Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes

WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.

  • Currently 5/5 stars.

Views: 2178


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Oleg Gielman on April 24, 2013 at 1:27pm

One more time Roberto –in the name of cohesion… by taking credit where credit isn’t due, it usually follows not taking credit where credit is due –like a mole ceo of a soon to be bankrupt company always intends his underlings take the fall… many practical conclusions can be derived through what's called deductive and inductive reasoning… I cannot prove stalin murdered tens of millions of people (many of whom were even willing to be his subjects) –but I know he did, it is in the “nature” of the beast –victory through lies, deception and blood… after becoming familiar with a beast’s ideology and/or behavior one doesn’t need a camera nor a witness to know where its crypto is.

Comment by ellis beam on April 24, 2013 at 5:19am

The irony of the fact that the part of the country where our nation started is now the hot spot of idiots who go along with the atrocities that started the Revolutionary War.

Comment by Roberto Benitez on April 24, 2013 at 12:00am

Oleg, I didn't ask you for proof of a false flag operation. I just asked if you believed that Obama did it as many claimed Bush was behind 911. Now I won't say it's impossible that Obama was involved. As a matter of fact, I don't trust that Fabian socialist Muslim operating by the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven plans one bit.

However, particularly with more information coming out I believe the Obama regime was intentionally "incompetent" due to ideological reasons, i.e., and unwillingness to admit the implication that Islam is our enemy. I believe there's a lot more than meets the eye about the Saudi national that Obama tried to whisk out of the country and also the matter of the warnings from Russia for example.

But I'll admit I see no purpose in stating or implying Mr. (intentional) Obama did it without proof. Of course I wouldn't expect anybody in this regime however to not practice taqiyya over this matter, Fast and Furious, or Benghazi. If you want to ask the question, could he have done it, that's quite fair. I believe both Fast and Furious and Benghazi amounted to treason.

As for taking out bin Laden, how does that connect to the Boston bombing? However, there're credible reports that both Clinton and Panetta kept Obama out of the loop until it was under way because Valerie Jarrett had talked Obama into canceling several times earlier opportunities to get bin Laden.

While I'm not afraid to ask questions, I don't engage in accepting speculation and conspiracies as fact without relevant facts. I also expect that people should answer questions forthrightly as best they can.

You see, I don't believe that we conservatives and libertarians can afford behaving like liberals, progressives, or socialists. We can't use their tactics of deceit, theft (elections), violence, and worse. We must conduct ourselves according to the principles we claim to believe in. For me that's the Constitution and the Bible.

There's a saying from people I know, "we don't lie, cheat, or steal nor permit those among us who do; and quibbling is lying." Does that help explain my position Oleg?

PS; I often agree with you, but on this matter it seems we've sadly gotten into a spat.

Comment by Donna Rammer, mod on April 23, 2013 at 11:20pm

yes, I too agree, they did not protest, they probably would have been shot. This was illegal. They stomped on the fourth Amendment... They were terrorized!

Comment by Debra A Shawver on April 23, 2013 at 11:16pm

I agree with Dan...it was a huge martial law test..and the people of Boston "performed" beyond king o's wildest dreams....

Comment by Oleg Gielman on April 23, 2013 at 3:07pm

Until what’s its name, also known by soldiers as boom boom says it did it or janet napolitano says he did it or somebody in authority with a tinkle down its his leg says boom boom did it …folks like Roberto will need proof, do we have any paparazzi willing to make a buck? …hey, like boom boom said, it took out bin laden all by its lonesome.

Comment by Donna Rammer, mod on April 22, 2013 at 9:43pm

I feel that the public in Boston should report to their congress and senate, how they were treated. Being treated like they were the terrorists. I AM appalled by their actions. These were not the police, they looked like special ops or something more sinister. They terrorized these Bostonians, and I felt so bad for them. This definately looked like a training day, to see what the american people would do and how they would re act. You know that Obama had to OK this. Dont forget we are under NDAA and whatever the other one is, NDRA....appalling to treat OUR citizens like this!

Comment by Roberto Benitez on April 22, 2013 at 9:13pm
Just as many on the left wanted the terrorists to be right-wingers and were willing to resort to preposterous canards, innuendoes, and prevarications to further a political agenda, it seems many on the supposed right like Dan Holsopple need to believe this was a false flag operation by the Obama regime. Professional conspiracy manufacturers are even claiming that the TX fertilizer plant was caused by a missile based on sounds that are clearly different.

Nevertheless, that doesn't justify the actions of the police to search homes in the manner they did without a governor formally declaring a state of emergency and martial law or Congress doing so. But then what's left of the Bill of Rights, perhaps only the Third Amendment?

However, as long as conspiracists make absurd claims against Fabian socialist Mr. (intentional) Obama we'll never get him removed from office for provable offenses like Libya, Fast and Furious, extortion, by passing Congress, refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress, appointing officials without Senate approval, and Benghazi, the latter which i believe amounted to treason.
Comment by Dan Holsopple on April 22, 2013 at 2:34pm

Martial Law is what the whole "drill" was about. Introducing Militarized Police and Martial Law to America. The bombing is a false flag attack. It was a "sting operation" taken to the next level. The difference being WE just got stung. (Did you notice the missile attack in West, Texas - go check it out. there were at least two video witness of the burning plant attacked by an incendiary missile) 
Wake up and smell the BS.

Comment by Donna Rammer, mod on April 22, 2013 at 2:39am

oh brother, what a bunch a a holes...i cannot believe we have come to this! Breaking into innocent peoples homes...this is bull stuff...


The cartoonist's homepage, indystar.com/opinion/varvel


Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service