Today’ Lesson: Class Warfare. It’s Really Quite Simple

And we must give credit to the man (Satan’s Spawn) Who has made all this possible. Just think in 5 short years he has set back race relations 50 years, destroyed the futures of at least 2 generations of Black Americans. Yes you know who, So let’s give it up for President Lucy.   

President Lucy.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And the folks who are paying for the free stuff  want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff  that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So the people who are GETTING the free stuff  have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff   by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?
The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.
ELECTION 2014 IS COMING
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

I’M 100% for PASSING THIS ON !!!
For all our sake PLEASE Take a Stand!!! 

Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: God, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

~Steve~                       H/T   My Pal   Jean In NY

Ray Stevens “Come To The U.S.A.”

He’s Got a Point.

 

~Steve~                              H/T   Hujonwi

Supreme Court opens floodgates to voting by illegals

Nearly everywhere else around the world, voters are required to show their ID when registering to vote. This is essential to the integrity of elections because without voter ID, the door is open for massive voter fraud.

But not in the United States of America where, on May 20, 1993, then President Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (aka the Motor Voter Act) into law. Before that, the bill had been approved 259 vs. 160 by the House of Reps., and by the Senate 62 vs. 37.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections.  The form, which was developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant say, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. In other words, no proof of U.S. citizenship is required to vote long as you say you’re one.

Yesterday, in the case of Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of voting by non-citizens.

Heads circles in red are the 7 justices who ruled against requiring  proof of US citizenship to vote. L to r: Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Uncircled are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

As reported by David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2013:

The Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law [Proposition 200] Monday and by a surprisingly lopsided vote, ruling state officials may not demand a proof of citizenship from residents who register to vote.

The 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia [et tu, Scalia?] said this “proof of citizenship” requirement conflicts with the national Motor Voter Act. The measure said states must “accept and use” a simple registration form when filled out by residents who are registering to vote.

Scalia insists on closely following the words of the law, and in this instance, the words of the federal measure were clear in their meaning, he said. As written, the Motor Voter Act “forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruling was a very lopsided 7-2 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being the only two dissenters.

Justice Thomas writes, in his dissenting opinion:

“I do not agree, and I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting §1973gg–4(a)(1) to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the [Motor Voter or National Voter Registration] law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish. Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the federal form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (West Cum. Supp. 2012) and §1973gg–4(a)(1) and, thus, no pre-emption. [...]

Arizona has had a citizenship requirement for voting since it became a State in 1912. See Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2. [...]  In Arizona’s view, it “accepts and uses” the federal form in the same way that an airline “accepts and uses” electronic tickets but also requires an individual seeking to board a plane to demonstrate that he is the person named on the ticket. [...]

The Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, provides that “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature” in elections for the federal House of Representatives. The Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for direct election of Senators, contains an identical clause. That language is susceptible of only one interpretation: States have the authority “to control who may vote in congressional elections” so long as they do not “establish special  requirements that do not apply in elections for the state legislature.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 864–865 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also The Federalist No. 57, p. 349 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (J.  Madison) (“The electors . . . are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State”).  Congress has no role in setting voter qualifications, or determining whether they are satisfied, aside from the powers conferred by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which are not at issue here. This power is instead expressly reposed in the States.

The history of the Voter Qualifications Clause’s enactment confirms this conclusion. The Framers did not intend to leave voter qualifications to Congress. Indeed, James Madison explicitly rejected that possibility:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52, at 323 (emphasis added).

Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the Framers’ design. [...]

Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, §4, “to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States).

Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, §4, supports that position.”

Mike Adams of Natural News correctly calls the Supreme Court decision as “You need ID to buy beer, but not to register to vote,” and that the ruling “all but openly endorses widespread voter registration fraud” — fraud that already was pandemic in the 2012 election. He concludes:

“With these two plans — widespread voter fraud and the instant citizenship of 11 million undocumented immigrants — democrats may very well be able to continue to hold power in Washington as they drive America into complete financial bankruptcy. But they don’t care about the long-term impact of their actions. The only thing that matters to them is to stay in power and keep milking the system for as long as possible before total economic collapse arrives.”

Just remember as things get worse and worse in America, it was the Supreme Court, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Alito, who had helped make it all possible.

I weep for my country.

~Eowyn

Pres. Lucifer’s minions can watch you at home via your webcam

Do you have a webcam on your computer?

If you do, you should know that hackers, including the Eye of Pres. Lucifer — the National Security Agency (NSA) — can access your webcam and watch you in your own home.

Greg Kumparak writes for TechCrunch that on June 13, 2013,  security consultant Egor Homakov gave a demonstration on how a hacker can snap pics off your webcam, right through the browser, with no consent required.

Homakov showed how a hacker can use a few old tricks to work around Flash’s requirement that a user explicitly grants a website permission before it can access their camera or microphone.

The basic technique, Clickjacking, is nothing new and is very well known in the hacking world. TechCrunch even tested the technique on the latest build of Chrome for Mac, and it pulled from their webcam without issue or any visible prompt. When it works, the only evidence that the camera was ever accessed is a near instant and oh-so-easy-to-miss blink of the LED indicator.

You can test the proof of concept yourself here. (Heads Up: The link will take a picture of you, though the author claims he’s not storing them — but clarifies that someone could, if they wanted.)

If your browser doesn’t visibly render the permission box and clicking the play button snaps a picture of you, your browser fails the test. If it shows the permission box or blocks the click, you’re safe (from this specific exploit, at least).

So how can you protect your webcam from being hacked?

1. Tape up that webcam.
2. Consider using Firefox* with something like NoScript, disabling it only for trusted sites.
3. Turn off your webcam when you’re not using it.

H/t California Political News & Views

See also:

• “Obama regime is spying on every phonecall, email, bank transfer, travel record of every American,” June 6, 2013.
• “Big Brother’s secret NSA Data Center in Utah,” June 8, 2013.
• “Why Microsoft is slow to fix the bugs in Windows 8 & Vista,” June 15, 2013.

~Eowyn

Was Obama ever a student at Columbia University?

Author and 2008 Libertarian Party VP nominee Wayne Allyn Root was an undergraduate student at Columbia University the same time as President Lucifer. In fact, Root and Obama are supposed to be in the same graduating Class of 1983.

For five years now, since 2007, Root has maintained that when he was in Columbia U., he’d never met, seen, or heard of fellow student Obama, nor does he know any student or faculty who had.

Now, in an essay for The Blaze, “Barack Obama: The Ghost of Columbia University,” Jun. 4, 2013, Root makes two more significant revelations:

1. Obama was a no-show at every reunion of his Class of 1983.

Root writes: “I just returned from New York, where I attended my 30^th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates. Everyone except Barack Obama. As usual — he wasn’t there. Not even a video greeting. Not a personalized letter to his classmates. Nothing. But worse, no one at our 30th reunion ever met him. The President of the United States is the ghost of Columbia University. [...] Don’t you think the media should be asking questions? Isn’t this a very strange story?

I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major — Political Science. We were both Pre Law. It was a small class — about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.

But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?

One of the speakers at the 30^th reunion should have reminisced about ‘my days with the future President.’ But no one did. You’d think Obama might have sent a video to tell us all how much he enjoyed his time at Columbia. You’d think he’d have sent at least a letter to be read aloud from one of his former college buddies. Right? But he didn’t. Because Obama has no former college buddies. No one that ever met Obama, let alone befriended him, was in attendance at our 30^th class reunion.

Now you might argue this is all strange, but it’s possible. After all Columbia says he graduated. And I take my college’s word for it. Would one of the world’s greatest Ivy League institutions participate in a coverup, thereby risking their billion dollar reputation? And there is one single article written for the Columbia newspaper with Obama’s name on it. A single photo also exists of Obama in his Manhattan apartment with the man he claims was his college roommate — a Pakistani foreign student. And one single radical leftist Columbia professor who hates Israel also claims he remembers Obama.

That’s the sum total of Obama’s existence at Columbia University, Class of ’83.

So I asked every classmate I met at our 30^th reunion, many of them Political Science majors, if they ever met, or saw, or heard of Obama. The answer was a resounding NO from every one of them. I asked if they found this strange, or worried how this was possible? They all answered YES. I asked if they thought it was possible to be a Political Science major and never meet a fellow major in our small classes? They all gave me a very strange look and answered NO. So I asked, ‘How could this be possible? Can you explain this?’ No one had an answer.

Keep in mind these people I spoke to are all — to a man and woman — dedicated liberal Democrats who voted for Obama. I’m guessing 90% are major Democrat contributors. My Columbia classmates are the crème of the crop of American society. Lawyers, doctors, billionaire hedge fund members, stars of the media. They adore Obama. But they all admit they never met him in their four years at Columbia. I am proud of my classmates for their honesty and integrity.

[...] So here’s my take on this great mystery. I’ve never said Obama was not registered at Columbia. I’m sure he was. I’ve never said he didn’t graduate. If Columbia says he did, then I’m sure he did. But I’ve always said there is something wrong with the story. It’s rancid. It’s unbelievable. It’s impossible. It’s the story of a Manchurian candidate.

The question isn’t was he ever registered, or did he graduate. [...] But the serious question the media should be asking is…What did Obama do for two full years in-between registration and graduation? Did he ever attend a class? Did he ever have a single friend other than a Pakistani national? Why is the only professor to ever come forward and claim he remembers him a radical leftist who hates Israel? What exactly was he doing when no one met him, saw him, or heard of him? Why are his college records sealed? What has he got to hide?

But my educated guess is he can’t, or won’t ever release those records. Because what we’d find would be shocking.

[...] There is something wrong with Obama’s story — that much I know. He is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia.”

2. Legendary Columbia U. professor Henry Graff says he’s never heard of Obama.

Columbia U. Professor Henry Graff

In Part II of his essay for The Blaze, Root writes: “… until now, I was the only one publicly voicing my suspicions. That just changed in a big way. Meet Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University. He was THE American History and Diplomatic History professor at Columbia for 46 years. And he is more emphatic than yours truly that there are no Obama footprints at Columbia.

I was put on Professor Graff’s trail by another Columbia classmate, skeptical about Obama’s story. He told me that Professor Graff had been the speaker for the Class of ’53 last weekend at Columbia. My friend was watching Graff answer questions from the crowd when he was asked about Obama at Columbia. Graff said, ‘I have my doubts he ever went here.’

I did some digging and located Graff’s home phone number. I called him yesterday. Now retired, he was delighted to hear from me. He agreed to go on the record about Obama. Unlike Obama, Professor Graff clearly remembered me. He was thrilled to hear from his former student. I was in several of Graff’s classes and he remembered me like it was yesterday. He sounded great — like he hasn’t lost any of his trademark sharpness in 30 years since we last met.

I was honored to learn that this legendary historian has been following my political career for many years. But he had no such cheery things to say about the President. Graff said, ‘I taught at Columbia for 46 years. I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American History and Diplomatic History, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.’

Even more importantly, Professor Graff knew the other history and political science professors. ‘None of the other Columbia professors knew him either.’ said Graff.

Graff concluded our interview by saying, ‘I’m very upset by the whole story. I am angry when I hear Obama called ‘the first President of the United States from Columbia University.’ I don’t consider him a Columbia student. I have no idea what he did on the Columbia campus. No one knows him.’

See also:

• “Obama had a mediocre 2.6 GPA at Columbia U.,” Nov. 4, 2012.
• “No Evidence Obama Attended Columbia U.,” Feb 12 ,2010.

~Eowyn

Why Microsoft is slow to fix the bugs in Windows 8 & Vista

Do you have Windows 8 or Vista?

If you do, you must have muttered untold numbers of *!@#$%ß words in utter exasperation at your computer screen, hopefully not within your kids’ earshot. LOL

Have you wondered why Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) , the world’s largest software company, has not fixed the bugs in those software?

Michael Riley reports for Bloomberg, June 14, 2013, that the delay in fixing the bugs is deliberate. “According to two people familiar with the process,” Microsoft provides U.S. intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix so that information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes– or ordinary Americans like you and me.

Two U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified because the information they’re disclosing is “confidential,” said that Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft and other software or Internet security companies know that this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments. Microsoft doesn’t ask and can’t be told how the government uses such tip-offs.

Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, said those releases occur in cooperation with multiple agencies and are designed to give government “an early start” on risk assessment and mitigation. He said in an e-mailed statement that there are “several programs” through which such information is passed to the government, and named two which are public, run by Microsoft and for defensive purposes.

The four unnamed individuals who provided this information to Bloomberg also revealed that:

• It is not just Microsoft. Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence.
• The companies’ voluntary cooperation extends far beyond what was revealed by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, who disclosed that the NSA is collecting millions of U.S. residents’ telephone records and the computer communications of foreigners from Google and other Internet companies under court order. The extensive cooperation reaches deeply into many aspects of everyday life, though little of it is scrutinized by more than a small number of lawyers, company leaders and spies.
• Furthermore, some U.S. telecommunications companies willingly provide intelligence agencies with access to facilities and data offshore that would require a judge’s order if it were done in the U.S. In these cases, no oversight is necessary under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and companies are providing the information voluntarily.
• Why do the companies do this? Company executives are motivated by a desire to help the national defense as well as to help their own companies. Most of the arrangements are so sensitive that only a handful of people in a company know of them, and they are sometimes brokered directly between chief executive officers and the heads of the U.S.’s major spy agencies.

Rebecca Greenfield of The Atlantic Wire calls this a “buddy-buddy” relationship between private technology companies and the U.S. government, and wryly notes that the upshot of this is that “Not only do you have to give up your right to privacy; turns out, we don’t even have the right to quick bug fixes.”

Instead of “buddy-buddy,” I think it’s more apt to call the “cooperation” between private technology companies and the Obama regime a pact with the Devil.

H/t FOTM’s Anon

~Eowyn

If Ya Can’t Beat Em..Join Em.

I Wonder if this would work? I sure do miss that video. 

~Steve~                               H/T    The Short Fella Who Lives With Me

New England man refused medical treatment because he declined to answer gun ownership question

Pres. Lucifer has not had success with his gun control machinations, so now it appears he’s turning to another strategy — that of using the medical profession to take guns away from owners.

About 4 months ago, I wrote about some of our military vets receiving a letter from the Veterans Administration informing them that they are found to be “mentally incompetent” and are thus forbidden “from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition.” A month later, I wrote about Connecticut police confiscating firearms from a disabled Navy vet named David Schmecker, followed by another post about a New York psychiatrist confirming Obama’s plan to confiscate guns from military vets.

According to the account below, by a reader of SurvivalBlog who lives in one of the New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Vermont), the problem has now gone beyond veterans and V.A. hospitals to civilians and non-military hospitals.

~Eowyn

*Obama, when he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago, told John Lott (author of At the Brink) that “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Letter Re: Some Disturbing Trends in an Eastern Nanny State

Dear Mr Rawles,

I have a couple of disturbing events in my state (southeastern New England) I wish to report to you and your readers.

I do not have medical  insurance.  Because of this I go to the local health  center run (until now) very well by the local hospital. and I have benefited greatly by their care. However, this past week I became quite sick, and made an appointment to be seen by one of their doctors.

Upon entering I saw they have new computers and scanners. A patient must use this to check in. This is done by scanning the back of our driver’s license. Our state has a scanning bar code on the back. When I saw what this was I went directly to the desk and told them who I was and my appointment time. No go, I had to scan in. So I told them I forgot my wallet. No worries it will also use my fingerprints. I wanted to see this and sure enough, through my fingerprint they had all my info. Where did they get this info? I have been fingerprinted before for a few jobs I’ve had in the past but I assumed (foolish me) this remained private.

Eventually I got to the examination room with the nurse and the first question was not how do I feel, what is my medical problem not even my name and date of birth but “Do you own any firearms” to which my response was “None of your business.” She replied that the question had to be answered or they could not treat me. So I said no. In my chart (which is electronic, on a tablet device), the nurse seemed to type a heck of a lot more than “no”. This made me quite angry and so I asked to speak to a supervisor which they did do. The supervisor said that the nurse was wrong and that I did not have to answer the question, and in fact the question of firearms was supposed to be asked if I reported depression or suicidal thoughts. The supervisor was polite and did not seem to be lying or attempting to placate me but when I asked to see my chart I was told I would have to pay the records office and fill out forms. I barely have enough money to pay for the visits let alone the fifty dollars it would take to get a copy of my own medical charts.

A few days later my car broke down on the way home from work and so I pushed it into a parking lot and waited for the tow truck. A town policeman pulls up next to me, and though I do not know him personally, I did recognize him from our local gun store. He recognized me as well. He told me my plate was expired by a couple of months. He did not write me a ticket as I was on private property and it was getting towed anyway. I commented how he got that info really fast and he laughed ruefully and showed me the computer in the car. It automatically scans license plates and alerts to any sort of plate violation or warrants out for the registered owner. Not only that, but it shows any weapon purchased by the owner of the vehicle that were supposedly (I’ll get to that in a second) registered through the state. All paid for by the town, through a grant from Homeland Security. This may all seem pretty bleak but it gets worse. The firearms I own have never had to be registered. In fact due to new laws recently passed this year, I have to until July 1st of this year to register one of them. The rest do not legally have to be registered. I have a one year grace period to get this done, so none of my firearms should be on his list. Yet, on his list it showed two firearms I purchased a couple of years ago. As I said earlier, only one of my rifles will need to be registered. What they are doing is using the forms for the two week wait period we have, to compile a list of firearms owners, bypassing any sort of registration. Out of the weapons I own only two were purchased through a store, the rest through private transaction, which until a few months ago was perfectly legal.

The policeman who showed my all this expressed his own deep reservation over this and claims the state legislature is being inundated with complaints and he expressed hope there would be a court injunction to stop this. I asked him this, and I leave it for you and your readers as well, I asked this policeman “At what point do you refuse the order?” He shook his head shook my hand and replied “I ask myself that a lot these days!”

You Can’t Fix Stupid

 

Umm, OK I’m speechless . That doesn’t happen too often.  

It’s true, you can’t fix stupid . . . .  

“FISHING” WITH A HAND GRENADE!

 

Throw it, . . don’t drop it. . .dumbass!!  

 

You can’t help but watch this over and over.

Doing this from a inflatable boat just adds to the stupidity factor.

Yes folks, these idiots are out there.

They vote, drive and walk amongst us.

Be careful out there !

~ Steve~                                               H/T WildBillAlaska

 

Pres. Lucifer’s SS “visits” a no-name anti-Obama critic

Rush Limbaugh recently said America is in the midst of a coup d’état by the Obama regime.

Indeed, every day brings more confirmation that we are no longer living in America, land of the free. Without a peep, our country has morphed into a dystopia like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

President Lucifer’s Secret Service Gestapo paid a visit to an ordinary law-abiding American named Tom Francois who, the SS agents themselves admit, had never threatened to do harm to Obama. (Note: This post’s title’s reference to Francois as a “no-name” anti-Obama critic is not meant to be disrespectful toward Francois, but rather is meant to emphasize that he, like FOTM, is one of the “little people” who pose no threat to big and powerful Pres. Lucifer.)

The SS goons paid Francois a visit for this simple reason: Francois had tweeted criticisms of Obama and made cartoons making fun of The One, like the one below.

~Eowyn

Harriet Baldwin reports for the Examiner, June 11, 2013:

After you read this- you will wonder what country we are in.

Tom Francois is an outspoken critic of Barack Hussein Obama- and has a robust Twitter presence. He also likes to dabble with his “paint” program to create funny cartoons. He has never threatened the President in any way, manner or form.

On April 11, 2013, he heard relentless pounding on his door shouts of “Police!” The officers introduced themselves as members of The Secret Service and asked if they could “take a look around.”

Since Tom had nothing to hide (and he didn’t want any return visits) – he complied fully with their request. He even signed a consent to search his premises AND an “Authorization To Review Medical and Mental Health Records!”

They asked Tom if he ever left his state or traveled to Washington, D.C.

One Agent asked Tom if he has any intentions of “whacking” the President.” To which Tom replied- “Of course not. I wish him no harm. I disagree with his policies and actions and I make no bones about it. It’s my First Amendment Right and I intend to exercise it.”

When I spoke to Tom he said, “Yes, I am EXTREMELY critical of Obama in my posts, but I never cross the line and threaten his being. EVER. It’s just the idea of Obama’s Secret Service intruding on my life when they knew I wasn’t really a threat.”

The Secret Service had a thick FBI file- filled with screenshots of hundreds of posts. Said Tom, “I flat out told them ‘I have NEVER threatened Obama’s life! Yes, I despise him as you can plainly see, but I have that right!’ They actually ADMITTED and agreed with me that I hadn’t threatened Obama.”

They had run a background check and discovered that Tom legally owned two guns- and they asked to see them. Tom showed them his firearms. They asked, “Are they loaded?” Tom replied in the affirmative. “What good are guns if they aren’t loaded?”

So why harass Tom? “The Secret Service officers claimed that “they were concerned that since I have a large Twitter following, and the things I said could be acted upon by some nut case out there! What the hell? They turned my life upside down for THAT?”

Tom didn’t refuse the search because they just would have gone and gotten a warrant. “They would have proceeded to tear my house apart. No thanks. I have nothing to hide. They left empty-handed and my house is still intact.”

When they left Tom’s house, one Secret Service Agent ‘advised’- “Keep in mind, if you step over the line, we’ll come back for your guns.”

After the “visit” to Tom, the Secret Service also visited Tom’s 22 year old daughter- terrifying her and making her fear for her father’s safety. She asked them what they were going to do with the information about her Dad. They said they were going to “turn it over to Eric Holder- he has the last word on what to do, if anything.”

Should anyone have any doubt about the veracity of this report, Mr. Francois had the presence of mind to make copies of the Consent To Search (which expressly included computers, hardware, software, recording devices, cell phones, data storage, etc). It also states: “I understand that any contraband or evidence may be used against me in a court of law.”

The “Consent To Search” and the “Authorization To Review Medical and Mental Health Records” signed and dated by the special agents of the Secret Service- were furnished to this reporter.

Wake up, America.

This administration is spying on Americans, via the NSA and targeting Tea Party and religious groups for voter suppression via the IRS. Now- Obama’s Secret Service is paying personal “visits”- on law abiding citizens? This is TYRANNY!

Keep in mind, dear readers- this raid upon Tom Francois and his home – took place just 4 days before The Boston Bombing. Was this a good use of manpower?

Everyone should be outraged by this story. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian- EVERYONE!

This kind of intimidation and strong arm tactics CANNOT stand.

Just because a thin-skinned president doesn’t like what a private citizen posts (as his First Amendment Right) on the internet?