or (6)

Friend or Foe ?

The problems with combat and battle zones is who is Friendly and who is Foe ?

This is what our troops face everyday in conflict zones overseas and causes PTSD to our soldiers in the fields.

Zion Israel conflicts started in 1947 and continues to infect corruptions and crimes against the Arab Nations with the support of American Troops on the OUTPOST BORDERS. Just like Vietnam that would never win in battles do to uncertain Enemy of Friendly or Foe Firer Zones. Let remove all America Troops out of country in the Red Zones before we lose anymore of our young soldiers. This battle is between Zion Israel and God. The Traitors that caused 911 False Flag Attacks during former Pres. Bush on watch. Woe to the perpetrators your time is near.4064366902?profile=original4064562890?profile=original4064562847?profile=original

Read more…

Fellow Brainers - Now you know that we love a good argument here! You know that we love debate, we really enjoy having other points of view posted so that we can engage in a dialogue with them. We do not espouse name-calling, aside from fun jabs at a politician or political group in general, nor do we espouse any action that would in any way hinder any of the rights we have in this great nation. We here at Conservative Brainworks do not espouse violence. What we do support is the Constitution and the civil liberties that we as Americans have. That being said I have a disturbing post that I just had to share this with you on this page. This is a sentiment from a person who, admittedly, is a dyed in the wool liberal. Now, normally, I have fun little arguments with this person and we each present our viewpoints and, at least on my side, I laugh it off and realize that this is just for fun and that taking things personally or OVER the top is… Well it’s just stupid so I turn off the computer and join the real world. Now, you all know the rules! Here at Conservative Brainworks we DO NOT; 1. Do personal attacks on anyone who is not a politician (and even then we back it up with annoying little things like facts, video, audio, transcripts, etc.) and we keep it political. 2. Espouse violence upon anyone, ever, outside of the realm of military engagements. 3. Go above and beyond the Constitution of the United States of America, nor do we go above and beyond the rule of law in America - we often disagree with the way laws are interpreted and carried out, and we can have dialogue on that all day long. 4. Think that we are better than anyone else, we are all law-abiding citizens, we are all American citizens, and we are all patriots. Now I want you to read what this person said: “Clive Bundy is a Terrorist. A home grown, bigoted & racist terrorist. He should be arrested and his property and holding seized. Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” My good friends, this is the mind of the low information liberal voter. What we see here is a knee-jerk and gut reaction to an admittedly biased news report using only emotion and little to nothing else. What we see here is not the rule of law as one would expect from a liberal. Rather, what we are seeing more and more of from the left are things that are conflictingly and diametrically opposed to the tenants that they tell us they hold so dear. The left tells us about tolerance, yet if you oppose their viewpoints and attempt a dialogue, tolerance is the very last thing that you will find they actually have - as is evidenced here. So let’s look at this posting, but let’s look at it with tolerance in our hearts, and logic in our minds. We are not going to simply look at this and begin bashing this person and telling this person anything aside from rule of law, common sense, liberty, freedom, and constitutionally based ideals. This person made a very unconfirmed and un-researched comment that Clive Bundy is a terrorist. Now I want you to look at the word terrorist there: Terrorist – with a capital T. Now this person made this statement as if Clive Bundy had been accused, and charged, with our rule of law, as a terrorist – he has not. So you see just stating that an American citizen is a terrorist does not a terrorist make. Let’s look at the next part of the statement, “a home-grown, bigoted & racist terrorist.” Now this time the word terrorist was not capitalized, however we are given other words in here like bigoted and racist oh, but wait, the word terrorist is at the end of that sentence also. So now this person has not only taken rule of law upon themselves and have charged Mr. Bundy with terrorism they are now, due to their apparent innate, in-depth, and all-encompassing knowledge of the situation calling him a bigot and a racist. Now I have seen what Mr. Bundy stated on the video, the raw video is very telling. If you look at the video that was already edited by our news media you will find that it does sound very bigoted and it does sound very racist and it does sound like something that it would be unacceptable to say to anyone without them thinking you were indeed a bigoted racist! However if you look at the raw tape you’ll find that this man actually holds dear family values and looks at different peoples plight in America but he stated it in ways that were very very un-tactful and quite frankly he stated in a stupid manner – but that does not make him a bigoted racist, what that makes him is not eloquent in speech and stupid. As a matter of fact there are many individuals coming to Mr. Bundy’s side, (as you notice I refuse to use any reference to any specific group as I believe all people are of the same “race” - we are all created equal) whom other people are using as a tool to promulgate their hatred of a group. In this case that group is anyone who differs with the liberal agenda and the liberals will use their militant attacks to ensure the low information voter remains livid and hateful. Okay let’s go on to the next part, “He should be arrested and his property and holding seized.” Here is another statement made with emotion and that very important rule of law again dismissed because that rule of law would interfere with this liberal agenda. Here again is a liberal who thinks that they should have control over another person’s property and assets without being held accountable, themselves, for the words that they have said. I would love to hear what this person would want to say if I asked them this question: “so after Mr. Bundy is arrested, and his properties and holdings are seized, what should happen to him then? Should he go through proper rule of law? Or would you have happened to him what you have said in the next part of your post?”… And here is what this self-proclaimed liberal said in the next part of this post: “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, exactly what the liberals on the left want to do to anyone who steps outside of the box of oppression, intolerance, and hatred that the liberals would shove anyone into who disagrees with them. “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed…” This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what we are up against in this election! This is the sentiment that is held by the liberal elite, by those who are so dogmatically engrained in their hatred and intolerance of opposing viewpoints and rule of law and constitutionality. Here we see the viewpoint of a liberal. Death to those who oppose us! We are literally looking at someone who says that violence is acceptable, as a matter of fact this verse is saying that it should happen. Does that not bring up historical teachings? It does for me, and they are fearfully and horrifically documented – starting with this very same mindset. So now let us look at the constitutionality of this person’s statement. The Constitution, under article 1 states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now just because the people that were gathered around to support Mr. Bundy had weapons they still were peaceably assembling to the best of my knowledge. I believe the only violence was initiated by the government agents – if I am wrong, then I apologize and please correct, with facts, thanks. So indeed they were following the constraints of law and the constraints under the Constitution under article 2 which states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So could this person who has such hatred and such animosity for those who are exercising their freedoms please tell me at what point do you cross the line between law and lawlessness? At what point do those in power simply ignore the Constitution and rule of law? Now we look at article 4, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So here again unless we see that the due process of law has been followed under the Constitution, what justification do people that say these types of things have for saying that these people should be shot and killed and holding seized? Even if the rule of law and constitutionality was upheld this type of statement still holds no validity and is, itself, a statement that espouses rule by violence and despotism. So where exactly does someone of this mindset place the line between our rule of law and what they think should happen? And now, a serious question – for you, the person who stated “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” - Would you have had every man and woman who was there at the Bunny Ranch shot and killed? Would you have had fathers, mothers, daughters, brothers, sons, and, uncles, friends, loved ones all gunned down in cold blood because they had weapons that are protected by the Constitution of the United States? (And as far as I know, did not insight any violence or fire one shot) If you say no to this question then let’s go to the next part of your statement: Would you have every single one of them that I have already mentioned accused of terrorism? And if so, do you know what happens when a person is accused of terrorism? Do you know what that means to the rest of America? Perhaps your statements were hasty and poorly thought out. My friends we are entering an age where those who preach tolerance and rule of law are the very first, as is apparent with this example, to promote intolerance and non-constitutional lawlessness. I’ve only use this example with the Bundy issue as it was thrust upon me with such fervent hatred and contempt for freedom, constitutionality and law. But it is a good example of the chasm that exists between constitutionality and those who would have total government control. Let us not, my fellow Americans and patriots, ever forget that we are the ones who are the government. And that is where we have opportunity to ensure politicians do not strip us of our liberties. We are the ones who give power to the government, we are the ones who elect the people who decide what happens to us on a daily basis. Perhaps there was a time when a congressman was a farmer and had gone to Congress to enact laws and regulations that would be best for those who lived in his district. After all, at some point, he would have to go back home and live under those very same laws and regulations that he helped enact. But now, my friends, we are dealing with lifetime politicians. We are dealing with people who are politicians for the sake of politics. We are dealing with people who do not care about the rule of law if that rule of law opposes their agenda. It is time my friends to clean house in Washington DC. It is time to tell Congress that they may no longer vote themselves raises, get different healthcare than the rest of America, and get ridiculous salaries and pensions. It is time for us to take America back over – as Americans. It is time for those people who are patriots to run for office – not for the sake of running for office – but for the sake of enduring American freedom. With mindsets such as posted by this person, we see that we are not dealing with a group of people who understands constitutionality and rule of law and liberty, but rather a group of people that want to resort to doing whatever it takes to remove it anyone who opposes their viewpoints, even if that includes killing or charging people with terrorism without due process of law. If ever there was a slippery slope, and I used to hate that when they used it in the media, this would be it. Let’s take a look at what other people have learned from the past about this type of thinking: (all the following were taken from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech) “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." [Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]” ― Harry S. Truman “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” ― Voltaire “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison “Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.” ― Neil Gaiman “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” ― John Milton, Areopagitica “To view the opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic concepts of democracy. To oppress the opposition is to assault the very foundation of democracy.” ― Aung San Suu Kyi, Letters from Burma “If you're not going to use your free speech to criticize your own government, then what the hell is the point of having it?” ― Michel Templet “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it." [First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801]” ― Thomas Jefferson, The Inaugural Speeches and Messages of Thomas Jefferson, Esq.: Late President of the United States: Together with the Inaugural Speech of James Madison, Esq. ... “The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty." [Beauharnais v.Illinois, 342 U.S. 250, 287 (1952) (dissenting)]” ― William O. Douglas

Read more…

Are we an ism, a cracy or an archy?

You know, back when I was at the National Training Center in California (NTC - if you've been there you know exactly what I'm talking about) - we were told that if we harmed a desert tortoise that we would be charged (and here the figures varied) right around $50,000. Of course I myself did not see any desert tortoise, I don't know of anyone else who actually saw a desert tortoise, but the threat was still there. So, if indeed the BLM did damage the desert tortoise home, then the BLM should be charged (after a full and complete investigation including armed guards for those during the investigation, a full clean tent enclosure, multiple specialists on the desert tortoise, etc.) for each and every desert tortoise that was in any way harmed by the BLM.

Okay, obviously that's just silly, but look at what the federal government is trying to do in this case. What we have is a federal versus state land dispute. If indeed the BLM did damage that farmer's property and kill his cows then the government of the United States (which would be our tax dollars by the way) should be fully financially responsible for any damage that was done to the farmer's assets. The federal government should actually watch the news - oh wait, never mind this type of news is not reported on any of the big 3 networks. Okay then, the feds should watch Fox news or go to some of the independent news sites and actually see what Americans are doing in the face of this type of nearly fascist (Full Definition of FASCISM: 1 - often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. 2 -  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>) administration.

Now those may seem like very extreme words, and something that may be in some people's point of view a little over-the-top, to call our current administration names like totalitarian, aristocracy, autarchy, autocracy, bureaucracy (government by civil servants), foolocracy, hyperarchy, kakistocracy, kleptocracy, snobocracy, squatterarchy, despotocracy, but it is sad that such terminology can even be thought of with the office of the president of the United States in mind.

Rather than those terms wouldn't it be great to look at the United States government and think terms like: aristarchy, capelocracy, democracy, ergatocracy, heroarchy, idiocracy, merocracy, mesocracy, nomocracy, psephocracy (minus the voter fraud), theatrocracy? We are a democratic representative republic, the problem is those who represent us are taking their own interest to heart before ours. Vote for me, and let's start down the road to real recovery towards reclaiming American exceptionalism!

Read more…

It's really sad it has come to deciding who lives and who dies...who are we as humans to decide who lives and dies? I'm sorry but the lack of four thought in this article and the bickering below is just trackless and easier to judge others behind the anonymity of one's computer screen on both sides of this 'issue' it's a non issue to myself life is life and death is death who are we to say who lives or who dies...My sisters little boy was born and man it was a joy to hold him and be made an aunt, she's a gem of a sister I'm proud of and married to the most loving husband I could hope for her...

Funny how God takes ashes and makes beautiful things out of them, and it breaks my heart because I wish others could see the trans-formative power of this...

Example: I am a graduate of mercy ministries and no longer self mutilate going on now two years (woot) with practical steps to get to the root issues and trudging through the mountain for seven months to come out the other side I am not ashamed of the healing that I have nor of the scars I bear because they are a story of grace and my own beauty for ashes story...Everyone is precious, I just wish they could see as much...

This was my response to the following article: 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

My Response Link

Read more…





Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we
            bleat like sheep for security.
                 - Norman Vincent Peale

                 Anthony Weiner's Wife

 I've especially wondered about a Muslim marrying a Jew.
                That's just not normal.

         AND WHAT IS THE REST OF THE STORY ???

 Have you given any thought lately as to why Huma Abedin is standing by
 her man -- Anthony Weiner. Yes, the politician who exposed himself to
 numerous women and was forced to resign from the House of
 Representatives. Yes, the same pervert who is now running for Mayor of
 New York.  (He lost-getting only 5% of the vote)
 Here's the real story: Huma worked for a journal which promotes Islamic
 supremacist ideology which was founded by al-Quaida financer, Abdullah
 Omar Nasseef. During this same time, about seven years, she also worked
 for Hillary Clinton. Naseef also headed up the Muslim World League, a
 leading Muslim Brotherhood organization. The name of the publication,
 the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, was first edited by Huma's
 father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a
 member of the Muslim Sisterhood and also directs an organization, The
 International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, that comes under
 the umbrella of the Union for Good, a U. S.- designated terrorist
 organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi, the
 notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for
 the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well
 as suicide bombings in Israel.

 One wonders how Huma Abedin with her family associations was able to
 receive security clearance to work with the Secretary of State. One
 wonders, too, what influence she had over U. S. policy-making while in
 this position, Deputy Chief of Staff.

 What do you want me to believe? That it was just a coincidence that she
 married an up and coming Jew to Congress? That she really was in love
 with him?

 Isn't it also interesting that her family never denounced her for
 marrying a Jew? Is it coincidence that she forgave him just like her
 boss, Hillary, forgave Bill for his transgressions? We know that
 Hillary did it because of her own political ambitions and the heady
 taste of power. Is it power that Huma wants? Or, is it because she is a
 Muslim Brotherhood plant and has been ordered to do what THEY want her
 to do?

           Look who's new in the white house!

 Arif Alikhan - Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U. S. Department of Homeland Security

Mohammed Elibiary - Homeland Security Adviser

 Rashad Hussain - Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

 Salam al-Marayati - Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
and is its current executive director

 Imam Mohamed Magid - Obama's Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North America

 Eboo Patel - Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships

  This is flat-out scary!!!

 The foxes are now officially living in the hen house...

         Now ask me why I am very concerned!!!

             Do you feel OK with this???

    How can this happen, and when will we wake up???

  We are quiet while our Country is being drastically changed!!!

    (or are you one of those who voted for CHANGE?)

 If you're not CONCERNED, DELETE this. Go to bed tonight. sleep well!

Otherwise-get the word out!

  We've got to have some relief starting with the 2014 Elections!


Read more…