Is Hillary Planning a Political Assassination?

In 2008, Hillary Clinton let slip a very serious line of thought with respect to the potential political assassination of then Senator Barack Obama:
political assassination
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at the State Department in Washington on the deaths of U.S. embassy staff in Benghazi in this September 12, 2012 file photo. Clinton said December 19, 2012, she accepted the findings of an independent panel that faulted the State Department over the deadly September attack. REUTERS/Gary Cameron/Files (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.” – Hillary R. Clinton.  (May 23, 2008).  Argus Leader editorial board interview.

Did Hillary really mention the possibility of Senator Obama being assassinated as was Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968?  It appears so.  Was she really hoping for Obama’s assassination as a means of accessing the top spot in the Democrat primaries?  Well, we know for a fact that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination ended his presidential candidacy:
 
“The assassination of Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, took place shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles, California, during the campaign season for the United States Presidential election, 1968.” – Wikipedia. (February 29, 2016).  “The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
 
If you think we’re making this up, think again.  Here’s the video:

Fast-forward to 2016, and ask yourself, “Who is on Hillery’s hit list now?”
 
As the 2008 article mentions:
“It’s all about her path to the nomination. A possible assassination of Senator Obama. Yep. This is what it’s come down to.” – Bob Cesca.  (May 31, 2008; updated May 25, 2011).  Worst Person in the World.  Huffington Post.
 
More recently, examination of the e-mails she illegally kept on her server appear to indicate she discussed murder for hire aka assassination hits against more than a half a dozen individuals who have historically proven to be the greatest thorn in her side with respect to her political career, including Stew Webb and his attorney, Thomas Heneghan, and Mary Schneider.
Is it Bernie Sanders? Is it Donald Trump?” Perhaps she’s thinking about taking them both out at once, “somehow,” and blaming it on Islamic political assassinationactivity. Better yet, figuring out a way to get some Muslim to push the button.  Perhaps she’s in league with Obama, but almost assuredly she remains fully in league with the Democrat Party.  Obama’s draconian and blatantly un-Constitutional “executive orders” that give him near totalitarian authority over every aspect of American business, economic, commerce, law enforcement, and military operations in times of “national crisis” appears to pave the way for a 2016 takeover of the entire federal government, thereby establishing a permanent situation of “national crisis” that amounts to a de-facto dictatorship with him at the top.  Could an assassination build the case for Obama seizing such control?
 
Hey, folks – this is NOT anywhere close to being out of the realm of possibility:
 
1. Political assassinations have been happening since Ug ran against Og for Oog and the biggest cave around, beating Og with his club to secure the election with Oog at his side.
 
2. Four U.S. Presidents have been assassinated in our nation’s history; two in the 19th Century, and two in the 20th Century.
 
3. A whopping fourteen members of Congress (both House and Senate) have been assassinated while in office, and nine others suffered serious injuries during assassination attempts.
 
4. As for the Clintons, just Google “Hillary Clinton death trail” or “Clinton body count” to see various lists, including one with more than 90 such political assassination“persons who have died in suspicious circumstances who
had connection to the Clintons or the Clinton’s dealings. The length and breadth of this list is disconcerting.  It is beyond credibility that very many of these cases are coincidences.”
 
So, the bottom line question of the day is: “Is Hillary Clinton and/or the Clinton regime and/or the Democrat Party and/or any other regimes that back any of the above planning to assassinate Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump this summer?”
Hmm…
 
Given some forty years of accumulated statistics surrounding the Clintons, along with her bizarre comments during her 2008 campaign, I think at least some of these events are entirely possible, particularly when you compare the Clinton’s very long list of unacceptable behavior to the minimal and even nonexistent lists of other members of Congress and even U.S. Presidents.

U.S. Government Reform is VITAL to Our Nation’s Future

After reviewing every aspect of our nation’s government over the last seven years, including countless detailed reviews of every aspect of our Constitution and its Amendments, and while comparing our government to the highly successful governments of other nations, I’ve come up with four areas ripe for improvement.  These four areas are VITAL to our nation’s future.  No one likes to hear the words “government reform” any more than they like to hear “business change” but both are absolutely necessary given the changing nature of the world in which they operate.
 
1. Term Limits: 8 years for the President; 12 years for all members of Congress, and 16 years for Supreme Court Justices (Congressional Representatives would get a maximum of 3 terms, and Senators a maximum of 2); You need to have at least some people in office long enough to provide continuity. This concept applies to every ongoing concern from military units to businesses. You should never, however, allow people to become entrenched, as it encourages cronyism while stifling reform. A gentle but steady turnover encourages people dive into the books, in this case, our Constitution. It encourages innovation while discouraging “empire-building.”
 
2. End Governmental Careers. It’s one to three terms of public service, NOT a career. The term limits above would be a start. An additional measure would be NO PENSIONS. They already receive excellent salaries, and should receive a 10% contribution towards a 401k or IRA of their choice, as well as medical care while serving. Afterwards, they will rejoin the land of the working, perhaps the best incentive yet for getting things right while in office. This will help discourage candidates whose only talent, apparently, lies in getting and staying elected.
 
3. Massive Campaign Reform. Candidates should be allowed to put whatever they want on their party’s website, or on their own website, for that matter. They can make public speeches to their heart’s content ON THEIR OWN TIME AND DIME. This includes incumbents. NO MORE CAMPAIGNING OR TRAVELING WHILE CAMPAIGNING ON PUBLIC FUNDS. That’s NOT why you’re in office, and it’s an ABUSE of the system. Any candidate abusing these provisions would be severely punished, primarily by immediately disqualifying the individual from running for office as determined by a 2/3 vote in Congress. Candidates would be free to give interviews but MAY NOT pay for any publicity, either directly or indirectly, on any news service broadcast, web, print, publication, print, or wire. Their own website and/or the party’s website – THAT IS ALL. Any party officials found guilty of violating these provision will be guilty of a felony and will be imprisoned for three years, and may not have any campaign-related contact with anyone during their prison term.
 
4. Basic Job-Specific Qualifications. I’m sorry, but you can NOT run a country in the modern world without a background in business. Furthermore, is it too much to ask that our nation’s leaders be in possession of a masters degree?  It’s required for every middle and upper management job in corporate America.  I think not. Therefore, either their undergraduate or graduate degree (or both) would have to be in business. Whether it’s a B.S. in Finance, a B.A. in General Business, or an MBA doesn’t matter. Gotta have something which required you to study math, economics, finance, accounting, management, and other disciplines related to running a viable economic concern.  As we’ve clearly seen over the last five years, “community organizer” DOESN’T CUT IT.  We have enough ignorants and quite a few idiots in Congress.  Our nation can NOT afford to indulge the practice of putting unqualified people in office.

Net Neutrality: Obama vs Ted Cruz

I was originally opposed to Ted Cruz on this point, as it appeared he was railing against Net Neutrality.

NOT TRUE.

Ted CruzHe’s railing against Obama’s very warped version of it. Put simply, Obama’s version of Net Neutrality isn’t Net Neutrality AT ALL.

Here’s what Net Neutrality has looked for the last 30 years, since the mid-1980s, back when the Internet was known as Darpanet:

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charged one price for each bandwidth tier. For example, $30 for 3 Mbps; $65 for 25 Mbps, etc.

The put reasonable caps on total bandwidth per month, which was ok, such caps prevent abuses and keep the prices lower for the rest of us.

Prices are set by the market, and free market competition keeps prices reasonable. When prices become outrageous, it opens the doors to more competition, which usually appears as either more bandwidth for the same price, or the same bandwidth at lower prices, while maintaining the same quality at lower prices.

Obama’s version of Net Neutrality, however, is to “reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the DoJTelecommunications Act,” and he would have to power to back up his restrictions with the long arm of the Department of Justice.

Title II outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.

Obama wants strict controls and regulations on content providers, Obamabut he’s not limiting his aspirations to traditional Internet sources.  He wants to control mobile devices, too, and he wants to control all aspects of what you can see and hear on your mobile device, as well as what you can send.

Under Obama’s plan, each and every individual in the United States of America, if not the world, would be regulated as a “broadcaster.”  The business ramifications of this would be extreme:

As noted by J.D. Tuccille (2014), “In a 2001 examination of decades of antitrust policy for the Cato Journal, George Bittlingmayer, now at the University of Kansas, wrote that “It turns out that whatever the ability of antitrust to lower prices and increase output in theory or in isolated circumstances, one actual effect of antitrust in practice may have been to curtail investment.” In particular, he attributed low investment in the late 1950s and early 1960s to “aggressive antitrust and related initiatives””

Much of the incredible innovation that has occurred over the last twenty years would grind to a halt.  Many of the current services you enjoy may very well become illegal if Obama gets his way, and because they would fall under the strong arm of the FCC, if ISPs refused to comply with the new rules, they would simply be shut down.

As Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier noted, “This changes a relentlessly innovative and growing part of our economy into one that must wait for permission for any new ideas.”  Most companies cannot afford to sit idly by, waiting on approval from the federal government.  That’s largely what killed the U.S.S.R.  Companies would bail left and right for greener pastures.  Put simply, the Internet would start looking like a redneck road sign at the end of a lean hunting season.

The deleterious impact on innovation, however, isn’t the half of it.  Since every producer of content, including those who blog or video blog would now be regulated by the FCC, they would be as subject to abuse by the FCC as conservative groups have been abused by the IRS in recent years.  Although Obama specifically stated some limits in his proposal, five years of history have clearly and rather incessantly reminded us of the miniscule value of Obama’s promises.

Before implementing yet another Obama”care” fiasco, take a look around you.  Sure, ISP prices are higher than we want.  Their revenue models have reached the end of their useful lives, and they’re beginning to make some changes.  However, alternative sources of programming blitzed pass them like a kid chasing down an ice cream truck on a hot August afternoon.  Both Google and fiberAT&T are laying the infrastructure for the future in the form of fiber.  We are not in trouble here, folks.  For around $25 a month, I enjoy programming from the top three on-demand sources:  Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.  That’s far more content that would ever have time to watch.  My Ooma IP phone allows me to make unlimited local and long-distance calls for $3.85 a month.  E-mail services are robust and free, as are some blogs and website hosting services.

It doesn’t GET any better than this, folks.  We are enjoying the benefits of unbridled innovation in the form of reasonable prices and a massive selection of content and services.

Obama wants to change all that.  Whatever you do, don’t let him!

net neutrality

References

Tuccille, J. D. (2014).  Obama’s scheme to regulate the U.S. into ‘net neutrality’ nirvana could kill broadband.  Reason.com.  Retrieved from http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb

Do You Know Ed Mezvinsky?

He was born January 17, 1937, but you’re probably saying, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” and “Why should I care?”

Bear with me for a minute, as the answer has to do with Hillary Clinton’s run for the 2016 elections, and a great deal more.  The “more” part will boggle your mind.

Ed Mezvinsky is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States Ed MezvinskyHouse of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.  He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.

He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.

He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.

In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

In March 2001, Ed Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.  He had embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams (yes, he’s “that guy”).  He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.

After serving less than three-quarters of that time, he was released in April 2008.  He remains on federal probation.  To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky.  Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.  Chelsea married his son.

Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5Chelsea Clinton million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion).

Has anyone heard any mention of any of this in any of the media?  No?

Gee…  I wonder why…

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.  The liberal rags, however, are owned by the same corrupted cabal to which the Clintons, the Mezvinskys, and Soros belongs.

People are already talking about Hillary as our next President, and there is a distinct possibly Chelsea will run in the future.  The Hillary Clintonheadlines are already proclaiming, “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms.”

Apparently, the cycle of the rich and corrupt never ends.

The Democrat’s ongoing scheme is simple:  Promise anything to the masses in order to keep being reelected, then abuse the power of their office to line their own pockets, the pockets of their friends, and the pockets of people and companies who funded their campaigns — at your expense.

Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular, yet Democrats who are repeatedly suckered into voting for them keep wondering when they’re going to get their slice of the pie.

The answer is, “Never, so long as you keep allowing yourself to be suckered in to voting for Democrats.”  If the Democrats have you on a hook, and want to keep you on that hook, the only only solution is to get off the hook.  Stop voting Democrat.

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln

How I Voted in the 2014 Elections

“…a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King

The 2014 elections are by far the most important elections to date of this century.  Despite governmental reassurances to the contrary, America is tottering over the brink of economic collapse.  Vote wrong, and we most certainly will lose.  Vote right, and we might be able to haul her back from the edge.

As a registered Independent, I spent all afternoon Sunday reviewing not only the positions, but also the voting records of allMartin Luther King, Jr. 21 positions (42 candidates — half Republican, half Democrat) on my ballot. Given my “preaching” here on Facebook, I wanted to be absolutely certain I was electing the best candidate for each position, and not just “voting party line.”

I based my decisions mostly on their voting records. The criteria was simple: Had they supported and defended the Constitution,
voting records“the supreme Law of the Land,” as per their oaths of office? Or were they perverting our government by actions which undermined our Constitution and the rights and freedoms it recognizes and protects?

It was close in only 5 of the 21 open positions. The other 16 positions were slam-dunks.

In ALL cases, however, the records of the Republican candidates made it clear they stood for our rights and freedoms, while the records of the Democrat candidates made it clear they stood for bigger government at the EXPENSE of our rights and freedoms.

Sunday’s exercise was yet another of countless confirmations that the Democrat Party itself is no longer American, that it has been usurped by a mix of communists, fascists, socialists, muslims, opportunists and just plain idiots, to be used solely for the purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of mostly lower to middle-class voters in order to remain in power, raise taxes, and siphon off a great deal of our hard-earned tax dollars into their own pockets and those of their friends.

To be fair, some Republicans are doing this, too, but I continually find they’re doing so to a far lesser extent.

Bottom line: I remain an Independent voter, yet cast all my votes towards the Republicans. My decisions were not based on the color of their party, but on the content of their character.

I’ll leave you with one last observation.  Five years of digging into what goes on behind the curtains in both parties have lead me to conclude what the Democrats say about the Republicans are largely lies, often made up on the spot, and that the elements in the following graphic are largely true:

Truth

 

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, not a Democrat, and for many very good reasons which are even more sound today than they were back then.

No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion

Islam takes yet ANOTHER stab at stealing the souls of our children:

“As the department’s first Muslim captain, he said, he feels he can inspire young Muslims to join the force and serve as an
ambassador for a faith that is often viewed negatively.”

Islam

This sounds so nice, doesn’t it? Until you realize Muslims are getting away with proselytizing our youth, when Christians
can no longer pray, witness, or otherwise share their face in the public schools.

So, this will be allowed for no other reason than the fact that its Islam?

Who else sees the heinous preferential treatment being given to Islam? “Congress shall make law respecting an establishment
of religion…” Translating the vernacular of that day into ours, this Bill of Rightsmeans, “Congress shall make no law giving preferential treatment of one religion over another.” The term “respecting” in that day meant “holding in high esteem.” An establishment of religion could have Quakerism, Methodist, etc. If Congress passed any law holding one denomination in high esteem, without doing the same to others, they would have been giving them preferential treatment.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS long ago held that the term “Congress” should be expanded in scope to include “any Office or public Trust
under the United States,” as given in Article VI’s “no religious test” for public office.”

Taken together, they mean one thing: You cannot either select or Constitutiondisqualify a person for “any Office or public Trust under the United States” on the basis of their religious beliefs, but NEITHER can they or their office be “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Neither the Boston Police Chief nor anyone in “any Office or public Trust under the United States” can legally “be an
ambassador for Islam” or any other religion or creed.

That is not merely “the law,” it is “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Violating it means he would be violating his oath of
office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” It means the
Boston Police Chief would be making himself a domestic enemy of the United States of America.

Boston police Captain Haseeb Hosein is violating the law. He is thumbing his nose at the Constitution while attempting to
indoctrinate (brainwash) our Children about Islam.DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

DO, however, recall that headlines in countries where Islam has exceeded certain levels usually read like this:

 

Muslims killing Muslims: Syrian Shia child who watchedIslam parents killed has her heart cut out

Woman stoned for refusing to have sex with her husbandIslam

Teenagers hung for being gay

Public school teachers Islamconduct field trip to Mosque where they force students to learn Muslim prayers while kneeling and bowing their heads to Allah

Women and children slaughtered “just because”Islam

Christians slaughtered for refusing to pay jizya

This greatest question is this: If Boston police Captain Haseeb Hosein is willing to toss the Constitution out the window

on something as important as our First Amendment, what will he do when it comes to our Second Amendment? How about the
Fourth Amendment? Any others? The Constitution itself?
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also
be dishonest with much.” – Jesus, in Luke 16:10.

IslamBoston police Captain Haseeb Hosein has NOT been honest, in either very little or much. He can NOT be trusted in either.

The question is, what Muslim can? The entire written foundation of their faith, the Qu’ran and the Hadith, dictate they MUST override all other religions and promote Islam above all others. Islam is NOT compatible with the very essence of the United States of America.

Islam is an ABOMINATION in the eyes of the one and only true God, and his name is NOT “allah.”

UN: Control Ebola or Face an “Unprecedented Situation”

As reported by Fox News on October 15, 2014, the United Nations has issued an ultimatum to the United States of America: Control Ebola or face an unprecedented situation.

What the UN means by “unprecedented situation” can be found on the UN website (http://un-influenza.org/?q=content/un-response),ebola in their response plan for the Avian Flu, under Objective 6: Continuity Under Pandemic Conditions: “Ensuring the continuity of essential social, economic and governance services, and effective implementation of humanitarian relief, under pandemic conditions.”

UN World Control

Reading between the lines, as well as observing their response throughout other nations, this includes the mandatory implementation of the UN’s other agendas, most notably confiscating all firearms for the “safety of all response workers.”

Similar indications can also be found on the World Health Organization’s website, in their Global Alert and Response (GAR) whopage (http://www.who.int/csr/en/): “Coordinate and support Member States for pandemic and seasonal influenza preparedness and response.”

Again, reading between the lines, the WHO brings the doctors, while it’s parent organization, the UN, brings the muscle.

This is further echoed in their August 28, 2014 Ebola Response Roadmap (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf?ua=1).

This document clearly states it’s purpose on page 5: “To assist governments and partners in the revision and resourcing of country-specific operational plans for Ebola response, and the coordination of international support for their full implementation.”

While they tie their “country-specific operational plans” to the “Ebola response,” the fact remains that an OPLAN is an OPLAN. It’s an Operational Plan. That’s military lingo for how an organization intendeds to accomplish its mission, and their specific intent for the United States of America comes through rather glaringly in Objective 2 on the same page:

2. To ensure emergency and immediate application of comprehensive Ebola response intervention in countries with an initial case(s) or with localized transmission.

The key activity of Objective 2: “Coordinate operations and information across all partners, and the information, security, finance and other relevant sectors.

The most alarming aspect of this document, however, involves their definition of “security:”

Security: where necessary, and particularly in areas of intense transmission and short term extraordinary containment measures, national/local authorities must plan for and deploy the security services necessary to ensure the physical security of Ebola facilities. National/local authorities must give particular attention to ensuring the security of the staff working in Ebola treatment centres, Ebola referral/isolation centres, laboratories and, if required, for teams working at the community level to conduct surveillance, contact tracing and safe burials.”

I have no problem with ensuring the security of Ebola treatment facilities. The question is, under Obama’s management, will it ever stop there? What legislation is in place to prevent overbearing law enforcement from pulling the same crap as the New Orleans Police Department pulled on American citizens immediately following Hurricane Katrina?

Since Day 1 at their training academies, American law enforcement officers have been taught to “control, control, control.” When you put them into a widespread situation, many of them are overwhelmed. They fall back on their training without any regard for the Constitutional implications that what they’re doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It might be suitable for a localized riot. It is NOT suitable for widespread chaos. This was most dramatically exhibited when SWAT teams busted down door after door after door in Boston immediately after the marathon bombing.

Did they respect our Constitutional rights? No. THEY BLEW RIGHT PAST THEM.

Again: What U.S. Federal Legislation is in place to ensure that NEVER happens again? What penalties are in place for local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as augmenting forces like the National Guard, to prevent them from crossing the line?

Comments within the document such as “repurpose existing programmes [sic] to support control efforts” with respect to “security” indicate they have ZERO intention of respecting our Constitution.

un gun controlWhat’s next?  The widespread confiscation of firearms “for your safety?”

Here’s a thought: Instead of assuming Americans are idiots, let’s try another route: Education. Let Americans do what we do best: Control ourselves.

In 2012, immediately following the Mountain Shadows flare-up of the Waldo Canyon fire, I and all other residents of my apartment complex were denied access to our domiciles for five full days, despite the fact that residents in homes on either side of us were allowed to return after just TWO days. We were told it was for our “safety,” despite the fact we were no less safe than those homeowners.

THAT CRAP HAS GOT TO STOP.

Again, Congressman Lamborn: What legislation, specifically, do you have in place to ensure these rampant denials of our Constitutional rights NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN?

With few exceptions, We the People are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. We’re well aware of the risks to both ourselves and others, regardless of what Obama is saying to the contrary.

All we need are clear and unambiguous guidelines. We don’t Obama lying to us in pathetic and misinformative attempts to calm our nerves. Older generations grew up during the Cold War. Younger generations watch The Walking Dead every week. Let’s get real!

As a retired USAF Officer, I remain well-trained in CBRNE operations. Most of my neighbors do not have my training, but given the fact this is a military town, there are a LOT of us scattered throughout the community who do.

Even those who are untrained, however, know the risks. If they’re told to limit travel for food and work, use hand sanitizer or wear and discard gloves, keep their shoes in the garage, and wipe down all doorknobs and other touched surfaces with a soap/water/bleach solution, I’m pretty darn sure they can handle that!

I can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

By refusing to close our borders and by bringing in infected individuals, Obama is INVITING a UN takeover of our country. He’s long been looking for a way to either ditch or circumvent our Constitution, and I believe he may very well have found it.

UNLESS, of course, laws exist which clearly limit the scope of his many executive orders, most of which were drafted during his first term, yet clearly targeted to give him absolute dictatorial authority over our nation in times of crises — whether those crises were unavoidable, or, as many of us believe, manufactured by Obama himself.

On October 15, Dr. Ben Carson said, “We’ve known for a long time that [Ebola] has this kind of potential. That’s the reason that several weeks ago I said it was a real mistake to bring infected people in to this country in any way.”

Indeed it was. Yet Obama continues to allow it.

My question to you, Sir, is WHY?

Sincerely…