Military Pay

CINDY WILLIAMS at one time served an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office. This Cindy Williams is not to be confused with the actress Cindy Williams

Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Post denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members’ way this year. In her opinion a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.

This is an Airman’s response to Cindy Williams’ editorial piece in the Washington Post about MILITARY PAY.  It was first printed in 2000 but is even more relevant today and should be printed in all newspapers across America. In my view, this young patriot should receive a bonus for this.

“Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, “Our GIs earn enough” and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I’m wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through Windows’ Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 5,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I’m sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence(housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I’m curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military’s lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN, I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full “deployment experience.”

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they’ll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone — obviously they’ve been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you’re actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren’t enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won’t be nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the act that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, to borrow from Voltaire, “I will defend to the death your right to say it.” You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe.

We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can’t offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?

Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg,
Hill AFB AFNCC

I believe every wouned service man/woman who annot function normally shouyld receive at least $5,000 a month for as long as he/she are incapacitated – for life! And where might the money be found for such a patriotic deed? Let me direct you to examples of government waste, in fact billions and billions each year.

 

Cartoon Provides a Powerful Message

This should be posted in every school in the “USA.”

Isn’t life strange? I never met one Veteran who enlisted to fight for Socialism!

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

If Muslims can pray on Madison Avenue, why are Christians banned from praying in public and from erecting religious displays on their holy days?

What happened to our National Day of Prayer? Muslims are allowed to block off Madison Ave. , in N.Y.C., and pray in the middle of the street! And, it’s a monthly ritual!

Tell me, again, whose country is this? Ours or the Muslims?

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.

Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having ‘In God! We Trust’ on our money and having ‘God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I believe it’s time we stand up for what we believe!

Positive Note out of Washington D.C.

In the midst of all the news about our nations debt, unemployment, elections, and  finger pointing, comes indication of a long overdue spiritual awakening on Capitol Hill. What follows here is from an email by a person named “Sarah”.

“I wanted to share some good news from Capitol Hill!
As you know, I lead a ladies Bible study here in the Senate. One of my girls, Jordan, invited us to a private screening of the movie “Courageous” here at the Capitol sponsored by the Congressional Prayer Caucus. This screening was open to members of Congress, Staff, and  U.S. Capitol Police and their families.

It’s highly unusual to be granted permission to show a movie when it’s currently in Theaters.
About a year ago a friend asked me if I was aware of the Congressional Prayer Caucus.
(The Congressional Prayer Caucus is a group of 100 members of Congress who meet in a room just off the House floor to pray once a week for upcoming votes.)
When I saw Jordan yesterday, I learned that not only is her dad a U.S. Congressman from VA, but that he also CHAIRS the Congressional Prayer Caucus.

The CPC sponsored the screening of “Courageous,” and it was paid for out of the personal funds of 10 members of Congress (I.e. No tax payer money was involved).
My cynical self was anticipating a handful of folks showing up for the screening and at least one group of protestors. I was STUNNED when I arrived in the Jefferson Auditorium in the Library of Congress to see the place packed. There had to have been 300-350 people there.

The Capitol Hill Police Chief was present. I spotted one USCP Officer who brought his wife and all 10 of his children (who were more well-behaved than a lot of adults I know).

From my spot, I counted about 35-40 members of Congress, including one Senator.

I was later told that 90 members of Congress had RSVPd, and many stood in the back but left early for previous commitments.
As we watched the film, I was even more SHOCKED to hear the Gospel CLEARLY Proclaimed. No one made any apologies.

The member sitting in front of me cried throughout the entire movie.
As soon as it was over, there was an immediate standing ovation from the audience.

No protesting. Then, to my delight, the writer of “Courageous” and the lead actor were introduced *(they were in the audience the entire time). Another standing ovation for them…

I couldn’t believe it. We had three separate standing o’s. I leaned over to my friend Hannah and said, “I’m sorry, am I in the U.S. Capitol or am I at church?”
The chief of staff for Congressman Forbes (Jordan’s Dad) told me that I wouldn’t believe the Hours of prayer soaked into this evening. By the time they had reserved the room, opened up tunnels, and paid the Capitol Police overtime, it cost about $5,000 to pull this off — and about 10 members of Congress paid for this out-of-pocket.
There was no doubt that God was present in that room and that the message in the movie “Courageous” resonated with many people. Eternal things took place!
I know all of you care and are praying for our country. Know that YOUR prayers are being heard and being answered. God is not finished with us yet.

He is still here and His remnant remains in the halls of our government.”
Sarah
Be encouraged. God is at work through your prayers amongst those we have elected to office who are committed to honor and exalt The LORD of Lords and KING of kings in their efforts to Restore the Nation,
President and CEO
Restore America

Planning for Islamic Caliphate to Begin

Goals given boost when Obama administration legitimizes ban on criticism

by
 BOB UNRUHEmail | Archive
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press.

A senior fellow for a Madrid-based think tank is alerting freedom-loving people about a caliphate-planning conference being held by Muslims soon, a move he said was given a boost of support by the Obama administration recently when it allowed a three-day “Istanbul Process” conference in Washington.

That event, writes Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for European Politics at Madrid’s Grupo de Estudio, “gave the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.”

The coming event, Caliphate Conference 2012, is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Kern describes as a “pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate, ruled by Islamic Shariah law.”

The 57-member OIC has been proposing a special international law that would make it criminal to speak ill of Muhammad or his followers for years, but it never was successful under its earlier plans that were portrayed as a ban on the “defamation of religions.” Actually, support for the idea had started waning.

But then it proposed Resolution 16/18, a plan for countries to “combat” things like “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The idea was adopted in the U.N. General Assembly just a few weeks ago and Kern’s analysis notes that it would be largely ineffectual as long as the West doesn’t jump behind it.

That is why it was a “diplomatic coup,” according to Kern, when Obama held the three-day conference in Washington, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed to the key principal Muslims have been seeking for years: holding people responsible when “free speech” … “results in sectarian clashes.”

The critical question that has been among the reasons the so-called “anti-defamation” plans previously have failed is that such limits suggest, even require, that the blame be placed on the person making a statement if the situation is that someone else reacts to it violently.

Free speech advocates are worried over her comment that, “It’s one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is fair game. That’s free speech. But if it results in sectarian clashes, if it results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of religious sites, if it even results in imprisonment or death, then government must held those – hold those who are responsible accountable.”

In Western civilization, the standard for responsibility would be to hold those accountable who do violence, not those who make statements that those who do violence blame for their actions.

The U.N. strategy, proposed by Pakistan “on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,” again creates an open door to blame someone for making a statement about Islam to which Muslims would react violently, by raising concerns about “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Further, it “condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Repeated concerns have been raised by such statements, as they open the door for attacks on people making statements about their own beliefs, which someone else would choose to decry as “hatred.”

In fact, the resolution calls for “measures to criminalize” some related behaviors.

Sharona Schwartz at at the Blaze noted that the German-language promotion video for the conference starts: “The relentless decline of capitalism has begun. The time has come to fight against poverty. Time to obliterate the injustices. Time for the correct system.”

Which is identified as Islam.

In a report published by the Stonegate Institute, Kern said the “explicit aim” of the Istanbul Process is to make it a crime to criticize Islam.

He writes, “According to Steven Emerson, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks, Hizb ut-Tahrir is emulating the three-stage process by which Muslims established the first Islamic caliphate after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed, in the year 632.

“During the first stage, Hizb ut-Tahrir builds a party by cultivating a small number of supporters to engage in recruitment and propaganda. In the second stage (which Hizb ut-Tahrir is now entering in Europe and the United States), the group educates Muslims in order to recruit a larger group of people to join Hizb ut-Tahrir and support its revolution. Finally, having won the support of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir moves to establish a Shariah-ruled Islamic government.”

He notes the OIC just two weeks ago sponsored a symposium in Brussels to talk about “anti-Islamophobia.”

“Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam,” he reports.

He cited the report from the International Islamic News Agency, which stated, “The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular, in a manner different from that in the U.S., which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from its previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter ‘defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.”

WND previously has written about the Islamic-led Defamation of Religions proposal in the United Nations. It was “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech,” according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

According to the Human Rights First organization, the plan simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.

Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”

The issue also has been addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in an interview with WND at the time, because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.

“This is a battle for our basic freedoms,” he warned.

“This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness,” he said. “To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell’s 1984 because of what it really does.”

He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.

Worse would be the “chilling” effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.

“This would be a huge blessing to those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes,” he said. “This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United States and other places who don’t see this for what it is.”

Good Question

The breaking news today concerns the burning of Korans that had been defiled. Our service personnel did what they thought was proper and according to Islamic law. It wasn’t long until radicals began to rage in the street calling for the blood of Americans who had descrated their holy book, radically who for the most part can’t read what’s in the book.

And true to form our president embarrassed American and military once again by apologizing to these to these unfortunate individuals who have not earned the right to be apologized to. What Obama should have  demanded an apology from Karzai, president of Afghanistan for the murder of two America soldiers. Now that would be a first from this president.

This was a very classy move. Now that the apology has gone out from our Leon Panetta (US Defence Secretary), the Pentagon and President Obama, we can know that the Muslim world will embrace us as brothers and we shall have eternal peace.

How long will Americans be embarrassed this president and his administration, how long?

‘Gates of Hell’ grabs stage in Planned Parenthood dispute

‘I believe the racial components, the racial directives, will be its undoing.’

The “Gates of Hell” movie project by Molotov Mitchell of Illuminati Pictures has captured part of the stage in the developing controversy over the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop donating to the nation’s biggest abortion industry player, Planned Parenthood.

The Komen Foundation explained earlier this week that it wasn’t going to donate to organizations that are under investigation for their activities. Planned Parenthood is under investigation in several venues. Komen later issued a statement changing course again, saying it would give to the abortion business again.

The movie was noted in an Examiner report on the blowup between the breast cancer-fighting organization and Planned Parenthood. 

“Planned Parenthood has been also under scrutiny by some members of the African-American community because of the high proportion of abortions being performed on Black women,” the report said. “Film maker Molotov Mitchell, who recently produced the film, ‘Gates of Hell’ has alleged that Planned Parenthood from its inception, under the direction of Margaret Sander (sic), targeted Black and minority women. It has also been targeted by The National Black Catholic Congress.”

Mitchell earlier told WND the film explores the black genocide pursued by Planned Parenthood in an entirely different light.

“If it is indeed true that the black community is being targeted for extinction today, this is like major political thriller stuff,” he said.

Discover for yourself the movie that has people on BOTH sides of the abortion debate buzzing with “Gates of Hell” on DVD! 


He noted Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s views of race, her work on the Negro Project and mounting evidence that abortion clinics are disproportionately distributed among black and minority communities as evidence of an underlying conspiracy. At one time, Mitchell points out, civil-rights leaders were at the forefront of sounding the alarm over abortion’s “racist” agenda.

He said today that ultimately the “racial components, the racial directives of Planned Parenthood will be its undoing. And the more that people become aware that Planned Parenthood is racist, and racially driven to exterminate the Black population and has always been driven since their founding, Planned Parenthood finally will be done.” 

He continued, “There’s nothing more radioactive than the word racist. It’s fortunate for pro-lifers that Planned Parenthood has such a huge Achilles heel in that they are racist from their origins to the present.”

Officials with Planned Parenthood did not respond to messages requesting comment.

In published website statements the abortion company has said officials are “alarmed and saddened” that the Komen Foundation would “have succumbed to political pressure.”

“Anti-choice groups in America have repeatedly threatened the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood … and news articles suggest that the Komen Foundation ultimately succumbed to these pressures,” the group stated.

Planned Parenthood supporters rallied to attack Komen, from trying to block permits for its parades to accusing Komen of abandoning women’s health interests.

But Mitchell said the racism of Planned Parenthood is a “skeleton in the closet” that the abortion business would not want publicized. So pro-life activists need to expose it, he said.

Noting there’s no defense for racism, he said, “I really believe the ‘Gates of Hell‘ approach is the most effective approach that we can utilize at this juncture. We have to present the facts and allow people to connect the dots.”

Planned Parenthood critics constantly note the high number of abortion clinics in minority and black communities and their relative scarcity in affluent and white suburbs.

But the racism is evident even in recent incidents.

It was just a few years ago that Planned Parenthood was caught on tape agreeing to take a donation for an abortion that would destroy an unborn black child specifically.

Click here to watch the new trailer.

It was uncovered through the work of Lila Rose, then editor of the Los Angeles-based Advocate and now chief of Live Action, which goes undercover to document the activities of abortion providers.

In a taped interview, an Idaho official for Planned Parenthood said it was “understandable” that a donor would want to contribute to abortions targeting blacks so that his own, presumably white, child would have less competition in college.

The conversation:

Actor: I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group, would that be possible?

Planned Parenthood: Absolutely.

Actor: Like the black community for example?

Planned Parenthood: Certainly.

Actor: The abortion – I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

Planned Parenthood: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Actor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.

Actor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable.

Actor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.

Planned Parenthood: All right. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

At that time, Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, said, “African-Americans are having abortions at a hugely disproportionate rate according to their population, and Planned Parenthood has no shame whatsoever in accepting money that specifically targets our community.”

The audio was posted on YouTube, which later censored it.

Sanger supported eugenics through birth control to cull people she considered unfit from the population. In 1921, she said eugenics is “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

At one point, Sanger lamented “the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Another time, Sanger wrote, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

The National Black Catholic Congress also has weighed in on the issue, challenging its members to choose the cause of death most costly to the black community, since 1973.

“Think about it for a minute. Is it heart disease – 2,266,789 deaths since 1973, cancer – 1,638,350, or accidents – 370,723? It is AIDS – 203,695, or violent crimes – 306,313? There is one possibility that is often overlooked. It happens 1,452 times a day in our community. It has taken over 13 million Black lives within the last 30 years. It has taken 1/3 of our present population. What is it? ABORTION!”

The group continued, “The CDC reports that of the approximately 4,000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1,452 of them are performed on African American women and their pre-born children. This means that although African Americans represent only 12 percent of the population in the United States, they account for 35 percent of the abortions,” the report said.

Mitchell said his documentary’s trailer is shocking and provocative, which is what trailers are supposed to be:


And he said his work is not a call to violence.

“I’m not espousing the murder of anybody,” Mitchell told WND. “The film is not a call to arms; it’s a political thriller. The topic of black genocide, the cover-up, the conspiracy – we were shooting for (pun intended) great art, great entertainment.”

Click here to learn more about the new film. 


In mere seconds, college students across the nation have been experiencing an instant life-changing revelation about the sanctity of life – flipping from being adamantly pro-choice to recognizing the value of the precious soul inside a mother’s womb.

A small army of 1,000 workers gave away 200,000 copies of the award-winning movie “180” at 100 top universities around the country in one day.

The “180” film is a stunning revelation that, first, many people simply are unaware of the diabolical evil imposed on the world by Adolf Hitler, and, second, they are largely unaware of the facts about abortion and its tremendous toll on life in the U.S.

Ray Comfort discusses abortion with UCLA students


The pro-life video shows eight people who are pro-abortion changing their minds and becoming pro-life after being asked one question. Within the first month on YouTube, the 33-minute video clocked 1.2 million views and sold more than 150,000 copies.

“People can’t get enough of this because it’s changing minds about the hot-button issue of abortion, said Ray Comfort, author, evangelist and the filmmaker who produced the movie. “[T]his week’s university giveaway was very special, because it put the physical DVD into the hands of the youth of America, and engaged many in healthy dialogue.”

Watch the video trailer here:

What Every Christian Ought to Know About President Obama’s Healthcare Mandate

Jim Daily, President of Focus on the Family has written a compelling piece on the title to this post. I commend it to you.

It was difficult to click on a website, turn on the TV or venture into the social media space over the weekend without encourtering news of President Barack Obama’s attempt to blunt criticism that his healthcare plan would force religious groups to violate their deeply held morals and values by paying for contraceptive drugs that could cause abortions.

As you’ve probably read, seen or heard from that coverage, the administration’s self-described “accommodation” has not gone over well with institutions or people of faith. That’s because, for us, this is matter of morals, not money. Principles like how we view human life and whether we are truly free to live and practice our religious convictions speak to the very essence of who we are as people and as a society. They are woven through every aspect of our lives. They are not issues for America; they are the ethos of America.

There are many compelling points to be made that the president’s revision does not adequately address the concerns of Catholic charities and other religious groups—including evangelical organizations like Focus on the Family.

Under the revised mandate, employers who have “a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan” will not fund these services directly. Instead, the insurance plan will cover these services to all female employees. Still, all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

Also of concern is that private business owners who provide healthcare services for their employers have no exceptions. A Catholioc business owner would have tofund contraception; an evangelical business owner would have to fund possible abortion-inducing drugs. To think you’ve placated Christian groups by giving them what they want, while denying it to other people, disregards a core tenet of our faith: the needs of others are always to supersede our own.

Then there’s the issue that the drugs mandated for coverage by the Obama administration go beyond contraception as most Americans understand it. That is, they don’t just prevent the fertilization of a woman’s egg. Drugs like Plan B and Ella, which are mandated for coverage, can cause an early abortion by preventing the embryo from attaching to the uterine lining. This is terminating a human life.

That brings up a point that should be pondered by fair-minded Americans who hold even vastly different views on the sanctity of human life: This mandate elevates contraception and abortion-inducing drugs to the level of preventative healthcare. They are not. Plan B should not be considered equivalent to the polio vaccine. Pregnancy is not a disease. Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the White House’s “accommodation” reasoning—no matter, frankly, what in the end that accommodation turns out to be—is that religious liberties are not something any president has the legal authority to recognize or deny. As Christians, we believe these rights come from God; but you don’t need to believe in God to recognize such rights are protected for all citizens by the Constitution.

There is a limit to what government can compel us to do—or not do—particularly in matters of faith and conscience. It is in the best interest of all Americans, of every ideological stripe, that this limit, this line, not be crossed.

This is not about politics. It is about more than one government policy. It is about what’s proper – and it is never proper for government to force the people who elected it to violate their consciences.

Yours in Christ,
Jim Daly's signature

Unconstitutional President

Abraham Lincoln said one day long ago, “My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right”

This Mini Documentary reveals how our illegal president has been propped up by Congress. While Democrats play their usual roll Republicans are their own stones. This documentary proves that many members of both parties know that Obama is serving illegally and unconstitutionally. In their attempts to cover this travesty, their efforts to change our U.S. Constitution is reprehensible. This is a must video for Americans of both parties to see.