Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz

If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.

The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.
 -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.
 -- Mahatma Gandhi

Latest Newsmax poll: Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz are at the top with 20 and 19% respectively. Jeb Bush is far behind with only 5%

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | 3 Comments

In a Republican presidential primary, who would you prefer as the GOP nominee?

Gov. Bobby Jindal
Dr. Ben Carson
Gov. Chris Christie
Gov. Jan Brewer
Gov. Jeb Bush
Gov. John Kasich
Sen. Marco Rubio
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Gov. Mitt Romney
Gov. Nikki Haley
Rep. Paul Ryan
Sen. Rand Paul
Gov. Rick Perry
Gov. Sarah Palin
Gov. Scott Walker
Sen. Ted Cruz
Donald Trump
Sen. Rick Santorum
Overall, do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s job performance?

Of the below options, which are you more focused on when choosing your candidate?

Preserving traditional values
National security
Healthcare reforms
Jobs and the U.S. economy

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Surveys/Results/id/113/#ixzz3MYgEWZzO
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Press Release: complaint filed with Brooklyn DA seeking prosecution of Al Sharpton for inciting violence and inciting murder of 2 Brooklyn police officers

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | 6 Comments

  1. Press Release: complaint filed with Brooklyn DA seeking prosecution of Al Sharpton for inciting violence and inciting murder of two Brooklyn police officers





  1. 939-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7687





350 JAY STREET, BROOKLYN, NY, 11201-2908






Dear DA Thompson,

as many citizens around the country, I was grieving an unfortunate passing of Mr. Eric Garner, which occurred  after he resisted  a lawful arrest and due to his known medical condition of asthma, high blood pressure and obesity.

As many around the country, I am hoping that there will be additional measures taken to prevent such unfortunate deaths happening after a lawful arrest. Among them, hopefully, different techniques will be used in arresting medically compromised individuals complaining of shortness of breath and there should be a mandatory educational programs in schools teaching students of dangers of resisting a lawful arrest.

However,  MSNBC talk show host Al Sharpton, who is also known for spearheading a slander of a District Attorney in Tanana Brawley case a few years age, has decided to take this grief over an unfortunate death to a different level.

Mr. Sharpton has organized a “Kill the cops” rally.

During Sharpton rally people were chanting “what do we want?

Kill the cops.

when do we want it?


As a result of this clear incitement of violence and incitement of murder of police officers, on 12.20.2014  two Brooklyn police officers were assassinated in cold blood by a Muslim Black Panther Ismaaiyl Brinsley, while a few accomplices cheered and clapped. Later, reportedly, Ismaaiyl Brinsley took his own life. Police said Brinsley approached the passenger window of a marked police car and opened fire, striking Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in the head. Brinsley, 28, wrote on an Instagram account before Saturday’s shootings: “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let’s take 2 of theirs,” two city officials with direct knowledge of the case confirmed for The Associated Press. He used the hashtags Shootthepolice RIPErivGardner (sic) RIPMikeBrown — references to the two police-involved deaths of blacks that have sparked racially charged protests across the country. AP

Unless Sharpton is stopped and prosecuted, more police officers will be assassinated in cold blood.

While I personally do not reside in Kings county, I have relatives resigning in Brooklyn and Borrow Park. additionally, as the President of Defend Our Freedom Foundation, I m concerned about the well being of members and supporters of DOFF, who reside in Brooklyn.

Mr. Thompson, when Attorney General of NY suggested a special prosecutor in regards to death of Eric Garner, you opposed it stating the following:

“As the duly elected District Attorney of Brooklyn, I am adamantly opposed to the request by the New York State Attorney General for authority to investigate and potentially prosecute alleged acts of police brutality. No one is more committed to ensuring equal justice under the law than I am.

“Moreover, acts of police brutality are not only crimes against the individual victim but also are attacks on the communities in which they occur. Therefore, local prosecutors who are elected to enforce the laws in those communities should not be robbed of their ability to faithfully and fairly do so in cases where police officers shoot, kill or injure someone unjustly. The people of Brooklyn have voted for their District Attorney to keep them safe from all crimes, including those of police brutality. The Attorney General’s proposal would override their choice – and that should not happen.” Ken Thompson, Brroklyn District Attorney


So, since the people of Brooklyn voted for Brooklyn District Attorney to keep them safe from all crimes, this includes the crime of inciting violence and inciting murder and they are awaiting your action .


Mr. Sharpton should be held accountable for his incitement of violence against police.

I am urging you to start investigation of Mr. Sharpton at your earliest convenience.


Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

CC Chief of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Hate Crimes Unit Marc Fleidner,

CC Chief Assistant District Attorney Eric Gonzalez

Rudy Giuliani Accuses Obama, Black Leaders Of Stoking ‘Anti-Police Hatred’

WASHINGTON — Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) blamed this weekend’s killing of two NYPD officers on anti-police “propaganda,” for which he said President Barack Obama bears some responsibility.”We’ve had four months of propaganda, starting with the president, that everybody should hate…

Huffington Post39 mins ago
Paul Joseph Watson | Brinsley posted extreme passages from Koran.
AP | Mayor Bill de Blasio said this is ‘not the time for politics’ following the murder of two police officers in Brooklyn on Saturday.
Kristinn Taylor | The FBI issued a warning Friday that the Black Guerilla Family prison was plotting to attack white police officers in the state.
Larry Celona and Matt McNulty | A suspect pointed a gun directly at the officer’s head and pulled the trigger in The Bronx — not realizing it was empty.
Carmine Sabia | Believe it or not, there are some New Yorkers who actually support the police.
Infowars.com | Rows of New York City police officers turned their backs on New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio at a press conference Saturday night after the murder of two police officers in Brooklyn.
Breitbart | President Barack Obama was briefed on the ambush killing of two NYPD cops while on the golf course in Hawaii this afternoon, according to the White House press pool report.
Kurt Nimmo | Earlier reports stated members were “preparing to shoot on duty police officers.”

Draft of a reply to Obama’s opposition in Taitz v Jeh Johnson, Sylvia Burwell, Barack Obama to stop Obama- amnesty. In the other news federal judge denied Arpaio’s request to testify in regards to Obama’s amnesty

Posted on | December 18, 2014 | 2 Comments

nesty, taxpayer stan




PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7687






TAITZ,                      )                              Case # 14-cv-00119

 V                                )       HONORABLE ANDREW S. HANEN PRESIDING





Defense claims that Plaintiff is engaged in political discussion. This is not the case. Plaintiff is not seeking an opinion on whether the US Congress should pass an immigration reform or amnesty.

Plaintiff is seeking to stay immigration policies by the defendant, which violate the law and cause damage to the plaintiff. This is not a political discussion.



Previously, defense claimed that Flast v Cohen 392 U.S. 83 (1968)

is limited to Establishment clause cases. Plaintiff provided Flast v Cohen Supreme Court opinion, which clearly shows that Flast v Cohen is not limited to the Establishment clause cases and grants Article III standing to any taxpayer, like the plaintiff herein, Taitz, and it relates to every action by the government, where the action originates under the taxing and spending power of the US Congress and the action is unlawful.

Defense attempted to create an impression that Flast v Cohen was somehow overturned and brought three cases, all of which were completely different from Flast v Cohen and different from the case at hand.

Flast governs only cases, which are related to federal spending, originating in taxing and spending clause of the US Congress. Defense, however, brought forward two cases related to state spending and local taxes and one case related to HEW transfer, not an exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power.

Defense brought forward Valley Forge Coll. v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464 (1982). However, in Valley Forge the court found that respondents are without standing to sue as taxpayers, because the source of their complaint is not a congressional action but a decision by HEW to transfer a parcel of federal property, and because the conveyance in question was not an exercise of Congress’ authority conferred by the Taxing and Spending Clause, but by the Property Clause. Cf. Flast v. Cohen, supra. Pp. 454 U. S. 476-482.

Further, Daimler Chrysler v Cuno 547 U.S. 332, 343 (2006), also, does not negate Flast v Cohen. In Daimler, The city of Toledo and State of Ohio sought to encourage DaimlerChrysler Corp. to expand its Toledo operations by offering it local property tax exemptions and a state franchise tax credit. A group of plaintiffs including Toledo residents who pay state and local taxes sued in state court, alleging that the tax breaks violated the Commerce Clause. The taxpayer plaintiffs claimed injury because the tax breaks depleted the state and local treasuries to which they contributed the city of Toledo , Ohio was seeking to give tax relief to Daimler Chrysler. Plaintiffs sought standing as state taxpayers in relation to state tax expenditures.   Daimler did not overturn Flast v Cohen and did not even relate to Flast v Cohen, as in Daimler the plaintiffs sued as state taxpayers challenging local taxes.

Lastly, in Az. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436, 1442 (2011)

A group of Arizona taxpayers challenged a state law providing tax credits to people who donate to school tuition organizations providing scholarships to students attending private or religious schools. Again, this is a state law case, not originating in Congress’s standing and taxing power.  Further, defense misrepresented Az. Christian ruling. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that any damages or harm claimed by the taxpayers by virtue of simply being a taxpayer would be pure speculation because the issue at hand was a tax credit and not a government expenditure. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.

Furthermore, it appears that justices of the Supreme court are considering not to limit, but to extend Flast, to cover state taxpayer actions as well.
In her dissent, Justice Kagan said “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective—to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.”id  She further argued: “taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy.”id  The dissent was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Bruce Peabody, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, remarked “the case brought out four dissents, a signal that those justices were prepared to decide the substantive issue.” Equally, Peter Woolley, professor of political science and director of the PublicMind Poll, posited “in making this ruling on such narrow grounds, the court virtually guarantees that plaintiff in one guise or another will be back another day.

So, all three cases brought by the defense do not negate Flast v Cohen and do not negate taxpayer status of the plaintiff herein.

So, based on Flast v Cohen, as argued in FAC and prior pleadings, Taitz is assured Article 3 legal standing. Moreover, ethically, it is, probably, one of the most important issues of civil rights. With Congressional spending out of control, incomprehensible eighteen trillion dollar debt, taxpayer standing is a paramount right and one of the most important checks and balances, which can be exercised by the citizens, as taxpayers.


As part of her legal action at hand, Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory relief deeming actions by the defendants in DACA to be unlawful and she is seeking an injunction against DACA.

Plaintiff submits that current expansion of immigration policies in shielding from deportation millions of illegal aliens and granting them work permits and Social Security benefits, represents continuation and expansion of the same lawless action by the defendants, which started in 2012. Such actions are illegal and unconstitutional per Crane v Napolitano 12-cv-03247 (Exhibit 3 April 23, 2013 opinion by USDC Judge Reed O’Connor)  “…8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), with id. § 1225(b)(2).   Sections 1225(b)(2)(B) and (C) also provide specific exceptions to the initiation of removal proceedings required by Section 1225(b)(2)(A).   Given the use of the mandatory term “shall,” the structure of Section 1225(b) as a whole, and the defined exceptions to the initiation of removal proceedings located in Sections 1225(b)(2)(B) and (C), the Court finds that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) imposes a mandatory duty on immigration officers to initiate removal proceedings whenever they encounter an “applicant for admission” who “is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” id


In 2012 defendant Obama announced that he will shield from deportation  an estimated 1.2 million illegals, who are minors.

On November 20 2014, he simply expanded the  same lawless action by extending it to millions more illegals, who are over 18. According to Obama their number stands at 5 million, according to Sheriff Babeu (Exhibit 1) to 20 million people.

Both DACA and current, November 20, 2014 immigration action represent the same lawless pattern, continuation of the same lawlessness.

In both  actions Barack Obama announced that he will shield from deportation large groups of illegal aliens and he will grant them work permits and Social Security cards and benefits.

In both cases Obama never signed any such orders, he only verbally announced them. Plaintiff believes that Obama, who used to be a licensed attorney, before he surrendered his license,  knew that such orders were not grounded in any law or authority and should he sign such executive orders, he would be subject to impeachment and criminal prosecution. So, Obama just made a verbal announcement and left his underlings, secretaries of DHS to sign lawless memoranda -orders to shield millions of illegal aliens from deportation and grant  them work permits and SSN cards.  In 2012, former Secretary of DHS Napolitano signed such orders calling them DACA. Shortly, after signing DACA, Napolitano was rewarded with a golden parachute, $700,000 per year  in salary and benefits, given to her by Obama’s supporters on the board  of regents of the University of California.

After Napolitano’s departure, her position was filled with Jeh Johnson, who extended DACA and on November 2014 he extended this shield of deportation further, to include millions more illegals. Johnson and Obama claim that this executive action extends to about 5 million illegals, who have been in the country for at least 5 years.

Sheriff Babeu, of Pima counted, Arizona, blew the whistle on Jeh Johnson and publicly revealed that Johnson have forwarded a directive to all 23 agencies under DHS, telling them that anyone who illegally crossed the border and have been in the country since January of this year, 2014, will be eligible to deportation deferral, which is 20 million people.   (Exhibit 1). Taitz suspects that there will be a golden parachute for Johnson as well.

So, based on the actions by the defendants, recent immigration actins by the defendants represent a continuation of the same 2012 lawless shield of deportation, which the plaintiff is seeking to be declared unconstitutional and unlawful and enjoined by the court.

These actions are akin to one being engaged in the same pattern of a repeated tort. Let’s take an example of one being engaged  in repeated acts of conversion or embezzlement. In this hypothetical the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory relief and injunctive relief to stop these acts of embezzlement. Let’s imagine, there is an additional instance of embezzlement. In this situation the plaintiff would ask the court to issue an injunctive relief to stop an additional act of embezzlement, which is a part and parcel of an ongoing tort. For that reason plaintiff does not believe that she needed to file for a leave of court to file a second amended complaint. However, if it will please the court, the plaintiff will file a second amended complaint and will expressly include  12.20.2014 immigration actions by the defendants or will file a separate legal action reflecting 12.20.2014 actions by the defendants and will seek the leave of court to consolidate both actions.


12.20.2014  immigration action by the defendants increases damages suffered by the plaintiff in multiple ways:

  1. First Amended Complaint includes actual and impending damages due to the fact that these acts of massive shield from deportation, become a magnet for thousands of illegals, who cross the border, who are being trafficked by the defendants all over the country, and who spread multiple infectious diseases affecting a group of doctors, such as plaintiff, who are treating these illegal aliens. This represents an ongoing action, as well as an ongoing violation of the 5th and 14th amendment, taking without due process, taking of thousands of dollars due to missed time from work and medical bills. New immigration action will be a magnet to more illegal aliens to cross the border and spread more infectious diseases.
  2. 12.20.2014 immigration action extended the original 2012 shield from deportation and granted work permits to adults. This means that there will be millions of adults competing for work. Plaintiff is a professional, she is both a licensed attorney and a licensed doctor of dental surgery. Per Washington Alliance of Technology workers v US Department of Homeland security 14-cv-00529-ESH USDC District of Columbia plaintiff will have even stronger standing, as now millions of adults, among them professionals, such as the plaintiff, will be competing with her for work. Under Alliance of Technology workers, the court found that seven month extension of working visas for STEM workers, created an increased competition for US workers. The court concluded that increased competition for work created a concrete and particularized injury.



Several recent court opinions support such declaratory relief and weigh in favor of the ruling for the plaintiff:

  1. In US v Escobar 2-14-cr-00180 AJS the court finds executive action by Obama to shield large groups of illegal aliens from deportation and grant them work permits and Social security cards, to be unconstitutional and an abuse of executive power and a violation of separation of powers. Since DACA and November 20, 2014  represent the same action of shielding from deportation large groups of people and granting them work permits and SSN cards, this opinion relates to both actions and weighs in favor of granting defendants requested injunctive relief, specifically declaratory relief deeming DACA unconstitutional(Exhibit 2 December 16, 2014 Opinion by Judge Schwab in US v Juarez -Escobar 14-cr-00180 AJS USDC Western District of PA)

The court in Escobar-Juarez finds: “1.   Inaction by Congress Does Not Make Unconstitutional Executive Action Constitutional

President Obama contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his Executive Action was necessary because of Congress’s failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard. This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014 Executive Action be lawfully within the President’s executive authority. It is not.

“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.”  Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 587.

Congress’s lawmaking power is not subject to Presidential supervision or control. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 587.  Perceived or actual Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive. This measurement – – the amount/length of Congressional inaction that must occur before the Executive can legislate – – is impossible to apply, arbitrary, and could further stymie the legislative process.


The temporal limits of so called “inaction” is arbitrary because of considerations such as when the “clock” on inaction would begin and how long inaction would have to persist before otherwise unlawful legislative Executive Action would become lawful. For example, would it be permissible for a President, who was dissatisfied with a high tax rate on long term capital gains (as limiting economic growth), to instruct the IRS to only collect taxes at a rate of 15% rather than the legislative prescribed 20% rate, or defer prosecution of any taxpayer who pays at least 15% but not the full 20%, unless Congress “pass a bill” lowering the rate within a specified time period? Both this IRS scenario and the Executive Action at issue in this case violate the separation of powers.

President Obama stated that the only recourse available to those members of Congress who question his wisdom or authority in this regard would be to “pass a bill” and that “the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.” Presidential action may not serve as a stop-gap or a bargaining chip to be used against the legislative branch. While “the power of executing the laws necessarily includes both authority and responsibility to resolve some questions left open by Congress that arise during the law’s administration,” it does not include unilateral implementation of legislative policies. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. E.P.A.,134 S.Ct. 2427, 2446 (Jun. 23, 2014).

Further, President Obama’s belief that this Executive Action is within his executive authority is not dispositive because “the separation of powers does not depend on the views of individual Presidents, nor on whether ‘the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment.’”  N.L.R.B., 719 F.3d at 241, citing Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477, 130 S.Ct. 3138, 3155 (2010), quoting New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 182 (1992).  Likewise, Congress’s alleged “failure” to pass legislation invalidating or limiting past Executive Actions or Orders relating to deferred action does not evidence that such exercises are lawful, and does not constitute a grant of legislative authority to the Executive.

This Executive Action “cross[es] the line,” constitutes “legislation,” and effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy.  The President may only “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ”; he may not take any Executive Action that creates laws.  U.S.

Const., Art. II, § 3.”

Further, the court finds that Obama’s actions exceed prosecutorial discretion:

“However, President Obama’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because:

(a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and

(b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.” id

Further, the court finds it unconstitutional, the fact that this executive action provides illegal aliens with benefits and quasi-citizenship

” The Executive Action provides for a process by which undocumented immigrants will become quasi-United States citizens, such that the status given to those within President Obama’s Executive Action could not be “terminated at any time.” id

“[President Obama’s] Executive Action crosses the line, constitutes legislation, and effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy. The President may only ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…’; he may not take any Executive Action that creates laws….President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional.” id

The court reached a conclusion:


President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional. ” id

  1. Crane v Napolitano 12-cv-03247 (Exhibit 3 April 23, 2013 opinion by USDC Judge Reed O’Connor) states that DHS does not have a prosecutorial discretion in not deporting large groups of illegal aliens. In Crane deportation officers sought injunction relief against 2012 immigration  policies shielding illegals from deportation and granting them work permits.  Judge O’Connor  in his April 23 decision ruled that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits, as such actions by the defendants are unlawful and unconstitutional, however, due to the fact that plaintiffs were federal employees, Judge O’connor ruled that under CSRA (Civil Service Reform Act) plaintiffs have to seek relief administratively within agency, not in federal court.  However, in case at hand, plaintiff is not a federal employee, so such limitation does not apply to her and as such this decision in Crane weighs heavily in favor of ruling for the plaintiff.
  2. In their pleadings, defendants claim that individuals do not have standing to challenge immigration policies. This is negated by yet another recent decision in Washington Alliance of Technology workers v US Department of Homeland security 14-cv-00529-ESH USDC District of Columbia. In her November 21, 2014 opinion Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled that individuals have standing to challenge immigration policy.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ


Sheriff Babeu: Immigration Order Will Defer 20M Deportations

Monday, 15 Dec 2014 08:57 PM

By Cathy Burke

As many as 20 million undocumented immigrants will qualify for President Barack Obama’s deferred deportation action, says Paul Babeu, sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona.

The number would be an alarming increase from the estimated 5 million initially expected to qualify under the executive action.

But in a Monday interview on Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” Babeu contended that the new figure came directly from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. 
“The fact is, it’s not just the 5 million that President Obama promised, we learned that Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, put out a six-page memo and he said that anybody who’s been here since January of this year, anybody prior to that date, they are allowed to stay here. There will be deferred action,” Babeu told Cavuto.

“This number that President Obama promised would be 5 million is now 20 million illegals.”

Asked to clarify how he knows the number jumped to 20 million, Babeu insisted it was straight from Johnson.

“President Obama said on TV, ‘if you’ve been here five years or more, there will be deferred action, that you’ll be given a work permit, a driver’s license, all access to our social programs,'” Babeu explained.

“But Jeh Johnson, the very same day, put out a memo directed to all 23 agencies under the Department of Homeland Security saying that any illegal who’s been here this year as of January of 2014, they are entitled to this deferred action.”

Babeu said that interpretation would surely mean the situation for states along the nation’s southern border “is going to get worse”

“It sends the wrong message,” he said. “It’s a big neon sign flashing … that make it to the border and you’re home free.”

The outspoken sheriff is the subject of speculation in Arizona that he may have congressional aspirations in 2016, according to the Arizona Republic, which notes the Republican has already filed his first contribution reports for a federal political action committee.

“Turn on Fox News and there he is, ripping President Barack Obama on immigration and tearing into Washington for its failure to secure the border with Mexico,” political consultant David Leibowitz told the Republic. “Babeu is relentless on that issue — a poor man’s [Sheriff] Joe Arpaio — and immigration is likely to remain a top-tier issue come the next election cycle.”

Constantin Querard, another political consultant, said Babeu already has good name recognition around Arizona and noted that his “favorability numbers were last measured at 54 percent statewide and nearly 80 percent in Pinal County, and he is a proven fundraiser who could likely raise millions more than previous GOP nominees.”

“So long as the Obama administration continues to pursue open-border, pro-amnesty policies, candidates who are demonstrably strong on border issues will do very well in border states like Arizona,” Querard told the Republic.

“Since Obama’s march towards amnesty shows no signs of slowing, that bodes well for potential candidates like Sheriff Paul Babeu, in 2016 and beyond.”

Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Paul-Babeu-sheriff-20-million-undocumented/2014/12/15/id/613205/#ixzz3MALwuMMD


Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

TWO CAR BOMBS IN MALMO, SWEDEN — Pre-Dawn Bombs in Multi-Ethnic Neighborhood

SHOCK VIDEO>>> #Ferguson Protesters Chant “Pigs in a Blanket” After Two NYC Police Officers Executed

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

SHOCK VIDEO>>> #Ferguson Protesters Chant “Pigs in a Blanket” After Two NYC Police Officers Executed

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

3,197 approved

Kudos, Dr. Orly! You beat DRUDGE with news of the NYC police murders. While your site had stories up, Drudge still had Raul Castro at the top and no other sub headlines yet about the NYC tragedy.

Fox now reporting that the murderer SPEAKS/SPOKE ARABIC!

Are you really surprised? Left is pushing for non-citizens to vote

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

Should non-citizens in the U.S. vote?

As of Jan. 1, 2012, an estimated 13.3 million lawful permanent residents lived in the United States, and 8.8 million of them were eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship but had not done so. In California, 2.48 million out of 3.4 million green-card holders were eligible to apply but chose not to.…

Los Angeles Times

Interesting! CFR, which pulled the strings of puppet Obama for some time, is now slowing down Obama’s reforms, particularly, as it applies to Cuba? Did Obama step out of his designated box?

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | 1 Comment

Booking that Cuba trip? Not so fast: CFR chief

Obama golfs after inciting violence in NY

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

Breitbart | President Barack Obama was briefed on the ambush killing of two NYPD cops while on the golf course in Hawaii this afternoon, according to the White House press pool report.
Kurt Nimmo | Earlier reports stated members were “preparing to shoot on duty police officers.”
New York Post | Investigators believe the murders were a crazed gunman’s execution-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

Authorities Say Police Officer Shot to Death in Tarpon Springs, Florida

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

Authorities Say Police Officer Shot to Death in Tarpon Springs, Florida; Suspect

ABC News  – ‎2 minutes ago‎
Authorities say police officer shot to death in Tarpon Springs, Florida; suspect in custody. Share. 0. Share on email. Join the Discussion.

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

  • Russia sees harsh crackdown on independent media

    MOSCOW (AP) — Among the five TV journalists interviewing Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, the odd one out was easy to spot. Mikhail Zygar’s questions were sharper than those of the others, who headed back to

Police chiefs call for resignation of NY city mayor, moron De blasio

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

3,196 approved

Both Bo Diedel and Bernie Kerik with Judge Pirro: “De Blasio should resign TOMORROW!” SHARPTON FRIEND OBAMA SHOULD DO IT SIMULTANEOUSLY!

In my opinion Al Sharpton should be criminally prosecuted for inciting violence and conspiracy to commit murder for his “We want dead cops” rally

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | 2 Comments


You have to watch this: 2 rows of NY policemen turn their backs to their idiot mayor De Blasio (aka Warren Wilhelm, aka Sandinista and Cuban communist sympathizer), aka race baiter

Posted on | December 21, 2014 | No Comments

while the assassin believed that the officers were white, in reality those were 2 minority officers

‘Assassinated': Shock After Two NYPD Officers Gunned Down in Their Car

NBCNews.com  – ‎1 hour ago‎
Investigators believe the gunman who ambushed and fatally shot two New York City Police Department officers Saturday boasted on social media that “I’m putting wings on pigs today” before the killings.

Posted on | December 20, 2014 | No Comments

Subject: While Obama doubled US debt, Putin tripled Russia’s gold reserves . . . and

he did it with Obama’s help.

Also remember that Europe runs on Russian petrol, and if Russia should cut off the supply, the engine of Europe shuts down.   Now it is to Russia’s economic advantage to sell its gas and oil to the other nations of Europe.  In fact it is Russia’s biggest income.  However, if the U.S. and/or NATO gets too pushy with the Russian Bear, all Putin has to do is turn off the fuel spigot.  Meanwhile the U.S. gets deeper in debt by the day, while Russia, India and China demonstrate economic restraint and accumulate Gold.    What will it take to get the American people and the government in Washington on track?

 —   Dr. John Grady

While Obama is accumulating an unprecedented debt, Putin tripled Russian gold reserves and in the last quarter alone bought 55 tons, more that half of all gold purchased by the Central banks around the world

Posted on | December 20, 2014No Comments

СМИ: Путин скупает золото, чтобы уничтожить доллар и власть США


While Obama is accumulating an unprecedented debt, Putin tripled Russian gold reserves and in the last quarter bought 55 tons of gold, more that half of all gold purchased by the Central banks around the world.

Russian daily, Rambler.RU, published an article by an Italian economist, John Franco Rossi, which was originally published in Il Fatto Quotidiana. Rossi noted that sanctions on Russia backfire on European countries, noting that Russia is the third largest importer of Italian goods. Further, Rossi noted that as US and European countries are running large debt and are forced to sell their gold reserves, Russia, China and India are buying those reserves and accumulating strength. While in the past 6 years Obama doubled US National debt, Putin was hard at work paying off Russian debt and accumulating gold reserves. In the past 10 years Putin tripled Russian gold reserves, which reached 1,150 tons.

Rossi believes that this will ultimately lead to the dollar being displaced as the international currency. Considering the fact that the US has lost most of its’ manufacturing, outsourcing it to the third world countries, the only remaining strength of the US economy, is the acceptability of the US dollar and it’s purchase by other nations. If this is gone, there will be nothing left.

Summary provided by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Stunning Video: New York City Police Officers Turn Backs on Mayor de Blasio After Cops Executed

Posted on | December 20, 2014 | No Comments

Stunning Video: New York City Police Officers Turn Backs on Mayor de Blasio After Cops Executed

keep looking »