‘Impeach Obamarama’ pranks in full swing; see photos of the merry mischief

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek
Biz Pac Review
December 22, 2013

No one expected last weekend’s national “Impeach Obamarama” nationwide movement to make any serious progress towards its goal, but the message has inspired Americans to get creative.

The effort urges people to go to their local retailer and rearrange any letters they can find to spell “impeach Obama.” Pictures have been pouring in to the Overpasses for Obama’s Impeachment Facebook page all week, featuring creative displays arranged in hobby, craft and hardware stores.

In case you missed it, the shenanigans will continue on Dec. 21.

Here are just a few of the displays posted on the Facebook page:

Florida

Illinois

Dover, Delaware

Johns Creek, Georgia

Massachusetts

Waterford, Conneticut

Springfield, Oregon

Editor’s note: Here are a few more not included in the original article, and also one of St. Nick protesting Obama.

Chicago, Illinois.

*Obamarama* Missouri

Source:
http://americansurvivalistorg.blogspot.com/2013/12/impeach-obamarama-pranks-in-full-swing.html

More Expanded TSA Powers?

Ken sent me this article and asked me "Is this Obama's National Police like he promised in 2008? I read your article on the TSA and it is very likely we are seeing only the tip of the coming iceberg. You WILL see armed TSA at airports and related facilities, AMTRAK train stations, bus depots and in many harbors. Not enough TSA agents to go around? I think you'll see the Obama Administration and their Senate allies putting amendments in the next immigration bill to hire more TSA agents. I predict another 20,000. While you and most of your followers are prepping to survive some type of economically oriented collapse or disaster, I am preparing to survive the total collapse of this country that will come after a martial law type scenario where the government first uses TSA and other feds then maybe the military to enforce a dictatorship. "

UrbanMan Replies: Ken, I am not discounting expansion of federal law enforcement or the "security guard" type agencies like TSA for some type of plan to be used for nefarious purposes. It's just that an economical collapse which will spark a societal collapse then probably a martial law scenario is much more likely. But even with all the active duty military, and federal law enforcement (FBI, DHS, DEA, etc.) there will no be enough troops to secure anything but a few large metro areas and essential facilities. But I'm with you that arming and expanding TSA powers are a bad idea.            

Read More:
http://get-urban-survival-skills.blogspot.com/2013/12/more-expanded-tsa-powers.html

Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans

Human rights advocates were floored on Monday night when NBC News published the details of an alarming Justice Department memo detailing the protocol for sending drones after United States citizens. It's not as if they hadn't suspected that the Obama administration's top secret drone attack protocol contained some unsavory details. They just didn't expect them to be so frightfully broad. The scoop by Michael Isikoff is actually startling not for the details but rather for the lack of details. It's very vague about a decision-making process that puts American lives on the line. Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force."

RELATED: Pakistani Complaints Led to New Rules for U.S. Drone Strikes

One of those two qualifiers is infinitely more worrisome than the other. Going after leaders of al Qaeda makes sense. That's what the War on Terror is all about, right? Breaking down networks of violent terrorists and keeping Americans safe. If an American happens to be caught up with al Qaeda, someone like Anwar al-Awlaki, then well… they shouldn't be surprised if they're getting chased by drones. At least that's what we've been told so far. How and why these attacks are carried out by drones is also detailed in the memo, but we'll get back to that in a second.

RELATED: How Many Times Does Al Qaeda's Number Two Need to Die?

But what does "an associated force" mean? It seems like the guy who sells the terrorists bomb supplies would probably qualify, but what about the unknowing neighbor or the hired hand? Can we just kill them too in good conscience? Quite unfortunately, the government isn't exactly sure. The memo suggests that anyone who "present[s] an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States" qualifies for assassination "a lawful killing in self defense," but that "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." In other words, an "informed, high-level" official can order the killing of any American citizen that was "recently" involved in threatening "activities." As Isikoff points out, the memo fails to define both of those terms.

RELATED: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Drones

"This is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.  "Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated." We've already seen some of this vague authority in action. A couple of years ago, The New York Times provided some insight into how subjective the process of deciding when to kill and when not to kill American citizens based on a top secret memo that justified the killing of al-Awlaki. That document as well as this latest leak from the Justice Department essentially says that a lethal attack, likely by a drone, is the method of choice whenever a capture mission would put other American lives on the line. Again, the documents are very vague about where to draw the line.

RELATED: Obama to Nominate John Brennan to Run the CIA

Inevitably, this latest revelation into how the Obama administration runs the War on Terror behind closed doors leads to more questions than answers. How, for instance, do they decided when to kill non-U.S. citizens? Previous reporting on the issue says that the government considers any military-aged male to be an insurgent, so it seems like pretty much anybody in the general region of Afghanistan or Pakistan could expect to find themselves in America's crosshairs. But again, we don't know because the Obama administration is keeping it completely secret, despite years worth of calls to disclose its decision-making process.

RELATED: The C.I.A.'s Silence on Drone Strikes Is Getting Awkward

This could be the beginning of an enlightening time for those who demand answers about the government's shady drone program. On Thursday, John Brannan has his confirmation hearing where the Senate will decide whether or not he's fit to run the Central Intelligence Agency. Since he's more or less the architect of America's drone war, we're sure the Senators will have a question or two about this memo and, we hope, some memos that we haven't seen before.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/rare-look-obama-decides-send-drones-kill-americans-031832960.html

UCO Stormproof Match Kit with Waterproof Case, 25 Stormproof Matches and 3 Strikers - Dark Green

Coghlans Waterproof Matches 10-pack

Outdoor Products Small Watertight Box,Colors may vary

Water Tight Storage Box 46.6 QT UCB-SD, 6pk 

The Path to Saving the Republic: Just Say 'No'

Our nation is in crisis. The Obama administration is centralizing power at a level unmatched in American history with grave consequences for our future liberty and freedom. Of that there is not much debate among conservatives. Conservatives, however, are always waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, wondering if Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan or someone will win in 2016 and save the country from Obama. This is a fool's errand. Rubio and Ryan are fine men, good leaders and very important for our cause. But they can't save our Republic. There is no "one" and we need to stop looking to the next federal election to solve our problems.

So, is there a way to restore the Republic? There is good news; the first salvos have already been fired in the battle to save America. And no, they weren't fired from anywhere in Washington D.C., from members of Congress or from Republican Party headquarters.
The shots being fired, the first movements in a war to save our republican form of government are coming from the most unheralded of places. What is happening in Topeka, Austin, Ogden, Billings, Richmond and many other locales is just the beginning of a movement that will sweep this nation in the next four years. The people, in the form of their respective States and their State legislatures, are learning and relearning the lessons that Jefferson and Madison taught us over 200 years ago.
The lesson resides in one word: Just say "No."
When the Democratic Governor of Montana claims that any Federal government ban on the right to bear arms will not take hold in his State or when the Republican Governor of Texas says that there are sections of the Obamacare law that will not hit the ground in his State, they are not espousing a new, radical and revolutionary theory of American self-governance. They are speaking from an over 200 year history that traces its roots back to the Founding of our great nation and codified by the pens of none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They are the kernels of the coming restoration of America.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. It is hard to find a scholar alive that will find the Acts constitutional. In these resolutions, the authors, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that "the states" have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its delegated powers. Thus, we have the theories of nullification and interposition. Of this, there is little historical debate, but the rest has been left to the time of history, to Court challenges, the Civil War, and varying interpretations of what was meant, what was the impact and relevance of these theories espoused in 1798.
The obstacles come not just from the Left on this issue. The vast majority of constitutional scholars, on the left and right, are dead set opposed to the theory of nullification. The scholars say that not only is the theory wrong, dead and long since decided, but even a discussion of the theory is verboten. Raise the issue and you are guaranteed of one thing: you will be called some version of a "pro-slavery, neo-confederate, Jim Crow loving racist." And that is if they are feeling charitable. The bottom line for legal scholars is that the debate over nullification ended in 1865.
The Civil War settled one thing for certain; that the attempt on the part of Southern States to secede from the rest of the United States failed. Everything that flowed from that, the freeing of the slaves, reconstruction and the future of the South, the centralization of power in the Federal Government etc., were consequences of the war. Why is that important in this debate? Because the theory of nullification, the discussion of the theory, the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, again, did not die at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. If you are going to be honest, the theory of secession didn't die in 1865 either, just the attempt at it did. Remember, secession was never put on trial to be decided in a constitutional court.
Further, to answer the critics, the theory of nullification was not created or used in defense of slavery; in fact it had been used by the anti-slavery cause. The great Nullification debate of 1832 in South Carolina was over the issue of tariffs. The most well-known Supreme Court case on the issue of nullification was Ableman v. Booth, the Wisconsin case that was notable for the State of Wisconsin's resistance to the decision make in Dred Scott, the pro-slavery Supreme Court case of 1857. We are not arguing the legitimacy here, the Carolinians certainly seemed to overstep in saying that the passage of a tariff act violates the Constitution. But it is critical to restate this, nullification was not about slavery.
Granted, the legal arguments against nullification are long; the Supreme Court has repeatedly come down against the theory in numerous cases. Kentucky and Virginia were alone in their resolutions, no other States have ever signed up so explicitly as those two. Recent history, scholars, politicians and parties are all stacked against this theory.
But our history has often been moved by the people, not solely by scholars, political parties and their leaders. The purpose here is to simply open the debate. If one feels that our nation is facing a critical crossroads, that our very liberty is threatened and under attack, then don't we owe ourselves to look at ideas from our Founders?
The historical interpretation of the American Founding has gone down two tracks. The Left, of course, couldn't care less about the Founders; the Constitution is a dead letter that needs to be scrapped and made anew. This new "living" Constitution gives us one assurance; that we are being led down a path of tyranny and oppression. The American experiment is over.
But from the Right, when we speak of the Constitution and the Founding, we trap ourselves in a box. We won't allow discussion of the theories behind the Constitution, we no longer listen to the fears that many had in the enacting of our Constitution and therefore the safeguards that were put in place. Lost in history are other theories, such as those espoused in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions that may offer a way to fight the growing federal unconstitutional tyranny that is taking shape.
It is ironic, but we, and rightly so, call out the Left for its manner of shutting out debate through name calling. You raise an issue and you are a bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, you name it. But the Right, in discussing this issue does the same, hence the ridiculous "neo-confederate" charge over the issue of nullification. With all due respect to the great legal scholars on the right today, I won't turn a deaf ear to the words and writings of Jefferson and Madison. Not under our present conditions.
Consider this hypothetical: what if five years for now, we are in either a third term of Obama (don't discount it) or the first term of say, Hillary. Scalia and Thomas are long gone from the Court; we are dealing with seven Sotomayors against two of our holdouts. A case comes before the Court on the 2^ndAmendment. The Court decides that the Amendment pertains, not to an individual right, but only to state regulated militias, and not even states in our federal sense, but the State, the national government. What do we do?
The law is clearly unconstitutional, no matter what the Court says. Do we have a redress? Do we take the streets and revolt? Maybe eventually, but our founding fathers gave us another way. It is not the clearest way, not every Founder believed in it, the history is sketchy. Scholars are lined against it. But there can be no doubt what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison meant when they penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The States, therein the people, can, and must, say one word to the Federal government in this, and other, unconstitutional instances:
No.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_path_to_saving_the_republic_just_say_no.html#ixzz2JePeHUFC
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

MTM Ammo Can (Forest Green)

MTM 100 Round Flip-Top Ammo Box 40/45/10MM Cal (Clear Green/Black)

MTM 100 Round 12 Gauge Shotshell Dry Box

MTM Survivor Dry Box with O-Ring Seal

West Point Tracks "right Wing" Threats

West Point Tracks "right Wing" Threats

I received this article from a friend working for the government who believes there is a trend for the federal government to look at Americans in the conservative, small government, pro guns rights groups as potential threat groups. If this is true, then it is disturbing. Even more alarming is the report about the U.S. Military, in this case the U.S. Military Academy stepping clearly into the law enforcment realm by studying what they term "threat groups" inside this country.

The below is the article from The Blaze:

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point released a study Tuesday warning against American “far right” groups including the “anti-federalist” movement and strong limited government activists.

The report, titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” posits that in recent years, and especially since 2007, “there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics.”

The analysis, conducted by West Point professor and CTC director of terrorism studies Arie Perliger, noted that his study “concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify.” He added that an in-depth look at the data provided addresses three crucial questions:

(1) What are the main current characteristics of the violence produced by the far right?

(2) What type of far-right groups are more prone than others to engage in violence? How are characteristics of particular far-right groups correlated with their tendency to engage in violence?

(3) What are the social and political factors associated with the level of far-right violence? Are there political or social conditions that foster or discourage violence?

The West Point professor said anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

Perliger also identified limited government activists as belonging to one of three categories: “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

According to the Washington Times, the report also draws correlation between mainstream conservatism and what it dubs the violent “far right.” The study then goes on to laud liberals as forward-thinking while maintaining that conservatives harbor a more archaic mindset.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report states.

“The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

Citing a reported 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011, the analysis characterizes the liberal-democratic system as inclusive and “designed to emphasize civil rights” while far-right ideology inherently “excludes” minorities.

UrbanMan's comment: 350 attacks? Are you kidding me? I'd like to see what they list as far-right attacks. Also disturbing is the comments about a liberal (politically system) emphasizing civil rights when there is a huge call to take away substantial 2nd amendment rights while the right (conservatives) are characterized as basically racists.

Perlinger’s study, however, has not gone without meeting a degree of criticism. Speaking to the Times, a Republican congressional staffer slammed: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.”

He added that the Combating Terrorism Center should be focused on radical Islam and, at the least, publish a companion report underlying the dangers of left-wing terror groups like “the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground.”

The CTC describes itself as “one of the leading academic institutions devoted to the study of terrorism” whose research is informed by three core components including” studying emerging threats, challenging conventional logic and offering counter intuitive insights.”

Source:
http://get-urban-survival-skills.blogspot.com/2013/01/west-point-tracks-right-wing-threats.html



Poverty Prepping: How to Stock Up for Tomorrow When You Can't Afford to Eat Today

,The Field and Garden Vegetables of America - Containing Full Descriptions of Nearly Eleven Hundred - Species and Varietes; With Directions for Propagation, - Culture and Use.

The Doomsday Prepping Crash Course: The Ultimate Prepper's Guide to Getting Prepared When You're on a Tight Budget

The Prepper's Pocket Guide: 101 Easy Things You Can Do to Ready Your Home for a Disaster

Anonymous Calls for Civil War to Overthrow the US Government

Anonymous Calls for Civil War to Overthrow the US Government

In the latest video from Anonymous, they have called for the most aggressive action yet. They’re asking the American people to join them in a “call to arms” for the destruction and overthrow of the US Government.

In the statement, Anonymous says the government is calling them “terrorists” because they truly fear a people’s uprising.
“The United States Government insists on labeling us as terrorists. The question is, “who do we terrorize?” Is it probable that the United States government is truly afraid of we, the people?”
They are not calling for denial of service attacks on government websites or protests as is their normal modus operandi, but for freedom activists to join them in full blown war to overthrow the US Government and return it to the control of the people.
“We are not calling upon the collective to deface or use a distributed denial of service attack on a United States government agency website, or affiliate. We are not calling upon the people to once again occupy a city or protest in front of a local building, This has not brought on us any legislative change or alternate law. It has only brought us bloodshed and false criticism. For the last 12 years, voting has been useless. Corporations and lobbyists are the true leaders of this country and are the ones with the power to control our lives, To rebuild our government, we must first destroy it.Our time for democracy is here, Our time for resolution is here, This is America’s time for revolution, To restore our constitutional rights, to once again, be free therefore, Anonymous along with the American people have decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms.”
The hacktivist collective lists a long train of abuses that can no longer be allowed:
We refuse to be a police state
We refuse to be brutalized and dehumanized by the very people our tax dollars fund to protect our cities and streets
We will not allow the government to control our destiny, our right to build a life for ourselves
We demand freedom from government control, taxation, repossession and death
You will not come to our doors and take our guns, our property, you will not force the citizens of this great country to participate in the unlawful act of government mandated healthcare.
We the people refuse to put in your control our health, our bodies, our minds, our lives.
We will not grant permission for the government to deploy drones over our homes and communities.
We must end the federal reserve. A private central bank should not issue our currency, set interest rates and run our economy. Rather, we need to return control over the currency to the American people where it belongs.
They claim that all peaceful attempts to affect change within the system have failed and the time for action is now.
“Our peaceful actions, patience and restraint have been demonstrated as we watched and waited for our Congress and Representatives to speak for the American citizens and protect us from the tyrant that sits in the oval office and happily strips the American people of our rights, one by one, executive order by executive order. We have waited long enough.”

Source:  http://preppercentral.com/?p=3387