — even if on U.S. soil — and hold them without charge or trial in a secret location (National Defense Authorization Act).

Congress passed and the President signed a bill (Obamacare) that will require you to enter into a contract to pay for a service (health insurance) you may not want or need. Lower courts’ rulings on the issue have been mixed. The issue was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court last week. Who knows whether the justices will rule correctly, finding that the law should be struck down as unConstitutional?

It is telling — and indicative that the left/right paradigm is a false one — that, going into the Supreme Court hearing, news reports indicated that even Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts may vote to uphold the law. Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and Roberts was appointed by Bush. We were told they were conservative justices who would uphold the Constitution.

The FBI is creating “terrorists” and then patting itself on the back when it uncovers and thwarts the terror plots it helped create.

We are now unable to fly by commercial plane — and travel by some trains — without first being subjected to either an intimate patdown/sexual assault or a dose of harmful radiation — and sometimes we get both.

This further establishes that the government believes we are all terrorists who must demonstrate our innocence.

Congress recently passed and the President signed a bill that nullified a portion of the 1st Amendment by making it unlawful to protest if a government “official” is in the area. This is subject to the whim of law enforcement.

Local police departments are becoming increasingly militarized and increasingly militant and strident. They now routinely arrest people for taking video of police actions or public meetings, and they confiscate cameras and cellphones. They abuse peaceful protesters. In Chicago, police officers recently told a journalist his “1st Amendment rights can be terminated and have limits.”

Unfortunately, the idea that a citizen must obey any order simply because a police officer says so is typical of today’s cop. Ignore a police “order” and you are subject to being tasered and arrested. Children are even being tasered in school.

The medical mafia enlists local police officers to do their dirty work and remove children from parents if the parents try and decide what is best for their children’s health. There are many stories like that of Scott and Jodi Ferris and Maryanne Godboldo.

Your child, who is forced by law to attend public indoctrination centers commonly referred to as schools, must receive a series of harmful vaccinations before being allowed to enter.

The food mafia, under the cover of the Food and Drug Administration, is now arresting people for drinking raw milk, and has made it illegal to own hogs of a certain color. It has determined that walnuts are drugs that should be regulated and that kids should not be allowed to grow and sell rabbits or open lemonade stands.

Local governments have made it illegal to grow “unapproved” flowers and vegetables in yards, smoke in public, eat salty foods, purchase meals that include children’s toys, throw trash into garbage bins or hold Bible studies in homes.

Do you still think you’re free?

Just remember, it’s all for your own good.


Hollywood producer heard Bill Clinton say Obama ineligible

Insider in Hillary's 2008 campaign points to 'original birthers'

Bettina Viviano – who started her own film production company in 1990 after serving as vice president of production for Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment – told WND that it was common knowledge among delegates committed to Hillary that the Clintons believed Obama was constitutionally ineligible and that Bill Clinton would eventually disclose his belief to the public.

The Clintons were the original “birthers,” Viviano told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.

Watch the interview here:

“Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.

“It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.

As WND reported, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his team investigating Obama’s eligibility believe there is probable cause that the documents released by the White House as Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are forgeries.

Viviano said that she was on a conference phone call during the primary season in the spring of 2008 in which she heard Bill Clinton refer to Obama as ineligible for the presidency.

In the course of the phone conversation with Hillary delegates, she recalled, Bill Clinton spoke of Obama as “the non-citizen.”

“In the world we were in, with [Hillary's] super-delegates and delegates, it just was, ‘He’s not legit – that’s the end of it, period, end of story.’ It wasn’t up for discussion,” Viviano said.

Michele Thomas, a Hillary campaigner from Los Angeles, confirmed to WND that she learned from “many people who were close to Hillary” that Obama “was not eligible to be president.”

Thomas led a nationwide petition drive among delegates to force a vote on Hillary’s nomination at the convention after then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean announced her name would not be put into nomination and Obama would be declared the winner by unanimous acclamation.

Viviano said that it was understood that Bill Clinton would eventually go public with his contention that Obama was ineligible for the presidency.

“He, I believe, was frothing at the mouth to tell the truth about Obama,” she said.

In the meantime, she recalled, the former president would make ironic references in public in which he “teetered” on revealing he position.

“He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35 and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”

She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just two weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.

The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”

Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.

“I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility.

“And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’
“And then Bill never said anything.”

Others in the campaign who believe Gwatney’s murder was a message to the Clintons think it had to do with the fact that Gwatney was resisting an effort by the Obama campaign and the party to intimidate Hillary delegates into voting for Obama.

But Viviano argues that California delegates also were rebelling, and she says her source told her the same story two years later.

Since the 2008 campaign, Clinton has insisted publicly that Obama is eligible for the White House.

He weighed in on the issue in an April 2011 interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” when Donald Trump was urging Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to the public.

“If I were them, I’d be really careful riding that birther horse too much,” Clinton said. “Everyone knows it’s ludicrous.”

‘I had never voted in my life.'

When Viviano headed production for Spielberg, her credits included the second and third “Back to the Future” films, “Cape Fear,” “Land Before Time,” “Schindler’s List,” “Always,” “Roger Rabbit” and the third “Indiana Jones” film.

She launched her own production and management company, Viviano Entertainment, in 1990. Her movies include “Three to Tango” and “Jack and Jill,” starring Adam Sandler.

Viviano was plunged into the world of campaign politics in 2008 as an admitted neophyte when Hollywood screenwriter and director Gigi Gaston asked her to produce a documentary called “We Will Not Be Silenced” on allegations of voter fraud against Hillary Clinton by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“I had never voted in my life. I wasn’t a Democrat, I wasn’t a Republican. I wasn’t anything,” Viviano said. “I didn’t know anything about any of this.”

Viviano said that when she and her co-workers informed Hillary campaigners that they were making a film about voter fraud, “the floodgates opened.”

“I mean, everybody had a story to tell about death threats, threats, intimidation, document falsifying, vandalism, property theft,” she said. “It was the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”

Viviano said that in research for the film, allegations and evidence that Obama was not eligible “came up immediately.”

“We were getting hit with so many things about Obama,” she said. “This is when (Bill) Ayers and (Rashid) Khalidi were in the news, and then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, and he’s not eligible to be president.’”

Viviano insisted to WND that her reason for speaking out now was not related to the fact that Obama beat Hillary.

“It’s not about Hillary,” she said. “It’s about No. 1, I’m American, I live in a country where there is a Constitution and a set of laws. I also have somebody in the White House who has lied, obfuscated, provided what we all know to be forged documents about who he is.”

She acknowledges that she could jeopardize her Hollywood career.

“What can you do?” she said. “It’s my country. My dad fought for this country in World War II in the 82nd Airborne.”

Her late father, she noted, was shot down twice during the war and was awarded two Purple Hearts.

“I think, would he rather have me sitting in the corner cowering, and afraid of people, or would he rather have me tell the truth and what I saw?”