Vladimir Putin says he is a religious man, a great supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church. If so, he may well go to bed each night, say his prayers, and ask God: “Why didn’t you put mountains in eastern Ukraine?” If God had built mountains in eastern Ukraine, then the great expanse of flatland that is the European Plain would not have been such inviting territory for the invaders who have attacked Russia from there repeatedly through history. As things stand, Putin, like Russian leaders before him, likely feels he has no choice but to at least try to control the flpatlands to Russia’s west. So it is with landscapes around the world—their physical features imprison political leaders, constraining their choices and room for maneuver. These rules of geography are especially clear in Russia, where power is hard to defend, and where for centuries leaders have compensated by pushing outward.        First  of all President Vladimir Putin IS a religious man! This writer was saying it in a  sarcastic way!   Secondly he doesn't have to pray for mountains between himself and Ukraine! He has a border, and he is on Ukraines eastern border, where he has troops on the border trying to keep the peace!  He has not sent troops across that border! Why should he? All of Ukraine has voted 90% to cede to Russia!     Western leaders seem to have difficulty deciphering Putin’s motives, especially when it comes to his Tactions in Ukraine and Syria; Russia’s current leader has been described in terms that evoke Winston Churchill’s famous 1939 observation that Russia “is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma.” But it’s helpful to look at Putin’s military interventions abroad in the context of Russian leaders’ longstanding attempts to deal with geography. What if Putin’s motives aren’t so mysterious after all? What if you can read them clearly on a map?  For Russia, the world’s largest country by landmass, which bestrides Europe and Asia and encompasses forests, lakes, rivers, frozen steppes, and mountains, the problems come by land as well as by sea. In the past 500 years, Russia has been invaded several times from the west. The Poles came across the European Plain in 1605, followed by the Swedes under Charles XII in 1707, the French under Napoleon in 1812, and the Germans—twice, in both world wars, in 1914 and 1941. In Poland, the plain is only 300 miles wide—from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Carpathian Mountains in the south—but after that point it stretches to a width of about 2,000 miles near the Russian border, and from there, it offers a flat route straight to Moscow. Thus Russia’s repeated attempts to occupy Poland throughout history; the country represents a relatively narrow corridor into which Russia could drive its armed forces to block an enemy advance toward its own border, which, being wider, is much harder to defend. The European Plain On the other hand, Russia’s vastness has also protected it; by the time an army approaches Moscow, it already has unsustainably long supply lines, which become increasingly difficult to protect as they extend across Russian territory. Napoleon made this mistake in 1812, and Hitler repeated it in 1941.    Russia’s vastness has also protected it; by the time an army approaches Moscow, it already has unsustainably long supply lines, which become increasingly difficult to protect as they extend across Russian territory. Napoleon made this mistake in 1812, and Hitler repeated it in 1941.     Early Russia was indefensible. There were no mountains, no deserts, and few rivers. Just as strategically important—and just as significant to the calculations of Russia’s leaders throughout history—has been the country’s historical lack of its own warm-water port with direct access to the oceans. Many of the country’s ports on the Arctic freeze for several months each year. Vladivostok, the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, is enclosed by the Sea of Japan, which is dominated by the Japanese. This does not just halt the flow of trade into and out of Russia; it prevents the Russian fleet from operating as a global power, as it does not have year-round access to the world’s most important sea-lanes.   Russia as a concept dates back to the ninth century and a loose federation of East Slavic tribes known as Kievan Rus, which was based in Kiev and other towns along the Dnieper River, in what is now Ukraine. The Mongols, expanding their empire, continually attacked the region from the south and east, eventually overrunning it in the 13th century. The fledgling Russia then relocated northeast in and around the city of Moscow. This early Russia, known as the Grand Principality of Moscow, was indefensible. There were no mountains, no deserts, and few rivers. Enter Ivan the Terrible, the first tsar. He put into practice the concept of attack as defense—consolidating one’s position at home and then moving outward. Russia had begun a moderate expansion under Ivan’s grandfather, but Ivan accelerated it after he came to power in the 16th century. He extended his territory east to the Ural Mountains, south to the Caspian Sea, and north toward the Arctic Circle. Russia gained access to the Caspian, and later the Black Sea, thus taking advantage of the Caucasus Mountains as a partial barrier between itself and the Mongols. Ivan built a military base in Chechnya to deter any would-be attacker, be they the Mongol Golden Horde, the Ottoman Empire, or the Persians. Now the Russians had a partial buffer zone and a hinterland—somewhere to fall back to in the case of invasion. No one was going to attack them in force from the Arctic Sea, nor fight their way over the Urals to get to them. Their land was becoming what’s now known as Russia, and to invade it from the south or southeast you would have to have a huge army and a very long supply line, and you would have to fight your way past defensive positions.

Putin's Ukraine

Vladimir Putin says he is a religious man, a great supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church. If so, he may well go to bed each night, say his prayers, and ask God: “Why didn’t you put mountains in eastern Ukraine?” If God had built mountains in eastern Ukraine, then the great expanse of flatland that is the European Plain would not have been such inviting territory for the invaders who have attacked Russia from there repeatedly through history. As things stand, Putin, like Russian leaders before him, likely feels he has no choice but to at least try to control the flatlands to Russia’s west. So it is with landscapes around the world—their physical features imprison political leaders, constraining their choices and room for maneuver. These rules of geography are especially clear in Russia, where power is hard to defend, and where for centuries leaders have compensated by pushing outward.

      First  of all President Vladimir Putin IS a religious man! This writer was saying it in a  sarcastic way!   Secondly he doesn't have to pray for mountains between himself and Ukraine! He has the Ukraine eastern border, where he has troops trying to keep the peace!  He has NOT sent troops across that border! Why should he? All of Ukraine has voted 90% to cede to Russia!  That only leaves camper Santa of northern Ukraine who want to go to the west, "Obama!

 Westerners seem to have difficulty deciphering Putin’s Plaine especially when it comes to his actions in Ukraine and

 Syria; Russia’s current leader has been described in terms that evoke Winston Churchill’s famous 1939 observation that

Russia is the world’s 
largest country by land Russia “is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma.” But it’s helpful to look at Putin’s military interventions abroad in the context of Russian leaders’

longstanding
 attempts to deal with geography.
Putin’s motives aren’t so mysterious after all? What if you can read them clearly on a map?

Russia “is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma.” But it’s helpful to look at Putin’s military interventions broad in the context of Russian leaders’
 longstanding
 attempts to deal with geography.



Putin’s motives aren’t so mysterious after all? What if you can read them clearly on a map?

d



The land mass, which bestrides Europe and Asia and encompasses forests, lakes, rivers, frozen steppes, and mountains, the

problems come by land as well as by sea. 
In the past 500 years, 
Russia has been invaded several times 
from the west. The Poles 
came across the European 
Plain in 1605, followed by the Swedes under Charles XII in 1707, the French under Napoleon in 1812, and the Germans—twice, in both world wars, in 1914 and 1941. In Poland, the plain is only 300 miles wide—from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Carpathian Mountains in the south—but after that point it stretches to a width of about 2,000 miles near the 
Russian border, and from 
there, it offers a flat route straight to Moscow. Thus Russia’s repeated attempts to 
occupy Poland throughout history; the country represents a relatively narrow corridor into which 
Russia could drive its armed forces to block an enemy advance toward its own border, which, being wider, is much harder to defendThe European PlainOn the other hand, Russia’s vastness has also protected it; by the time an army approaches Moscow, it already has unsustainably

long supply lines, which become increasingly difficult to protect as they extend across Russian territory. Napoleon made this mistake in 1812, and Hitler repeated it in 1941.

Russia’s vastness has also protected it; by the time an army approaches Moscow, it already has unsustainably long supply lines, which become increasingly difficult to protect as they extend across Russian territory. Napoleon made this mistake in 1812, and Hitler repeated it in 1941.

Early Russia was indefensible. There were no mountains, no deserts, and few rivers.

Just as strategically important—and just as significant to the calculations of Russia’s leaders throughout history—has been the country’s historical lack of its own warm-water port with direct access to the oceans. Many of the country’s ports on the Arctic freeze for several months each year. Vladivostok, the largest Russian port on the Pacific Ocean, is enclosed by the Sea of Japan, which is dominated by the Japanese. This does not just halt the flow of trade into and out of Russia; it prevents the Russian fleet from operating as a global power, as it does not have year-round access to the world’s most important sea-lanes.

Russia as a concept dates back to the ninth century and a loose federation of East Slavic tribes known as Kievan Rus, which was based in Kiev and other towns along the Dnieper River, in what is now Ukraine. The Mongols, expanding their empire, continually attacked the region from the south and east, eventually overrunning it in the 13th century. The fledgling Russia then relocated northeast in and around the city of Moscow. This early Russia, known as the Grand Principality of Moscow, was indefensible. There were no mountains, no deserts, and few rivers.

Enter Ivan the Terrible, the first tsar. He put into practice the concept of attack as defense—consolidating one’s position at home and then moving outward. Russia had begun a moderate expansion under Ivan’s grandfather, but Ivan accelerated it after he came to power in the 16th century. He extended his territory east to the Ural Mountains, south to the Caspian Sea, and north toward the Arctic Circle. Russia gained access to the Caspian, and later the Black Sea, thus taking advantage of the Caucasus Mountains as a partial barrier between itself and the Mongols. Ivan built a military base in Chechnya to deter any would-be attacker, be they the Mongol Golden Horde, the Ottoman Empire, or the Persians.

Now the Russians had a partial buffer zone and a hinterland—somewhere to fall back to in the case of invasion. No one was going to attack them in force from the Arctic Sea, nor fight their way over the Urals to get to them. Their land was becoming what’s now known as Russia, and to invade it from the south or southeast you would have to have a huge army and a very long supply line, and you would have to fight your way past defensive positions.

Obama's Generals

The commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii was relieved of his duties Monday following “a loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead,” the service said.

Col. Eric Schaefer, who assumed command of the base in August, was removed from his post by Maj. Gen. Charles Hudson, the commanding general of Marine Corps Installations Pacific. Schaefer was reassigned to another position effective immediately.

“The Marine Corps holds all Marines, especially commanders, responsible for their actions, and is committed to upholding high standards of honor, courage and commitment within the ranks."

No additional details about the relief or Schaefer’s new position were immediately available. Schaefer could not immediately be reached for comment.
Col. Christopher Snyder, the deputy commander of Marine Corps Installations Pacific, has been assigned as the interim commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii until a permanent replacement is named by Headquarters Marine Corps.

Schaefer, a career aviator with more than 2,000 flight hours, graduated from San Diego State University in 1991, according to his official Marine Corps biography. He served as the commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 214, which was named the Marine aviation attack squadron of the year in 2009 following a deployment to Afghanistan.

SAN DIEGO (NNS) — The commanding officer of USS Lake Erie (CG 70) was relieved of his duties April 27, due to loss of confidence in his ability to command.

Capt. John Banigan was relieved by Rear Adm. Dee Mewbourne, commander of Carrier Strike Group 11. The decision was based on the findings of an investigation into poor command climate aboard Lake Erie, a guided-missile cruiser homeported in San Diego.

Banigan assumed command of the ship in May 2013. He has been temporarily assigned to the staff of Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Capt. Douglas Kunzman, deputy commander of Destroyer Squadron 9, will temporarily assume command of Lake Erie pending assignment of a permanent relief.

UPDATED MAY 25, 2014
The List of Senior Ranking Military Officers Forced Out By Barack Hussein Obama
Many of these below have spotless records, 25 and up years service, many medals and honors such as Brig. Gen Bryan W. Wampler.

General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)

      Obama has fired, demoted, or killed, some of his generals!  The long list below will tell you all of their names, and some of their other information! He has gotten rid of more general, than all the other presidents combined! 

Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)

Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

(Oct 2013)
Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)

Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan Oct 2013)

General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)

Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)

Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)

General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)

Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)

General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)

General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)



General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)

Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)

Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Commanding Admirals fired:
Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette.

U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013).

Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)

Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)

Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)

Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)

Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)
Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)

Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)

Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)

Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)

Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)

Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)

Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011)

Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011)

Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)

Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)

Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)

Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)

Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station

Downing - Russian Airliner

CAIRO - A terrorist group affiliated to Islamic State in Egypt claimed responsibility for the downing of a Russian airliner. by supporters on Twitter.

     ISIS claims responsibility even if they didn't do it! df

Egyptian security sources earlier on Saturday said early investigations suggested the plane crashed due to a technical fault.

The claim of responsibility was also carried by the Aamaq website which acts as a semi official news agency for Islamic State.

"The fighters of the Islamic State were able to down a Russian plane over Sinai province that was carrying over 220 Russian crusaders. They were all killed, thanks be to God," the statement circulated on Twitter said.

     <<220 Russian crusaders>> this shows how despicable they are! df

The downed Airbus A321, operated by Russian airline Kogalymavia under the brand name Metrojet, was flying from the Sinai Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg in Russia when it went down in a desolate mountainous area of central Sinai soon after daybreak.

       They made sure it went down in a remote area, so all of them would be killed! df

 Initial examination showed the crash was due to a technical fault, but gave no detail. The plane, he said, had landed in a "vertical fashion," explaining the scale of devastation and burning.

      Again they planned it so that a maximum would be the maximum number killed! df  The

"I now see a tragic scene," an Egyptian security officer at the site told Reuters by telephone. "A lot of dead on the ground and many who died whilst strapped to their seats.

"The plane split into two, a small part on the tail end that burned and a larger part that crashed into a rock. We have extracted at least 100 bodies and the rest are still inside," the officer, who requested anonymity, said.

Sinai is the scene of an insurgency by militants close to Islamic State, who have killed hundreds of Egyptian soldiers and police and have also attacked Western targets in recent months.

Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad, launched air raids against opposition groups in Syria including Islamic State on Sept. 30. Security sources said there was no indication the Airbus had been shot down or blown up.

Why Parents and Teens Will Both Love Smart Home SecurityAlarm.com

Banks 'Worried' After New Home Payoff Tip LeakedRate Marketplace

Billions Of ollars

When Obama and a majority of Congress sent billions of dollars to support Iran, they broke a solemn oath to their offices and to the Constitution to protect the United States. They swore to protect America from threats “both foreign and domestic,” and to never provide aid and comfort to any enemy.

     <<both foreign and domestic>>Sorry folks but this has not been done! Obama is the biggest failure of our entire nation, but many of our congressmen are failures too! dfM

The campaign waged on American civil liberties, privacy, and free speech reaches far and wide and now the military must make its move to secure the United States from the traitors masquerading as representatives of American interests.

     <<now the military must make its move>>In other words our Constitution is at risk; we are now faced with a Civil War, between the Obama administration and the rest of the US! Obama, of course, will lose! WE THE PEOPLE Will finally win back our country! We will still, however, not be the nation we were intended to be! We MUST, if we want to be a shining light on the hill again, win back the Lord's favor! Some may ask how do we do that? The way we do it, as a nation, is to bow down on bended knees, and beg for the Lord's forgiveness! 

Next Page: »

LOS ANGELES 

U.S. border authorities fired stun guns at least 70 times over four years at people who were runxning away, even though there was no struggle or clear indication that agents were in danger, a newspaper reported Friday.

At least six times, agents used the weapons against people who were trying to climb a border fence and get back into Mexico.

The Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/1M5U2GF ) also said three people had died after being hit by Tasers wielded by border agents or customs officers.

Two people were shocked while they were handcuffed, and two were hit with five cycles of the weapon, even though the agency's policy says no one should receive more than three.

The Times examined 450 uses of Tasers from 2010 to 2013 that were documented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials.

It found that most of the people subjected to Tasers had been caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border or were suspected of being in the country illegally, not fleeing arrest on more serious charges.

The nation's largest law enforcement agency, which oversees the Border Patrol and inspectors at ports of entry, decided in 2008 to supply agents with the hand-held devices that deliver a paralyzing electric charge as a way to end confrontations quickly and safely.

The program started with a pilot project in Texas and devices were widely distributed to agents beginning in 2010.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske issued a new use-of-force policy last year. Now, agents are instructed to use Tasers only when a suspect poses an imminent threat and to be particularly cautious when subjects are running.

The Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies have become more restrained in using Tasers, Kerlikowske said, even though he still believes "the good far outweighs the bad" with the weapons.

"You're seeing much less of the Taser being used when someone is in a precarious position, or fleeing," said Kerlikowske, a former police chief in Seattle. "I think we've learned a lot, and so has law enforcement."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article41983599.html#storylink=cpy

Paul Ryan: What to expect with new speaker in charge of the House

By David Avella  |  FoxNews.com
Published October 29, 2015

A new beginning is upon us with the election of Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

As almost always happens in Washington, when someone takes a new post of importance, especially after duress, there is a honeymoon period where hope and happy thoughts dominate the discussion.

Republicans and Democrats alike have given loud applause to Speaker Ryan’s early statements.  Off to a good start is surely better than the alternative.

The question is whether there is any prospect of the new atmosphere having some genuine durability.  For once, this observer thinks optimism is also realistic.

Given the poisonous climate of our political conversation, it is fair to demand an explanation of that position.  Well, here it goes.

After running for Vice President in 2012, Paul Ryan took a step back.  He revisited his assumptions about virtually everything under the sun.  Ryan became as much an observer as a participant in the arena.  Think of being the kid in the secret tree house, able to look down on the other children, watching and listening to all there was to see and hear.  From that view, he had the chance to reflect carefully on the policies that he champions.

In April of 2014, Ryan advanced “The Path to Prosperity:  A Responsible Balanced Budget.”  This budget would cut spending by $5.1 trillion over the next ten years.  Not all pain and suffering, the budget constituted a blueprint to also grow the economy to achieve a balanced budget.  Yes, this budget is conservative in nature.  No, it is not rigid dogma or unfairly austere.

The Ryan budget centers itself on five pillars—protecting the nation, expanding opportunity, strengthening the safety net, securing seniors’ retirement, and restoring fairness.  As was the case then, there is little doubt the particulars in that budget will be met with opposition from Democrats.  That is to be expected, and it is fine.

Another, probably minor in the eyes of others, piece of legislation gives some clarity to how it is that Paul Ryan thinks.  That legislation would be the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015.

Yes, government is already too big.  That does not mean there is no need for government or that it cannot be put to useful purposes.

The Ryan legislation creates a structure and process to “make recommendations on how best to incorporate outcomes measurement, institutionalize randomized controlled trials, and rigorous impact analysis into program design.”

In simple English, what this means is that Paul Ryan wants government to use actual facts and data when it comes to formulating policy rather than just making it up along the way.  This careful and deliberative approach will serve him well in the coming days.

Paul Ryan is a conservative in every respect of the term.  His philosophy, his demeanor, and his words all convey a deep and abiding respect for the foundations that have made America great.

He has specifically stated to the House that it is his intention to return to “regular order.”  This allows for one and all to participate in the lawmaking that is required to move the country forward.  He will respect those who disagree with him without compromising his own views or seeing a need to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good.

Paul Ryan knows who he is, what he believes, and where the House of Representatives fits into the fabric of the nation and its government.  In his first speech as Speaker he commented “the House represented the best of America:  the boundless opportunity to do good.”  He added:  “I am not interested in laying blame.  We are not settling scores.  We are wiping the slate clean.”

Speaker Ryan will encounter more than a few obstacles in the quest to help advance the nation in a forward direction.  Because he understands and advocates the policies that can contribute in a positive fashion to this progress, and because he understands how to go about the business of legislating, we ought to have every hope for a successful Speakership.

                 Page 52 Weapons Bought - Americans

Nour vehicles and weapons they now use to 
B Weapons Bought - Americans

innocent men, women, and children. Obama and Kerry have not only funneled our money to the enemy, but are the reason we see our enemy equipped with our weapons. Those c  were bought and paid for by the American people to defend this country and our friends. Those weapons are now being used to kill women and children to include our Marines. Are we going to sit around and wait until they put nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemy. A nuclear deal with Iran only speeds up that process. Obama and Kerry are guilty of treason and should be formally charged by the people. Innocent until proven guilty, so arrest these traitors and let the courts decide.
The definition of treason defined by our constitution is this. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Our money, weapons, and vehicles are in the hands of our enemy. The very enemy who chants death to America and threaten our children. We the People demand justice and require our leaders to start doing their jobs. Stop these traitors before our enemy gets a nuclear weapon to bring death to us all… God Bless America and may He forever bless you all…

Read more at http://dcgazette.com/bergdahl-not-traitor-obama-kerry-next/

Page 52 Both Foreign And Domestic

When Obama and a majority of Congress sent billions of dollars to support Iran, they broke a solemn oath to their offices and to the Constitution to protect the United States. They swore to protect America from threats “both foreign and domestic,” and to never provide aid and comfort to any enemy.

     <<both foreign and domestic>>Sorry folks but this has not been done! Obama is the biggest failure of our entire nation, but many of our congressmen are failures too! df

The campaign waged on American civil liberties, privacy, and free speech reaches far and wide and now the military must make its move to secure the United States from the traitors masquerading as representatives of American interests.

     <<now the military must make its move>>In other words our Constitution is at risk; we are now faced with a Civil War, between the Obama administration and the rest of the US! Obama, of course, will lose! WE THE PEOPLE Will finally win back our country! We will still, however, not be the nation we were intended to be! We MUST, if we want to be a shining light on the hill again, win back the Lord's favor! Some may ask how do we do that? The way we do it, as a nation, is to bow down on bended knees, and beg for the Lord's forgiveness! 

Next Page: »

Washington (CNN) - 

About half of all Americans oppose stricter gun control laws, a larger segment of the population than those who support tighter controls on guns, according to a new CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday.

Nearly three weeks after the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6% more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws. That's a wider gap than in June when CNN last surveyed Americans on gun control, finding that the public was equally split at 49% on the issue.

The advantage of those opposed to stricter gun control laws over those in favor is outside of the poll's 3-point margin of error.

But the issue of whether guns can make the public safer remains deeply divisive. Americans are nearly equally split between whether guns in public places make those places safer, less safe or don't make a difference.

Despite those divisions, most say that nationwide gun laws should only be changed with the support of most Americans and most gun owners.

About seven in 10 Americans believe it is important for most Americans to support proposed changes to gun laws before those changes are implemented. And 61% said the same of gun owners.

About half of Americans said it is important for both parties to come to a consensus before making any changes to existing gun laws.

Other polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales and sales at gun shows, where people can buy guns without undergoing a background check.

There are some outliers when it comes to Americans' overall opposition to tighter laws restricting access to guns.

Most non-white Americans -- 55% -- support tighter gun control laws, while 43% stand opposed.

There is also a gender gap when it comes to support for tighter gun control laws. While 14% more men oppose gun control restrictions, women are nearly equally split on the question with 49% in favor and 48% opposed to such legislation.

And those with a college degree are also more likely to support gun control legislation: 52% of those Americans support stricter gun control while 46% oppose tighter measures.

The largest split is a partisan one: 76% of Republicans oppose stricter gun control compared to just 25% of Democrats. A majority of Republicans say guns in public places make those places safer, while most Democrats believe the opposite, that guns make public spaces less safe.

And two-thirds of Americans who live in rural areas oppose tighter gun control laws.