Welcome to National News & Commentary

Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page

Bin Laden's Death Not Obama's Decision (May 16, 2011)

Apparently the facts are now beginning to leak out. According to recent reports, a significant push to take Bin Laden out was made months ago but senior White House staff resisted. 

This was cause of much strain between Hillary Clinton, Obama and Valerie Jarrett.  Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta were in constant communication over the matter – both attempted to convince the administration to act.  However, the administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on the President.  Intelligence Officers were disgusted with politics over national security.  Accordingly, many of the staff resigned and left. 

Now Intel is already leaking to the media facts surrounding how the information was obtained: Namely from enhanced interrogation efforts via GITMO prisoners.  The Obama administration was placed in a corner on this.  Some of the media was aware of the danger to the President regarding this and attempted to protect him. Others were looking for further investigation. 

But the point of determination was made FOR Obama not BY Obama.  There’s a very clear divide between the military and White House.  Jarrett marginalized 100% on the decision to take out Bin Laden.  She played no part.  Bill Daily worked with Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton to form a coalition to force the Commander in Chief to engage.

IMPORTANT SPECIFIC:  When the 48 hour go order was issued, The Commander in Chief was told, not requested to give the order.  The administration, however, scrambled to abort.  That order was overruled.  The order to take out Bin Laden did not originate from the President.  He complied, but did not originate the order. That explains the 16 hour delay in Obama issuing the order.

Independent military contacts seem to have confirmed this story.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within the Obama White House.

34,448 Illegal Immigrants Spared Deportation - (May 16, 2011)

In a perplexing development ignored by the mainstream media, the Obama Administration suspended tens of thousands of deportations last year and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lied to a Senate committee to cover up the astounding figure.

Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee that has oversight over the Department of Homeland Security that her agency halted the deportation of only 900 illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2010. She did admit that the figure could be higher because it excludes “deferred action” granted to illegal immigrants for “humanitarian” reasons.

Not surprisingly, Madame Secretary never indicated how much higher the figure could be, which may lead many to conclude that she purposely deceived federal lawmakers. It turns out that the Obama Administration halted the deportation of 34,448 illegal immigrants last year, according to Homeland Security figures obtained independently by a Senator (Charles Grassley of Iowa) who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

After the Senate hearing, which took place last month in Washington D.C., Napolitano’s own staff corrected her atrocious lie, according to Senator Grassley’s press secretary, who provided Judicial Watch with the accurate number. According to Homeland Security figures provided to Senator Grassley’s staff, the combined deferred action and paroles of illegal immigrants in 2010 amounted to 34,448.

This appears to be part of the administration’s secret amnesty plan in case Congress doesn’t pass legislation to legalize the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants. Devised by political appointees at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the plan aims to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.”

This includes delaying deportation indefinitely (“deferred action”), granting green cards, allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while they seek legal status (known as “parole in place”) and expanding the definition of “extreme hardships” so any illegal alien could meet the criteria and remain in the country.

Last summer the Obama Administration ordered authorities to stop removing illegal immigrants who are students while lawmakers craft legislation to officially shield them from expulsion. The move, which has spared an estimated 700,000 illegal aliens, came in response to nationwide rallies by defiant illegal immigrants protesting their eminent removal or that of their undocumented parents.

Judicial Watch has sued the Department of Homeland Security to obtain records detailing the stealth amnesty plan because the agency has ignored a federal public records request that dates back to July 2010.

Remember The Bailouts? (May 16, 2011)

First, let me set the scene.  The housing market had collapsed with properties in many areas losing more than half their value.  Banks had been pushing adjustable rate mortgages (ARM’s) and even ‘interest only’ loans with high commissions that artificially inflated the housing market instead of more traditional ‘fixed rate’ loans. Politicians in Washington were demanding that loans be given to people who couldn’t reliably pay them back.  Then to insulate themselves from the bad loans they had written, companies like Goldman Sachs bundled those bad loans into a new financial instrument called a mortgage backed security.  Those securities allowed Wall Street to sell those bad loans back to regular people as AAA rated investments through State pensions funds and other investment tools.

I could go on and on about how this fraud was committed at the behest of Wall Street and their politicians, so the American people got burned by buying overvalued homes, got burned again by being pushed into bad loans, and finally got burned by assuming the risk of those bad loans through our pensions and other retirement accounts.  The American people had taken a beating, but Wall Street and the politicians they owned were not done raiding our wealth.  

Loopholes that these bankers had bought from Washington allowed these banks to become “too big to fail” and when the market came crashing down around us, they threatened more financial misery unless they could raid TRILLIONS of dollars from our tax dollars.  Goldman Sachs alum, Henry Paulson, was heading up the treasury and in conjunction with other bank-owned politicians, like Tim “Tax-Cheat” Geithner, Barney Frank, and Christopher Dodd, they successfully pushed through a gigantic bailout.  Now, years later, Goldman Sachs and Wall Street are back to making billions of dollars in profit while the American people are still dealing with a collapsed housing market, soaring gas prices, and diminished pensions. 

Remember all of this because, once again, Wall Street manipulation ignored by Washington threatens regular American people and even national security.  Gas prices are soaring at rates far beyond what can be attributed to the forces of regular supply and demand.  Gas prices are soaring because crooked politicians and crooked Wall Street wiz kids needed another way to rob the American people—this time by using our pension funds and foreign money to artificially inflate gas prices. 

One of the reasons that Donald Trump is resonating with a lot of people is that he openly talks about ending Wall Street’s ability to artificially inflate gas prices through speculation.  When you see gas prices soaring above $4 a gallon, ask yourself where are the lines caused by a supply shortage?  With the world’s economy in a recession, where is the gigantic increase in demand that would warrant a 100%+ increase in cost?  The obvious answer is these gas prices are not being caused by a major tilt in supply or demand.  The people driving up gas prices can be found among the same crooks who we bailed out after they stole incredible amounts of American wealth and their politicians in Washington just a few short years ago. 

This speculation on oil commodities is literally driving trillions of dollars to enemies of the United States.  When the price of oil rises, countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Libya are the major benefactors.

Wacko Environmentalists At It Again (May 16, 2011)

'Green' price tag: $700 trillion to drop Earth's temp 1 degree

Even EPA admits cost of regulating greenhouse gases 'absurd'

EPA will make energy less affordable, less secure, destroy thousands of jobs, restrict and slow down construction of schools, hospitals, commercial buildings and much else, with rules that achieve environmental benefits that are barely discernible, EPA should rescind the endangerment finding and dismantle its greenhouse gas regulatory regime

Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275109

Obama: “It is because I say it is.” (May 2, 2011)

After 2 ½ years of evading the issue, and spending over $2 million in the process, President Obama has finally graced us with a document purporting to be a copy of his long form birth certificate – and we’re to believe him. Why? Because he says so. Our Prevaricator-in-Chief has spoken.

There are legitimate issues concerning the authenticity of the document he referenced. (See, “Obama Birth Certificate Scam?” posted on YouTube and elsewhere on Klee’s Kaleidoscope). A short form birth certificate was posted on Obama’s website purporting to be a copy of his birth certificate. Why wasn’t the long form produced instead when it was the long form that was being requested? Are both documents authentic? Are neither documents authentic? Is only one authentic? Which one? Etc.

He has two relatives claiming he was born in Kenya and even his wife claims Kenya is his home. If Obama was actually born in the United States, did he later renounce his citizenship and adopt another at a later date and represent himself to be a citizen of a different country, other than the United States?

At this juncture, considering the lengths to which the Hawaii State Department has gone through to suppress the release of Obama’s long term birth certificate – claiming at one point that the document didn’t even exist, any document they may produce is highly suspect. Obama has created his own monster inn the room.

The core question, however, is whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. Specifically, is he a “natural born” citizen? There’s a world of difference between a citizen and a “natural born” citizen. The administration’s efforts, aided by the main stream media, have gone a long way towards obfuscating the main issue.

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," (See, "The Manchurian President" by Aaron Klein)

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day, the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President."

The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.

But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.

Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."

The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."

"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.

"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

Read more: Authors: Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama eligible http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292205#ixzz1KleZ17bc

Obama Supports al Qaeda (May 2, 2011)

Dismissing concerns over possible links between Libyan rebels and al Qaeda, the Obama administration has notified Congress it is providing $25 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels’ effort to drive Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime from power. Congress doesn’t get to vote on it but then, the Constitution never stopped Obama yet.

President Obama has said that Col. Gadhafi must step down from power, but he also stated that the United States does not support a policy of regime change in Libya – the CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council (TNC), the political arm of the Libyan rebels. so much for Orwellian double speak.

Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, said in an interview last month that about 1,000 freelance jihadists are at large in Libya. Looks like Obama not only insists on unlawfully involving us in a civil war but is choosing sides that favoring al Qaeda!

Obama Administration Caught Arming Mexican Illegal Alien Rebels

(May 2, 2011)

Agents are telling the media that this operation was approved by the Department of Justice under Eric Holder....

One of America's largest border enforcement advocacy organizations is calling on supporters to demand that Congress use investigations, prosecutions, impeachments, military tribunals, and treason charges if necessary to bring justice to those who betrayed American citizens by arming drug and illegal alien importing invaders.

New information is coming to light that one of America's top law enforcement agencies under the control of the US Presidency was helping to provide military grade guns to the violent Mexican crime cartels, who are importing the vast majority of America's illegal aliens, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

Dubbed operations 'Gun Runner' and 'Fast and Furious,' elite weapons such as AK-47 Assault rifles and Barret .50 caliber sniper rifles were allowed to pass freely into Mexico, while the Obama administration called for a crack down on American gun sales.

"This betrayal at the highest levels of our government is consistent with the other betrayals we have documented across the board," said William Gheen, President of ALIPAC.

"The Executive Branch of the federal government has been caught lying about border security, leaving our borders wide open during a time of war, failing to protect states from invasion as required by the US Constitution, and now providing military grade arms to the invaders. We are calling on the Congress today to use all possible remedies including investigations, prosecutions, impeachments, and possible charges of treason."

Immediate investigations, prosecutions, and possible treason charges and military tribunals are needed because the evidence suggests that the American government has been corrupted and compromised on a grand scale regarding the importation of drugs and illegals into America. Military tribunals may be needed since those responsible for this betrayal have been arming paramilitary groups with military grade weapons to invade America during a time of war.

Agents are telling the media that this operation was approved by the Department of Justice under Eric Holder. President Obama is denying that he knew anything about the American government sanctioned shipments of large amounts of arms to the drug cartel insurgents. The elite organized crime syndicates receiving the American sold weapons, compliments of the American ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency), are responsible for murdering tens of thousands of Mexican citizens in the last few years.

Thousands of innocent American citizens are being killed by these gangs and their illegal alien cargo each year!

Tens of thousands of Americans, predominantly young adults and children, are becoming addicted to and succumbing to the chemical weapons of mass destruction deployed by these groups in the form of cocaine and methamphetamine.

Authorities now believe that Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with guns acquired through operations 'Gun Runner' and 'Fast and Furious.' Obama's administration has order our Border Patrol agents to fire bean bag rounds while arming the smugglers with fifty caliber rifles.

The ATF is making some kind of strange unbelievable claim that the guns were allowed into Mexico to "gather intelligence" on drug cartels.

"The ATF and the Department of Justice under Obama have just been caught arming a sizable paramilitary force overseeing the invasion of the United States," said William Gheen. "There's no telling how many Americans and Mexicans have been killed with these weapons and how many will die in the future if Congress does not act decisively to restore constitutional governance in America immediately."

Famous Obama Quotations (May 2, 2011)

Or, why some people thing Barack Hussein Obama is an idiot.

Where’s the main stream media or do they only reserve their criticisms for conservative Republicans?

1) “Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

2)    “I’ve now been in 57 states  I think one left to go.”

3)    “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

4) “What    they’ll say is, ‘Well it costs too much money,’ but you know what? It would cost, about… It it it would cost about the same as what we would spend…It… Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us… (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We’re going to… It… It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about hold on one second.  I can’t hear myself. But I’m glad you’re fired up, though. I’m glad.”

5) “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.”

6)  “I bowled a 129. It’s like – it was like the Special Olympics, or something.”

7) “Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice.    The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.”

8)  “Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs,  when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer. I haven’t had much sleep in the last 48 hours.”

9) “It was … interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate.  There’s a lot of  I don’t know what the term is in Austrian wheeling and dealing…”

10) “I have made good judgments in the past.  I have made good judgments in the future.”

Fabulous: We’ll Just Put More Ethanol in your Gas Anyway (May 2, 2011)

It’s been a very busy couple of weeks news-wise, and you don’t need a list of breaking stories to remind you of all that’s been going on. But somewhere in this hectic season I managed to miss a long awaited decision by Obama’s EPA which showed up with the previous Friday’s news dump.

Nearly two-thirds of cars on the road could have more corn-based ethanol in their fuel tanks under an Environmental Protection Agency decision Friday.

The agency said that 15 percent ethanol blended with gasoline is safe for cars and light-duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006, expanding an October decision that the higher blend is safe for cars built since 2007.The maximum gasoline blend has been 10 percent ethanol.

This decision was made despite repeated warnings from industry experts who have been pleading for more time to perform exhaustive testing. Were they being overly cautious? That’s a difficult argument to make, particularly since we told you last month that one delay in testing came from the fact that the higher ethanol blend fuel was melting down the seals in pumps and storage tanks during testing.

The laundry list of potential problems from this decision is extensive. Asking distributors to carry yet another fuel (even if it doesn’t melt their pumps) will require logistical juggling, equipment changes, new signs and other expenses which are inevitably passed on down to the consumer. Ethanol burns hotter than conventional fuel, leading to earlier failure of catalytic converters. (An expensive fix, as any of you who have been hit with it at the garage will attest.)

All of this is still being pushed under the cloak of a more environmentally friendly solution to energy challenges, a claim which current science has increasingly put in doubt. But would it at least produce any type of savings as we fight to get the budget under control? Precisely the opposite, as noted by Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group.

Rather than furthering his goal to make America “the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” however, Obama’s focus on biofuels as the way “to break our dependence on oil” would have the opposite effect if it means sending billions more taxpayers dollars to corn country to finance ethanol infrastructure, Cox said. “Building an ethanol infrastructure at taxpayer’s expense will just lock us further into the past rather than lead us to tomorrow’s energy future,” added Cox, who heads EWG’s Ames, Iowa, office.

This is clearly a victory for King Corn, but lies in stark contrast to the President’s stated goals of Winning the Future. Exit question: Even if gas stations manage to offer this for cars built in 2001 and after, how will they ensure drivers of older vehicles don’t wind up putting it in their vehicles without retooling the entire delivery system?

CBO Exposes Budget Deal As SHAM! (April 18, 2011)

The budget compromise struck last weekend has been exposed by the Congressional Budget Office as a SHAM. The CBO reports that the alleged $38 billion in cuts actually amounts to just $353 million in real cuts!

The rest of the alleged “cuts” were accounting tricks and supposed “future” cuts! And when the full effect of all the increases in spending are taken into account, Politico reports that “CBO now says thsatb the total discretionary outlays for 2011 are higher – not lower – by about $3.3 billion than it had estimated in December.”

So instead of the “compromise” total of $38 billion in spending cuts, Congress is actually voting on a budget deal that has NO REAL CUTS AT ALL!

And remember Klee’s Law: “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” (Thomas Jefferson) 

The Country’s Oil Supply (April 18, 2011)

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer: how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?"  Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." 

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.  It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ....... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5...3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.'  It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . 

For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.  Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves...... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.  And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.  And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels.  On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news:  We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped.  That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find?  Think again!

It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

The Democrats Tax System Explained in Beer (April 18, 2011)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

 Professor of Economics.

 For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

 For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Democrats Snooker Republicans Again (April 11, 2011)

If you spent 1.37 million (that's...$1,370,000) EVERY day for a year...365 days -- EVERY DAY -- it would take you 2000 years to spend a trillion dollars. ($1,000,000,000,000).

At that rate....with our national debt of $14 trillion...($14,000,000,000,000)...it would take

28 THOUSAND YEARS, making payments of $1,370,000 EVERY DAY to pay it off...and that is not including the interest...which was $413,954,825,362 accrued in 2010

One can't predict what the interest will be in years to come......but paying this debt off will not happen by cutting $33 billion off of the spending.

Some say that shutting down the government would create havoc in the area of our credit rating but why would anyone have a problem figuring out which is worse between a bad credit rating....or bankruptcy which doesn't do much for a credit rating in itself.

Since the government seems incapable of ending its run-away spending because of greed, political payoffs, etc., shutting down the government wouldn’t have been such a bad idea. Unfortunately, there never was any real threat of a government shutdown.

As usual, Democrats are better at playing hard ball than Republicans. The Republicans started with a proposal to reduce the budget by $100 billion. The Democrats low-balled them with offering to cut out about $33 billion. Before any serious negotiations even started, the Republicans dropped their original position down to $61 billion – essentially bargaining with themselves, and pulling 39% of their original position off the table before the Democrats even countered.

Since it appeared that the Republicans were engaging in “swap meet bargaining” one would expect them to “split the difference” and compromise even more and agree to a $47 billion compromise Bill. It was worse than that: The Democrats held fast and only came up from their original figure by $6 billion while the Republicans caved in further and dropped down by another $22 billion reaching a final agreement of $39 billion!

Let’s see: Republicans start with $100 billion proposal in cuts. Democrats counter with $33 billion in cuts. They end up agreeing to $39 billion in cuts. Such a deal! Once again the Republicans screwed the pooch. If they knew how to bargain, their next offer after $100 billion would have been $110 billion!

And remember Klee’s Law: "A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own."

Obama the War Hawk (March 28, 2011)

From an article entitled, “Obama Declares Unconstitutional War on Libya” by Kurt Nimmo

The United States declared yet another unconstitutional war in the Middle East when it launched a bevy of deadly Tomahawk cruise missiles at the sovereign state of Libya

Corporate media begins inevitable propaganda spin to rationalize murder.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution reads: “Congress shall have power to … declare War.” Congress did not declare war on Libya. The globalist sock puppet Obama did.

Speaking from Brasilia, Obama said that he had authorized “limited military action in Libya.”

He does not have the authority to call for military action against other countries. The executive branch of the United States government, however, has engaged in this sort of unlawful and flagrant violation of the Constitution since the end of the Second World War.

Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution. Congress passed the the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia.

The War Powers Resolution became totally irrelevant when Congress passed the Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 following the false flag attack of September 11, 2011.

Obama and his globalist puppet masters have deep and undivided contempt for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American people. Obama placed his “authority” to kill Libyans on a flimsy framework earlier established by warmongers in France, Britain, Canada and Italy.

The despicable French president Nicolas Sarkozy led the charge. His call for mass murder was described as “theatrical gravitas” by the corporate media. British Prime Minister David Cameron and Sarkozy met briefly Saturday to compare notes before an “international” (globalist) summit on Libya. Sarkozy also met with Madame Clinton.

Cameron reportedly wants NATO to take a lead role in the act of war, while Sarkozy is said to want an “international leadership structure” independent of NATO – that is to say he wants handpicked globalist minions to run the show, probably from Brussels.

Secretary of State Clinton said Arab efforts to “stop violence” – by initiating more deadly and well-organized violence – played a key role in mobilizing the international coalition.

In fact, the Arabs took their marching orders from the Europeans and the United Nations and will be at best junior partners in the wanton slaughter. The globalists do not turn to third-rate Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the corrupt Gulf emirates for advice.*-

In the days ahead, we can expect Arab ground troops to be sent into Libya to kill their Arab brothers. It is unlikely American soldiers will serve as bullet-stoppers in this engineered conflict, at least in the short term.*

A Recap of the Past 24 Months (March 21, 2011)

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on?

If George Bush had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse would you think him an idiot?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? 

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90%and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 21 months -- so you'll have two years and two months to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this article is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

And remember Klee’s Law: “How fortunate for government that the people they administer don’t think.” (Adolph Hitler)

Tucson and the Kamikaze Left (March 21, 2011)

By Richard Viguerie*

Following their shellacking in the first regularly scheduled federal election of the Tea Party era, the political left and the ruling-class media made predictable calls for civility in political discourse.  I say predictable because, as a general rule, the left and their media partners make calls for bipartisanship and civility only when conservatives ascend to political power, and they direct it only at conservatives, not at the extremists on their side.

The recent tragedy in Tucson, however, displayed in condensed hours and days the visceral, disgraceful desperation of the left and ruling-class media.

Americans, through the Tea Party movement, are in a peaceful political war against the ruling class.  To the everyday Americans-turned-political-activists, this is a war for the future of the America we cherish.  The ruling class understands this is a war against the self-dealing privilege and kleptocracy they've created over many decades.

The verbal and printed attacks on Tea Party conservatives following the Tucson tragedy, however, show that the left and ruling-class media are in kamikaze mode.  They are sacrificing all semblance of decency and credibility -- or what little they have left -- to defeat the rise of small-government constitutional conservatives.

The ruling class has usurped power for decades in the face of relatively meager, often somnolent opposition from everyday Americans.  But the ruling class now understands that the Tea Party movement is a force unlike others they've met.  The Tea Party movement insists that government abide by the limitations mandated by the Constitution.  This results in a threat to such phenomena as crony privileges, big bank bailouts, and forcing Chrysler and GM to give ownership interests to unions.

The mainstream media is of the left and the ruling class. Even while it knocks big business, it is big business, and therefore, it sides with the ruling class and against the Tea Party.  The mainstream media is threatened by the Tea Party movement every bit as much as other members of the ruling class are.

In this war between the ruling class and the middle-class Tea Partiers, the mainstream media has abandoned the role of being on the sidelines as a referee and has joined the battle on the side of the ruling class.  No longer is it a watchdog against abuses by the powerful or against institutional corruption.  The media is now the attack dog against the Tea Party movement, the Constitution, and the populist revolt of middle-class Americans.

If media attacks on conservatives since the Tucson shooting were intended to harm the Tea Party surge, they are having, and will continue to have, very much the opposite effect, as even some on the left now seem to recognize.

Let me step back with some perspective.

People have asked me over the course of my fifty-plus years in the conservative movement whether it's too late to save America.

But for short bursts of conservative political energy and successes, such as the election of Ronald Reagan and the Gingrich Revolution in the 1994 election, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have moved to the left, and our government of constitutional limitations has suffered.

Our Founders created a constitutionally limited government -- designed to "establish Justice" and "insure domestic Tranquility" -- by protecting individual liberties and private property rights for "Posterity."  For decades those constitutional protections have been gradually but assuredly eroding.  The conservative movement has been, in large part, a reaction to that, although the movement diminished its effectiveness by becoming an appendage of the Republican Party.

Conservatives, and now Tea Partiers, also understand that it's not only the Republican and Democratic Parties that are to blame.  Save for the military, leaders of every major institution in America -- Wall Street, banks, Fortune 500 companies, the mainstream media, higher and lower education, labor unions, Hollywood, charities, organized religion -- have aligned themselves with big government and against the people.  The ruling-class leaders of these institutions have participated side-by-side with the three branches of the federal government in eroding the Constitution.

Too often, state governments have been active partners in the erosion of rights to the detriment of the people and even the states themselves.  We are, however, seeing more constitutional conservatives elected at the state level.  Before this election, for example, there was Rick Perry of Texas and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia.  Now, after the first widespread Tea Party election, we have Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Paul LePage in Maine, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, and dozens if not hundreds more in statewide and legislative offices.

So in response to those questions before the rise of the Tea party about whether it's too late to save America, my answer was always that we had one chance and only one chance, and that's if things got real bad, real quick.

Had John McCain been elected president instead of Barack Obama, Americans would not have risen up with the force of the Tea Party movement to save America from the gradual but certain depreciation of our rights and eradication of our republican, constitutionally restrained form of government.

With the election of Barack Obama, however -- combined with a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and filled with Democrats, ranging from Blue Dogs who caved in to left-wing zealots all the way across the left's spectrum to true Marxists -- Americans saw the future fast-forwarded.

It is that future on steroids that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject.  The reaction from grassroots conservative Americans was accelerated in response.

Americans who were previously satisfied, as rightfully they should be, to tend to their private matters of work, family, worship, recreation, and the like became aware that they needed to stop the surge toward national bankruptcy, crony capitalism, and kleptocracy, and the extinction of constitutionally limited government.

Center-right Americans generally aren't political activists.  Now, however, Tea Partiers who have been driven to political activism have experienced firsthand what we long-time conservative activists have encountered for over fifty years -- the dishonest, mean, libelous vitriol of the left and the ruling-class media.

One mistake of the left and the ruling-class media before the Tucson tragedy was to make it personal against everyday Americans, who were merely seeking to protect their simpler, more private American way of life.

In the hot lights of the Tucson tragedy, however, the left and the ruling-class media exposed themselves in spectacular fashion to be everything long-time conservatives and new Tea Partiers claimed them to be: biased, dishonest, mean zealots.

The attacks on the Tea Party were like mass public burnings of Norman Rockwell paintings.  It was an assault by crazed radicals on small-town America.  Based on decades in the conservative movement, I can assure you that the left and the ruling-class media aren't sorry about their disgraceful, hypocritical conduct against Americans who are justifiably fed up and taking peaceful steps consistent with their rights.

As someone casually acquainted with Rep. Gabby Giffords -- in fact, as someone who was on a panel with her the weekend before the assassination attempt -- I issued a press release on the day of the shootings.  It was, in my opinion, an expression of how most conservatives would respond to the Tucson madness -- with sadness and prayer.

Sarah Palin was among many falsely and desperately blamed for the Tucson shootings.  Palin's response to the Tucson tragedy was, like most conservatives felt, filled with sadness and prayer, but it was issued days after the left's blood-libelous reaction.

In her response, Palin included a plea not all that dissimilar to what President Obama sounded at the memorial service for the victims, except she was more direct in addressing the false charges against conservatives.  The left and the ruling-class media praised Obama but criticized Palin.

Palin then received "increased" death threats and wishes, meaning she had been receiving them before.  At first, the media did not report the open and notorious death wishes against Governor Palin.  Only when they became impossible to ignore because they were exposed by the conservative new and alternative media did the ruling class media acknowledge the rise in death threats against Palin. CBS News reported an "uptick," as if it were reporting on the stock market.

This highlights not only the double standard conservatives face, but also the false standard.  Of course, the media has yet to accept blame for fueling those death threats with its accusations, innuendo, and false reporting.

And, of course, the left was quick to lay blame at the feet of conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and others.  Levin was equally quick -- but accurate -- to remind the left that the laws of libel predate the First Amendment, and he is willing to sue.

The kamikaze desperation of the ruling class media and the left following the Tucson tragedy wasn't just the blood-libelous attacks on constitutionalist Tea Party conservatives.  It included calls to violate a host of rights, ranging from trying to silence conservative talk radio to creating no-gun zones near our self-centered political leaders.

In other words, the immediate response was to propose unconstitutional measures aimed at a movement whose mission includes protecting the Constitution.  The threats against 2nd Amendment rights resulted in a spike in gun sales.  Was the left, therefore, acting out of provocation, stupidity, opportunism, or all three?

The foremost authority on the ruling-class media's war on conservatives, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, called the media's coverage of the Tucson tragedy a "campaign to criminalize conservatism."  That sentiment has been simmering for a while now, but it was accelerated in the condensed aftermath of the Tucson tragedy.

The ruling-class media and the left learned nothing from the response of Americans to the bullying statism of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triage.  Instead of moderating their attacks, lies, and libel, which helped fuel the Tea Party movement in the first place, they increased and amplified them.

What will be the response from constitutional conservatives and Tea party activists?  Not what Conrad Black writes at National Review: "A very mild-mannered and civilized friend remarked to me today that if he encountered anyone else on the Fifth and Park Avenue social circuit who blamed the Tucson shootings on the Tea Party, he would resort to violence."

No -- although quite arguably the left seems to be trying to provoke that type of response, Americans who are center-right, peaceful, charitable, faith-oriented, and patriotic won't respond that way.

We will redouble our efforts.  We will continue to speak out, passionately and with even more resolve.  We will organize and train in the arts of politics.  We will, to the last of our civil energy, seek to overcome the forces arrayed against us, our Constitution, and our country's future.

Ruling-class leaders have been willing accomplices to the usurpation of rights of Americans.  We will do as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 44 about restoring our usurped rights:

If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning . . . The success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort, a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of usurpers.

We are doing and will do more, however, than just elect faithful representatives to annul acts of usurpers.  We are organizing against the ruling-class leaders of institutions who have betrayed everyday Americans.

And, God willing, we will restore America to the Founders' vision of government ruled and limited by the Constitution before it's too late.

As the response to the Tucson tragedy shows, the left and the ruling class media are escalating this battle to the point that they completely destroy their own credibility in the process -- even to their own detriment. They are, like kamikaze pilots, dangerous in their desperation.

As to those calls for civility and for the political discourse to "calm down"?  We Tea Party conservatives were behaving quite well already, thank you very much.  The problem is and has been on the left.  It is apparent to everyone but the political left and ruling-class media that their calls are cover-ups for the extremism of their own side.

*Richard Viguerie is author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.  His website is ConservativeHQ.com.

No Obama Birth Certificate (March 21, 2011)

An Update:

Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

Hawaii’s newly elected Governor, Neil Abercrombie, gave up his search for Obama's nativity records because the governor was unable to find in Hawaii's vital records Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. Abercrombie was forced to conclude that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate exists for Obama in Hawaii.

Read more: Obama birth certificate 'egg on face' for guv http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255769#ixzz1C9DkwqV7

Read more: Obama birth certificate 'egg on face' for guv http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255769#ixzz1C9DW0Qm8

Editor’s Note: If anyone contends there is a long-form hospital-generated birth certificate existing for Barack Hussein Obama in Hawaii and that either Queens Medical Center or Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu has a record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities, please submit proof of same to me – and to the American people.

Obama has been evading the issue since he ran for the presidency and has spent millions of dollars in defense costs since becoming President to prevent verification as to whether any such documents exist. What’s he hiding?

Obama Refuses to Enforce the Law (March 14, 2011)

Just hours ago, the Obama Administration announced that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)! This is sending shock waves across the nation. We now expect radical homosexual activists to unleash a full scale assault on marriage coast-to-coast. We mustbe ready to do whatever is necessary to defend marriage! 

 President Barack Obama has directed Attorney General Eric Holder to not defend the federal DOMA law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. This, in spite of the fact that it is the Department of Justice's specific duty to defend federal laws!

In other words, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are acting as judge and jury in determining that a federal law passed by Congress in 1996 is indefensible! The sheer arrogance of Obama and Holder is stunning. While they fully commit the staggering resources of the Department of Justice to defend ObamaCare and its clearly unconstitutional mandates...they then choose NOT to defend the DOMA law that has been in place since 1996!

The President and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts.  THIRTY STATES have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman!

And there is this to consider:  Barack Obama is already gearing up for his 2012 reelection bid.  He is overtly overstepping his Executive Branch authority by abandoning the defense of a federal law in order to pander to his pro-homosexual, liberal voter base.

This decision to sacrifice our nation's DOMA law on the altar of political expedience represents one of the most damaging attacks on marriage that has ever been visited upon our society. 

Sadly, we have reached a crucial moment in the history of our nation.  This outrage must be confronted!

The President's dereliction of duty must not go unchallenged!

Pro-homosexual activists will utilize the Administration's betrayal of the public trust to build momentum for their agenda!

In fact, it is expected pro-homosexual activists to push forward as many legal actions as possible, as quickly as possible, in the wake of this disastrous announcement by the Administration. 

As an attorney, I am outraged at the continuing assault by the Obama Administration on our Constitution and the clearly defined roles of the three branches of our government. 

I am incensed that another "victory" is being handed to the homosexual community at the expense of the God-ordained institution of marriage and the clear will of the American people. 

Every court until the Proposition 8 ruling rejected the argument that there is a "right" to same-sex "marriage" under the U.S. Constitution.  But as that sadly misguided decision illustrates, unless one goes to court every time radical activists attack, marriage can be destroyed piece by piece.

Liberty Counsel, headed by Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman, is currently fighting several cases against the radical homosexual agenda.  Their strategy is obvious: Use the courts to destroy marriage in America - and refusing to defend marriage, as our President just did, is just as effective as attacking it!

Liberty Counsel's challenge is just as obvious: They must fight and win in both the courtroom and the court of public opinion! You can help them defend marriage. They need to build up our war chest to counter the ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and apparently, the United States Department of Justice! The enemies of the God-ordained definition of marriage are well funded and committed to their twisted cause.       

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=37820&CID=330&RID=20910908

Abortionists Seeking Federal Funding (March 14, 2011)

Planned Parenthood is staging a fierce multi-dimensional public relations counteroffensive against the House's attempts to strip their funding by grossly spinning the nature of their women's "health services"! They have just embarked on a multi-state bus tour called the "Truth Tour," according to CNS News...

"Figures displayed on the sides of the Planned Parenthood bus include '4,000,000 STD (sexually transmitted diseases)Tests;' '1,800,00 Cancer Screenings;' '2,500,000 Birth Control Patients;' and '830,000 Breast Exams.' The main banner on the bus reads, 'Stand with Planned Parenthood."

Of course, the "bus statistics" do not include any reference to millions of abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics over the years.

PPH's deceptive campaign masks the biggest reason why pro-life Americans are calling for their defunding in the first place - their extensive abortion business!

Do not be deceived:  The most important fact about Planned Parenthood is that they are the nation's largest provider of abortions - performing over 25% of all abortions in the U.S.!

Tragically, it is a hugely profitable business. Published reports say PPH has over 700,000 active donors whose contributions account for approximately one quarter of the organization's revenue.

Defend life against such a formidable pro-abortion organization!   

Sadly, just a few days ago, the Senate ignored millions of Americans and defeated H.R. 1, the House of Representatives Continuing Resolution Bill, which included the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Now, Congress is back at square one in developing a budget for the remainder of this fiscal year. Legislatively, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has introduced legislation to specifically defund Planned Parenthood while Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) sponsored a bill to ensure that no federal tax dollars will be used for abortion services.

George Washington Boxed Up by NAACP (March 14, 2011)

The South Carolina NAACP honored Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday while simultaneously dishonoring the nation’s first president.

An organized rally — dubbed “King Day at the Dome” — protested the Confederate battle flag on display at the State House in Columbia and featured speakers and guests who called on government leaders to address “racial disparities” in education, health care, community development, criminal justice, employment and economic development in the state. But as a number of local and national speakers stepped forward to speak from the capitol steps, a large bronze statue of George Washington was conspicuously hidden (h/t Atlas Shrugs).

A large box covered with cloth hid the father of the country from view of the rally’s guests:

It‘s not clear why the NAACP insisted on covering up the likeness of the nation’s first president and a spokesman for the organization was not immediately available for comment.

Update: The South Carolina NAACP has responded to a request for comment and said the only reason the statue of Washington was covered up was for aesthetic purposes. “We had created a backdrop behind the speakers,” the group spokesman told The Blaze late Tuesday afternoon, noting that someone in his organization forgot to post an NAACP placard on the backdrop.

According to the group, the statue of Washington has been covered each year for the annual rally. The spokesman said he was “at a loss for words” as to why covering President Washington would offend anyone, claiming it was “non-sensical” for people to believe it may have been politically motivated.

More States Join In Suit Challenging Obamacare (January 31, 2011)

AUSTIN – Several additional states today announced that they seek to join the original 13 states’ legal challenge to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The 20-state coalition today filed an amended petition to include Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Maine in the legal action, which was filed on March 23, 2010, in federal court.

“No public policy goal – no matter how important or well-intentioned – can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. “The federal health care legislation violates our Constitution, imposes an unprecedented mandate on individual Texans, and will require the Texas taxpayers to spend billions of additional dollars on health care programs. The addition of six new states to our bipartisan legal challenge reflects broad, nationwide concern about the constitutionality of this sweeping and unprecedented federal legislation.”

Under the federal health care law, for the first time in the nation’s history, the federal government is attempting to force individual Americans to enter into contracts and purchase services from private companies – in this case, insurance companies – or face a penalty. The state attorneys general are challenging this so-called individual mandate requirement, explaining that such an imposition on the American people exceeds Congress’ authority and violates Americans’ constitutional rights. Additionally, the states are challenging provisions of the new law that will impose dramatic Medicaid spending increases on the states – including $27 billion in mandatory spending increases in the State of Texas.

The 20-state coalition currently includes Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Alaska. The lawsuit is filed in the Federal District Court in the Northern District of Florida. The states are joined in this lawsuit by the National Federation of Independent Business, and individual plaintiffs Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg. Additionally, the Commonwealth of Virginia is pursuing a separate legal challenge to the controversial health care law. As a result, more than half the states have taken legal action to challenge the law’s constitutionality.

The lawsuit was filed shortly after President Barack Obama signed the bill into law. The legal action specifically challenges the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and names the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor as defendants because those federal agencies are charged with implementing the Act’s constitutionally impermissible provisions.

Obamacare Tax Increases* (January 31, 2011)

Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law.  While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history.  Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013):  This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family).  CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. 

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100. 

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

*Article by Americans for Tax Reform

Special Interests Get Exempted From Obamacare (January 31, 2011)

Congress Will Probe Special Exemptions to Health-Care Law That Obama Administration Gave Select Unions and Businesses,

By Fred Lucas

The Obama administration’s waivers to temporarily exempt certain companies, unions, and charities from rules established by the new health care law are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into  by Congress, Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee told CNSNews.com.

"You’re going to find out that by the president doing that with the secretary of HHS, he violated one of his main principles when he ran for office--and that was that special interests were not going to have an in in his administration,” said Grassley. “And this is a perfect example of special interests having an in in his administration when they get those waivers.”

Grassley, who has a history of leading Senate investigations into government waste, fraud, and abuse, said oversight of the special waivers will be taken up by the Republican-controlled House.

“There will be [congressional oversight] and it will be done in the House of Representatives,” Grassley told CNSNews.com. “I’ll be glad to help the House of Representatives. We probably won't get chairmen of the committees of the Senate to have that oversight, but if it's done in the House of Representatives, the job will be done and it will be done right.”

The Finance Committee where Grassley serves as the top Republican was the Senate committee primarily responsible for drafting the Obama health-care law.

The waivers allow the health insurance plans, carried by the unions and companies involved, to impose annual limits on what they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, bans annual limits, phasing them out by 2014.

CNSNews.com previously reported that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued waivers to 222 entities – companies, unions and charitable organizations. Among those entities, 45 were labor union organizations. A total of 1,507,418 enrollees were affected by the waivers. More than one-third of the enrollees affected, 512, 315 people, were insured under union health care plans.

Three locals of the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which has spent heavily on elections in favor of Democrats, were among the biggest beneficiaries of waivers, CNSNews.com reported.

The largest beneficiary of waivers is the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), representing New York City public school teachers, with a plan that affects 351,000 enrollees. The UFT is a member organization of the American Federation of Teachers, a major contributor to Democrats. In addition, 10 locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers – also a major Democratic contributor – received HHS waivers.

The new health care law bans annual limits on medical coverage beginning in 2014. These limits are caps that an insurance plan can place on how much it will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage each year. The HHS regulations are phasing the limits out, as annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.

In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits, if the insurer could not meet the new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. The waivers are granted by HHS if the department determines “compliance in the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,” according to a Sept. 3 memo by Steve L. Larson, director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

In giving the Tea Party response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) also criticized the waivers.

“Obamacare mandates and penalties may even force many job-creators to just stop offering health insurance altogether, unless, of course, yours is one of the more than 222 privileged companies, or unions, that's already received a government waiver under Obamacare,” Bachmann said. “In the end, unless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world’s finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage. That could have a devastating impact on our national debt for even generations to come.”

Napolitano Cancels Border Virtual Fence Project (January 24, 2011)

By Jim Kouri

Border agents will have to use old-fashion police techniques to secure the US, while the government spends money to protect borders in other nations.

Friday is traditionally the day on which bad news or politically harmful information is released by denizens of the nation's capital, and January 14 is no different: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's office announced that the Obama administration canceled  the 'Virtual Fence' project along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The reason for this latest cancellation is the continued technical equipment problems and the rising costs of constructing and installing the components including closed-circuit TV cameras and monitors, electronic detectors, and other security measures. 

As reported by the Law Enforcement Examiner, the original border security plan called for a fence and barriers to be used on parts of the U.S.'s southern border, but with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and the Bush Administration being weak on border security, the plan switched from a real fence to a virtual fence using high-tech equipment.

Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security’s latest failure to protect the United State, was a costly program to place crucial electronic surveillance systems along the U.S.-Mexico border that is years behind schedule. The security project is grossly over budget because Secretary Janet Napolitano's agency hasn’t adequately managed the contractor doing the work, according to a Washington, DC watchdog group.

As a result, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted and the porous southern border will continue to be vulnerable despite the Obama Administration’s assurances that it’s as secure as it’s ever been. So far the troubled project, known as Secure Border Initiative Network, has cost the government $672 million although it’s nowhere near completion, according to Judicial Watch, a public-interest group that investigates political corruption.

After years of debates, congressional votes, government studies and political posturing by lawmakers, the so-called "virtual fence" continues to cause more problems than it solves, according to testimony at a session of the House Homeland Security Committee.

In a compromise that met with disappointment by those who advocate tighter border security, instead of walls or chain link fencing, the U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland Security Department created the concept of virtual fence security that includes surveillance cameras, motion or heat sensing detectors, radar, and supposed state-of-the-art control towers designed to detect and prevent illegal immigration and drug smuggling into the United States.

According to a report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the security contractor -- Boeing Co. -- is installing the hi-tech physical security system. The original plan called for a completion date by December 2009 at a cost of $1.1 billion for a virtual fence. According to the report obtained by NACOP, Boeing requested that completion date to be amended by seven years.

Physical security experts told this writer it should surprise no one that a relatively simple project would become complicated and unmanageable given that fact that most of the decision-makers probably have no law enforcement, security or engineering background.

The Obama initiative aims to enhance border security by designing technological tools that enable Border Patrol agents to detect and respond to incursions along unmanned stretches of the 2,000-mile Mexican border. This includes installing unattended ground sensors, radars and cameras. The so-called virtual fence was supposed to be completed by 2011, but Homeland Security officials recently pushed the date up to 2014, well after Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

That’s because the agency has failed to properly oversee the project’s prime contractor, resulting in costly rework, numerous delays and lots of extra money. In fact Homeland Security officials stood by as the contractor provided information that was “replete with unexplained anomalies, thus rendering the data unfit for effective contractor management and oversight,” congressional investigators found.

The initiative to erect barriers -- both electronic and physical -- along the U.S. Mexico border has been plagued with a multitude of problems since it was implemented under the George W. Bush Administration. After funding issues got largely settled, some border mayors in Texas blocked the feds from conducting fence work on city property, a large Indian tribe (Tohono O’odham) in Arizona refused to allow a fence to be erected along a vulnerable stretch of border and the so-called virtual fence project has been delayed several times.

Last year a separate GAO report revealed that the physical fence was costing U.S. taxpayers an average of nearly $4 million per mile. The per mile costs vary considerably depending on the type of fencing, topography, materials, labor costs and the price of land acquisition, but investigators determined that serious cost overruns have led to the exorbitant average figure.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri's newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write "Subscription" on the subject line.

New Proposed Gun Regulation for Border States (January 24, 2011)

By Stephen Clark

The Obama administration's plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party. (AP)

The Obama administration's plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party.

At least three Democrats in the Senate and several more in the House are voicing opposition to a proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would require about 8,500 gun dealers in four states – California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas – to report gun sales of two or more high-powered rifles sold within five consecutive business days.

The proposal isn't connected in any way to the mass shooting in Arizona last weekend that left six people dead and 14 others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., because the suspect used a handgun, which is already covered under these reporting requirements.

The new regulation would cover semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines.

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, has asked the ATF to withdraw its request to the White House for emergency authority to enact the regulation.

Soldiers stand guard near seized weapons during a news conference at the Defense Headquarters in Mexico City November 7, 2008. (Reuters

Soldiers stand guard near seized weapons during a news conference at the Defense Headquarters in Mexico City November 7, 2008. (Reuters

"While I understand the importance of cracking down on violence and gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border, this wide-reaching regulation would punish law-abiding American gun owners and impede their Second Amendment rights," Begich wrote in a letter last week to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson. "Instead, we must secure our border and target Mexican drug cartels, as well as participating offenders in the United States."

The proposal also faces opposition from Montana's two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, as well as 36 House members in both parties who say the regulation would subject gun dealers to burdensome requirements.

They want the administration to enforce the agency's existing power to ensure gun dealers are in compliance with the law.

In a letter to President Obama last month, House members, including Reps. Dan Boren, D-Okla, Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., Mike Ross, D-Ark., Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., and Ron Paul, R-Texas,said the regulation should be reviewed by Congress first.

"While Congress has authorized multiple sales reporting for handguns, we have never extended this authority to other types of firearms," they wrote. "Expanding this power by executive decree would be an end run around Congress."

Other Republicans who have expressed opposition are Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyle.

The White House did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The controversy over the proposal comes as the Tucson shooting renews debate on gun control laws and Obama struggles to get Senate confirmation for his choice to run the ATF, Andrew Traver. The agency has not had a director for more than four years.

Obama resubmitted the nomination last week after it died in the last session of Congress. But Traver still faces fierce opposition from groups such as the National Rifle Association.

"Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities," the NRA said in a statement last week. "This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers."

The ATF announced the new proposed regulation last month. The agency was expecting approval from the Office of Management and Budget last week but the White House is still reviewing the request.

"Review of this ATF information is proceeding expeditiously," an OMB spokeswoman said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

The ATF has rejected the notion that its regulation will violate Second Amendment rights or impose burdensome paperwork on gun dealers.

"These reports will give ATF real-time leads for the investigation of gun trafficking," Melson said in a webcast last month announcing the proposal.

"ATF's experience in these source states proves that multiple purchases of the described rifles are strong indicators of firearms trafficking to Mexico," he said. "By obtaining information about these multiple sales, ATF increase the likelihood of uncovering and disrupting trafficking schemes before the firearms make their way into Mexico."

Melson called the gun dealers who would be affected by the regulation "good citizens who share ATF's interest and commitment in keeping guns out of criminal hands."

"Working together, we can do that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens," he said.

Mexico's drug war has claimed more than 30,000 lives since President Felipe Calderon launched a crackdown on the powerful drug cartels shortly after assuming control in late 2006. ATF tracks the weapons found in Mexico and has linked tens of thousands of recovered guns to U.S. dealers.

Scott Thomasson, the chief spokesman for ATF, told FoxNews.com that the agency is pushing for this new regulation now because since 2004, there's been a 100 percent increase by Mexican drug cartels using rifles, which are not covered by any reporting requirements.

"This move by the ATF to capture this information is a direct result in the cartel shift in weapon of choice and in our attempt to stem the flow of violence," he said.

"We seem to be losing sight of the fact that this simple requirement, and it is a simple requirement, is one of the greatest tools we have as investigators in stopping and stemming violence before it happens and identifying those who put guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them," he said.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence strongly supports the proposal.

"It makes sense that law enforcement should be alerted if someone is buying five, 10 or 100 assault weapons, when it's likely that those guns could be headed to drug cartels in Mexico," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign.

"It will give ATF the same amount of information about people who buy military-style assault weapons in bulk that they already have had for more than 40 years about people who buy handguns in bulk," he said in a statement. "It's the kind of crime-fighting information that our law enforcement officials ought to have if we want to reduce the number of assault weapons being trafficked illegally to Mexico, as well as to American cities."

The NRA, which says it is keeping a close eye on the ATF, has vowed to make every effort possible to block the proposal.

"ATF doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose this new requirement," the group said on its website. "If the Obama administration is going to run roughshod over the statutory limitations of the ATF in this regard, what other restrictions on their authority will they attempt to undermine or ignore?"

Arizona Massacre Prompts Political 'Cheap Shots' (January 17, 2011)

When Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords collapsed outside the Safeway in Tucson Saturday morning, felled by a hail of bullets that killed six and wounded another 13 innocent people that had come to see her, some were quick to claim that the carnage was the product not merely of the tortured mind and trigger-happy fingers of the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.

Rather, many on the American Left said the horror could be traced to the malign influence of American conservatives; members of the Tea Party; right-wing pundits Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck; former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; and Fox News.

That was the narrative of culpability spun in the immediate aftermath of the shootings by some leading liberal commentators and Democratic politicians -- despite warnings from religious leaders, lawyers, academics, ethicists, reporters and historians that such a rush to judgment only further deepens the partisan divide in America, and further poisons its discourse.

Within minutes after the attempted assassination of Giffords -- indeed, at a point when it was still erroneously believed in many quarters that she was dead, and the identity of her shooter was not publicly known -- some commentators, absent any credible evidence, were already busily laying blame for the atrocity in political terms. Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blogged at 3:22 p.m. ET Saturday: "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat, also found a political element in Saturday's bloodshed. Dupnik argued that the "vitriol" of the country's harshly polarized political climate was partly to blame, arguing that unbalanced individuals are uniquely "susceptible" to vitriol. Dupnik added, in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly: "We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country."

Asked by Kelly if he had any evidence Loughner was in any way influenced by political "vitriol," Dupnik offered none. "That's my opinion, period," he said.

Krugman, in his blog post on the Times website, went on to mention Giffords' presence last year on Palin's "infamous crosshairs list." This was a map, disseminated by Palin's political action committee, SarahPAC, denoting the districts of 20 vulnerable House Democrats with images of crosshairs overlaid on each. The map was accompanied by a caption saying: IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND. Giffords herself, during her narrow campaign victory over a Tea Party-backed opponent last year, had complained about this choice of imagery, telling MSNBC: "The way that (Palin) has it depicted, the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district ...When people do that, they've gotta realize there are consequences to that action."

Unnoted by Giffords then, or Krugman now, is the routine use of similar language and imagery by both parties in a culture obsessed with "battleground" states. Indeed, a nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bullseyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bullseyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Krugman's blog post on Saturday linked "the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc." to "the violence I fear we're going to see in the months and years ahead," and added: "Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate." Yet in all of the grammatically hobbled writings and statements that Loughner posted on the Internet -- in which, ironically, one of his chief obsessions was others' poor grammar -- the failed student and awkward loner made not a single reference to talk-radio or the TV hosts Krugman cited, to the health care debate or the Tea Party, to Sarah Palin or Fox News.

Still, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., found conservative lawmakers and Fox News at fault. The eight-term lawmaker told the Bergen Record Saturday: "There's an aura of hate, and elected politicians feed it; certain people on Fox News feed it."

Pascrell, for his part, has appeared as a guest on Fox News at least 159 times, dating from a January 2002 appearance on "The O’Reilly Factor" ("Honor to talk to you," Pascrell told host Bill O’Reilly, at the end of their segment) to an appearance last month on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" -- 38 days before the Tucson massacre. "The nation needs to be united right now," Pascrell told the hosts of "Fox & Friends" last Jan. 28, nearly a year before he blamed the network and GOP politicians for the attempted assassination of Giffords. "We don't do the nation any good by simply dividing amongst ourselves."

Without mentioning Palin by name, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the number-two Democrat in the Senate, alluded on Sunday to the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee in his discussion of the causes of the violence the day before. Durbin invoked "don't retreat, reload," a phrase from a well publicized Twitter message once sent by Palin, as the kind of "violent" sentiment that can provoke incidents like Saturday's. "These sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response," Durbin said on CNN’s "State on the Union" program.

Some prominent commentators objected to these comments.

"To try to place blame before an investigation has occurred is in itself inciting hatred," countered Christian missionary Franklin Graham. Reached by Fox News minutes after returning to the United States from Haiti, where he had hosted Palin on a humanitarian mission last month, Graham offered prayers for the wounded and dead, and cautioned against ascribing a political motivation or origin to the violence.

"Because we may disagree with a person from another political party, and something bad happens to that person, does that mean that we are responsible for what happens to that person? By no means. But If somebody calls for someone to go out and shoot someone in the head, then that person is just as responsible as the person who pulled the trigger."

Historian Douglas Brinkley agreed.

"We've got to be careful here that we don't use this as a censoring moment, or use this as a Democrats-beating-up-on-Republicans (moment), or using it as an opportunity to humiliate anybody who's affiliated with the Tea Party movement," Brinkley said. The author of numerous acclaimed biographies, Brinkley has edited the collected papers of the late Gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, and won the 2007 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award for "The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast."

"There are definitely times when you have fallout from politics," Brinkley told Fox News in an interview from Austin, Texas, "but we don't want to lose the central point here: that this is a deranged person, that there's nobody serious in the Republican Party that would want to see such a heinous event happen at a Safeway. So we've got to be careful not to be braggadocio, not to use this, if you're a Democrat, as a weapon."

Reporter Pete Williams, who covers legal affairs and the Supreme Court for NBC News, steered his viewers away from a political explanation for the violent attack on a political figure. "The initial picture we're getting is that this is not what you would call, in the traditional sense, a politically motivated act," Williams said. "This seems to be the actions of a very disturbed individual."

That call was widely heard on Fox News.

"I don't know whether he's insane or not, but I do know that we need a reasonable discussion of what was going on with this man," said Peter Johnson, Jr., a Fox News legal analyst. "(Loughner's Internet) statements, taken together with the police conduct with regard to his known activities -- especially taken with the fact that he was rejected by the Army -- paints a disturbing picture of a mind that appears not to be intact. ... And we need to understand that the spinning wheel of recrimination at this point should be based on the facts, and not based on some rhetorical determination."

Juan Williams, the liberal Fox News analyst and historian of the civil rights movement, said Sheriff Dupnik "speaks for a lot of people" who would like to see the tenor of the American political debate dialed down a notch. "People realize that in the era of Obama, a lot of highly charged vilification of the president has been going on, particularly during the health-care debate," Williams said. "So people are alert for anything that could possibly be tied to the highly polarized political environment."

At the same time, Williams recalled the "bump" in public opinion polls President Clinton received when, in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, he attacked right-wing radio hosts. Williams urged Democrats to refrain from adopting a similar tactic today.

"Some on the left are taking cheap shots," Williams said, "to try to keep Republicans on the defensive. In all honesty, I don't see any direct connection between any Republican group and this shooter ... who is a psycho nut-job."

Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethic and Public Policy Center in Washington, called the comments by Krugman, Durbin, and other liberals "sickening."

"People were taking a terrible human tragedy and using it as a political club, and there wasn’t even a moratorium of 24 hours, or even 24 minutes," said Wehner.

A veteran of several Republican White Houses and the co-author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era," Wehner said it would have been "legitimate" if the Tucson massacre had provoked a dialogue about gun control, because conservatives often seize on terrorist incidents to frame national security debates. But he also saw a double standard at work. "When (former Rep. Alan) Grayson called his opponent 'Taliban Dan' (during Grayson's losing re-election campaign last year against GOP challenger Daniel Webster)," Wehner said, "I didn’t notice the left being concerned about an atmosphere of violence."

Palin has issued a statement expressing her "sincere condolences" to those affected by Saturday’s shootings, but has not responded to suggestions that her statements, often studded with references to hunting and firearms, played some role in the Tucson massacre.

Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Block FCC’s Internet Grab (January 17, 2011)

House Republican Introduces Bill to Block FCC’s Internet Grab

by Capitol Confidential

Rep. Marsha Blackburn introduced legislation Wednesday to deny the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory oversight over the Internet, which the Tennessee Republican insisted was the “sole prerogative of Congress” to administer.

“I agree that the Internet faces a number of challenge, ” Blackburn said in a release. “Only Congress can address those challenges without compounding them. Until we do, the FCC and other federal bureaucracies should keep their hands off the ‘net.”

According to Rep. Blackburn’s office, the “Internet Freedom Act” has the support of more than 60 House members, including a majority of GOP’ers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The legislation already has bipartisan support, counting among its endorsers Blue Dog Democrat Dan Boren of Oklahoma.

“The only sector of our economy showing growth is online,” Blackburn said. “In these times, for an unelected bureaucracy with dubious jurisdiction and misplaced motives to unilaterally regulate that growth is intolerable.”

But Blackburn, who filed similar legislation in 2009, said the measure is an “intermediate step” to counter the FCC’s recent adoption of Net neutrality rules. By way of a more immediate enforcement countermeasure, her office says she supports invoking the Congressional Review Act, which empowers legislators to invalidate noxious regulatory frameworks developed by federal agencies.

You Decide* (January 10, 2011)

It seemed like a miracle that our President was able to convince BP to establish a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate those hurt by the oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico.  After all, he had no constitutional power to force them to do so; so he had to resort to Chicago-style negotiating?.

Ever wonder why BP made the concession so quickly?

Take a closer look at the effect on BP's finances for the answer:

1. BP will establish a $20 Billion fund, but will pay only $7 Billion into it during 2010.

2. BP is a British corporation, but has a very large operating entity in the   US .. However, only about 30% of its income is derived  from the US .

3. By Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), BP must book the entire $20 Billion expense in the year accrued. Therefore, they will book a $20 billion expense in 2010, reducing their US tax liability by $7 billion.

4. The President also convinced this massive corporation to show their concern for the "small people" by withholding dividends to their shareholders for the last 3 quarters of 2010.  This reduces their outward cash flow by about $7.5 billion, including approximately 40% of that amount to US citizens. If the Bush tax cuts survive through 2010, the  US Treasury will lose another $450 million in taxes on that amount. No need to even discuss the effect on the US economy.

Now, let's summarize the results into bullet points easily understood by all.

BP Cash Flow:

o Escrow funding ($7,000,000,000.00)  (Billion)

o Dividend saving $7.5 billion

o Tax savings $7 billion

o Net favorable cash flow: $7.5 billion

US Treasury Tax Receipts:

o from BP Corporate income tax .... minus $7.5 billion

o from BP Shareholders' income tax .... minus  $450 Million

o Net loss of US dividend income tax receipts .... minus  $3.0 Billion

o Total tax receipts loss: $10.95 Billion. A huge hit!

Many feared this would happen.  After all, Obama was the most inexperienced man in the room.

Did he "Kick Ass", or did he get "Sucker Punched"?   Or, is this another 'backroom deal' Obama negotiated which will ultimately get him a huge financial 'plum'?   Should Obama be negotiating anything dealing with money and finances at all?  

Bottom line: The $20 Billion BP is putting up will create a $7.5 Billion positive cash flow for BP this year and a $10.95 billion loss to our Treasury.

But, Obama actually thinks he really did something special and "kicked ass'.  Why? Because he is the anointed one, in his own eyes.

In reality, BP executives are laughing at him and kicked his ass.  He is in over his head when he starts dealing with savvy business people but then, that’s what you get when you elect a community organizer as President. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

*Editor’s Note: I haven’t found anything on Snopes under the “You Decide” title that refutes the above analysis.

Stimulus Money for China (January 10, 2011)

WASHINGTON — Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.

The farm’s backers also have close ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who, at the height of his hard-fought re-election bid this fall, helped blunt congressional criticism over stimulus dollars possibly going to create jobs in China by endorsing a proposal by the Chinese company to build a factory in his home state. Although his campaign received thousands of dollars in donations from the wind farm’s backers and Reid stood on stage with them at a campaign event they hosted, his office declined to answer any questions about the wind farm’s organizers or their plans for Nevada.

The wind farm, first announced more than a year ago, would consist of 300 2-megawatt wind turbines, each perched atop a 26-story-tall steel tower and spinning three blades — each half the length of a football field. The farm would span three counties and 36,000 acres in West Texas land best known for its oil.  Dubbed the Spinning Star wind farm, the project’s 600-megawatt capacity is, theoretically, enough to power 180,000 American homes and would be the sixth-largest wind farm in the country.

It is being planned by an unusual joint partnership between the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a Dallas investment firm with strong ties to Washington and the Democratic Party, and A-Power Energy Generation Systems, an upstart Chinese supplier of wind turbines. Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate the Chinese are bringing financing and the turbines.

What the Americans are supplying is the local know-how and political clout in Washington, where decisions on how to distribute billions in loan guarantees, stimulus grants and financial incentives are made.

The clock is ticking for Spinning Star: To claim the stimulus grant it must arrange its financing and begin work on the wind farm by Dec. 31. Besides the $450 million stimulus grant, A-Power’s SEC filings indicate the joint-venture also will pursue a Department of Energy-backed loan guarantee. According to the SEC filings, the project is waiting to hear if it will receive the loan guarantee before financing will follow to build the turbines.

Powerful donors to Democrats
The investment group’s public face is often Cappy McGarr, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, investor and longtime fixture in Democratic politics, who has given heavily to Democratic candidates across the country and was an early backer of President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Joining McGarr in Dallas is Ed Cunningham, a former executive for several large Western entertainment companies in China, a 2002 Democratic senatorial candidate and a former member of Obama’s national finance committee.

Two registered lobbyists with a long history of involvement in Democratic politics, G. John O’Hanlon and Moses Boyd, are the group’s anchors in Washington. O’Hanlon has been a party operative since the 1980s — a protégé of Democratic heavyweight Terry McAuliffe — and has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic causes. Boyd is a former senior Democratic Capitol Hill staffer turned lobbyist.

McGarr married into Democratic Party royalty — his wife’s uncle is legendary Democratic power broker Robert Strauss — and has made his own name as a big-time donor to the party and candidates across the country. McGarr and his wife, Janie Strauss McGarr, have given more than $375,000 to various Democratic candidates and political action committees since 2006, according to Federal Election Commission records. That doesn’t include the $50,000 he donated to Obama’s inauguration and $50,000 to $100,000 in donations from others that he “bundled” for the Obama campaign.

All told, these four and their spouses have given more than $1.8 million in campaign donations since 1990, with McGarr and his wife accounting for more than half of that.

“That would place them among the top 100 donors of hard money overall,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent research group that tracks campaign finance and how it affects elections and public policy.

The important question, however, is not how much they have given, Krumholz said, but "What does this buy them with each individual target of their largesse?”

The money that McGarr “bundled” in the last election — essentially working on a volunteer basis to solicit money for the Obama presidential campaign — is particularly significant, she said. It’s an important and valuable role to play in a campaign, she said, and one that typically is acknowledged.

“In some cases,” Krumholz said, bundlers, “maybe are just making very little effort and are ideologically driven, but in many, many cases, historically, these people are looking for access to tap in on. It should not be presumed that this is uninterested work.”

White House visits
McGarr’s connections and party loyalty do seem to open doors for him in Washington — and at the White House. McGarr visited the White House at least eight times in the administration’s first 18 months in office, according to visitor records disclosed by the White House. (These disclosures are voluntary, and do not include meetings held with staff outside of the White House, telephone contacts or records that the Obama administration has not released from its first nine months.) Three of the visits were for large social functions hosted by the president, but four were occasions when he met with senior White House staff and presidential advisers.

On Sept. 15, 2009, just weeks before he announced his new renewable energy venture that would tap Obama’s stimulus plan for hundreds of millions of dollars, McGarr met with Pete Rouse, one of three “senior advisers” to the president. Rouse was named acting chief-of-staff in October 2010 after Rahm Emmanuel announced his departure. Rouse was formerly the chief-of-staff for former Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle. McGarr is the chairman of Daschle's political action committee.

Obama White House won't answer questions
Liz Oxhorn, a White House spokesperson for the Recovery Act, declined to answer questions about what was discussed during that meeting or any other — including whether Rouse and other White House officials know about the Spinning Star project or were asked to intervene on its behalf.

“Competitive Recovery Act funds are only awarded by experts at federal agencies following an internal merit-based review process,” she said in an e-mail, denying the White House had intervened in the process to award a loan guarantee.

Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for U.S. Renewable Energy Group, the U.S. partner in the windmill project, said neither McGarr nor any other member of the group ever asked the White House to intervene on behalf of their project.

“US-REG has not asked any official in any branch of government to advocate on behalf of their project in the DOE loan guarantee process,” Dorton said. “This is a project that stands on its own merits.”

Most of McGarr’s visits were related to his work as executive producer of the Library of Congress’ Gershwin Prize for Popular Music, which honored Stevie Wonder in 2009 and Paul McCartney this June, Dorton said in an e-mailed statement. Dorton also said a meeting at the White House in January attended by Boyd was for his involvement with a group lobbying for a renewable energy standard — a proposed federal requirement that a certain percentage of electricity come from renewable sources — but neither US-REG nor Spinning Star were mentioned.

A $245 million 'developer fee'
According to Dorton’s statement, the four partners in US-REG each brought particular strengths to the deal: Cunningham has negotiated business deals in China; McGarr has worked in private equity; and O’Hanlon and Boyd have experience with green energy. That all four men are prominent in Washington and Democratic circles has nothing to do with their partnership, Dorton said.

Together, McGarr, Cunningham, O’Hanlon and Boyd will own 51 percent of the Spinning Star wind farm, according to the joint venture agreement filed with the SEC by A-Power. But to earn that ownership stake in a project whose ultimate value is estimated at $2 billion, they won’t have to contribute any significant financial investment of their own.

The Ulsterman Report (January 3, 2011)

Obama Justice Department Rocked by Investigation Findings

Non-partisan 144-page report indicates ongoing DOJ cover-up in Black Panther voter intimidation case with possible direct participation from Obama White House.

The implications found within the 144 page report issued by the non-partisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the investigations into the New Black Panther voter intimidation case from 2008 appears to strongly indicate a cover up initiated by figures within the Obama Department of Justice, and quite possibly the White House itself.  Within the context of this cover up, are found accusations of intimidation and non compliance within the Department of Justice throughout the comprehensive investigation.

At the heart of the investigation are allegations the Department of Justice aggressively prevented some within its own department from fully and fairly investigating the Black Panther voter intimidation case filed shortly after the 2008 presidential election.  Page 85 of the report indicates members of the Obama administration felt the DOJ should primarily focus on charges brought on behalf of minorities, not against them – in essence, an institutionally approved and promoted form of reverse racism. 

When some DOJ officials raised concerns over this, they were, according to the details of the report, subjected to intimidation and marginalization by their superiors within the Obama Justice Department.  Primary among these examples was former Department attorney Christopher Coates, who testified to the commission that the DOJ had, “deep seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who had been discriminated against.” 

Shortly after raising concerns over the New Black Panther case having been dropped by the Department, Coates testified to the commission that his authority was systematically reduced and his concerns over the handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case ignored, ultimately leading to his resignation from the DOJ.

As the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation proceeded, another member of the Department of Justice, J. Christian Adams, resigned due in part to what he felt to be incorrect and or misleading testimony by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.  This reasoning for this resignation was given by Adams under oath to the commission on July 6th, 2010.  In this testimony, Adams indicated that he had being instructed by the Department not to comply with the requests of the commission’s investigation – in essence, ordering him to participate in a cover-up. 

The Civil Rights Commission itself lends significant credibility to the possibility of a Department of Justice cover-up, stating within page 104 of the report, “…a serious question exists as to whether the Department’s attempt to prevent Mr. Coates and Mr. Adams from testifying was based on concerns other than protecting legitimate institutional privileges.”  (Emphasis added)

The commission report goes on to outline a consistent pattern of non-compliance from the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, with to date, no direct explanation as to why the DOJ has yet to adequately respond to the investigation’s requests for further information and/or explanation regarding the apparent irregularities associated with the Black Panther voter intimidation case.  Page 105 of the report then opens the possibility of direct White House involvement in the ongoing non-compliance, stating,

“The Department simply ignored the question of whether the President, or Department official on his behalf, had invoked executive privilege.”

In May of 2010 the Justice Department stated that President Obama had not and would not assert executive privilege.  When pressed by the commission to then explain what privilege the DOJ was utilizing to not comply with the commission’s request for information, Assistant Attorney General Perez  answer was, according to the commission, “largely non-responsive”.

The commission then goes on to denounce the DOJ’s refusal to provide requested information in the following scathing terms that again point to the strong possibility of a cover-up, “…vague and unexplained assertions of privilege by the Department raise serious questions as to the Department’s degree of cooperation and whether its explanations serve the legitimate concerns of the agency.”

At the time of publication, the commission report listed the following requests that remain unanswered by the Obama Department of Justice:

1. The Department refused to authorize Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams to testify before the Commission. These individuals appeared over the objections of the Department. Even then, Mr. Coates and Mr. Adams felt obligated to honor the Department’s privilege claims that some on the Commission believe are not valid in the absence of an invocation of executive privilege.

2. With regard to documents withheld, the Department has not specified the privileges being invoked, other than implying in its May 13, 2010 letter that the Department’s “well-established command that “[a]ll federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the Commission.” confidentiality interests” (emphasis added) override the statutory   In addition, as discussed above, the Department has refuse to provide a privilege log as requested by the Commission.

3. The Department refused to provide witness statements from poll watchers Mike Mauro, Chris Hill, Steve Morse, Wayne Byman, Joe Fischetti, Larry Counts, Angela Counts, and Harry Lewis; defendant Malik Zulu Shabazz; police officer Richard Alexander; and Republican Party officials Joe DeFelice and John Giordano.

4. The Department heavily redacted the FBI incident reports that have been produced.

5. The Department refused to provide the draft pleadings that were the subject of the dispute between the trial team and the management team of Loretta King and Steve Rosenbaum.

6. The Department refused to provide documents constituting and concerning the communications between the trial team and Loretta King and Steve Rosenbaum, including an April 2009 memorandum referenced in a press report, prepared by the trial team in response to Mr. Rosenbaum’s concerns.

7. The Department refused to provide e-mails between Civil Rights Division officials, such as Loretta King and Steven Rosenbaum, and other Department officials, such as Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sam Hirsch, and Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, relating to the NBPP case.

8. There are several documents referred to in the Appellate Section memo that have not been produced: an e-mail from the Voting Section to the Civil Rights Division of May 1, 2009; a Draft Motion for Default Judgment (dated April 30, 2009); a Draft Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Default Judgment (dated April 30, 2009); and a Draft Proposed Order (dated May 6, 2009)

Light Bulb Ban Triggers Panic Buying (January 3, 2011)

Legislation outlawing ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the European Union has produced an unexpected wave of panicked buying as the ban takes effect. And that could be a harbinger of things to come in the United States, which has also passed a law that will ban Thomas Edison’s trusty old invention.

Last year 100-watt incandescent bulbs were banned in the E.U., and on Sept. 1 it also became illegal to import or manufacture 75-watt bulbs. The move is intended to force Europeans to switch mostly to compact fluorescent lights (CPLs), which use less electricity.

In the United States, President George W. Bush in 2007 signed into law a bill ordering the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs beginning with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and ending with the 40-watt light in 2014.

While CFLs do use about 75 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and last far longer, they cost significantly more and some users claim they give off a “sickly light,” according to The Telegraph in Britain.

They also take longer to turn on, can flicker, and have even been blamed for giving people headaches and skin rashes.

And CFLs contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury, which creates problems for users when they break or need to be disposed of after they burn out.

So sales of CFLs have been disappointing — while demand for the incandescent bulbs has been soaring.

Packages of 75-watt bulbs have been flying off the shelves in Finland as “customers filled their closets, garages and attics with lighting supplies for the long term,” The Washington Times reported in an article headlined “Europe’s light-bulb socialism.”

“London’s Daily Mail gave away 25,000 100-watt bulbs as a prize in a January 2009 contest. Der Spiegel reported that German customers left hardware stores with carts jammed with enough incandescent bulbs to last 20 years.”

The Telegraph reported: “The panic buying of light bulbs is expected to get worse when 60-watt bulbs are banned next year and all incandescent bulbs are phased out by 2012.”

But there is hope yet for those who oppose the ban, The Times disclosed. Two years ago, the minority party in New Zealand made canceling a planned ban a campaign issue. The party won national office, and overturned the ban.

A Black Man, the Progressive's Perfect Trojan Horse (January 3, 2011)

By Lloyd Marcus

As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat's unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We the People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining." Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.

Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America 's goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lorded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America 's sins of the past.

Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me."

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive's young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question. "Why are you siding with these white racists against America 's first African American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, "These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue."

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement.Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States .Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "no" to both president's proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer? He is black.

The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama's progressive agenda must be stopped.

Lloyd Marcus (black) Unhyphenated American, Singer/Songwriter, Entertainer, Author, Artist & Tea Party Patriot

Mosque Money Shocker (January 3, 2011)

by John Avlon*

The so-called ground zero mosque recently applied for a $5 million federal grant from a fund designed to rebuild lower Manhattan after 9/11, reports The Daily Beast’s John Avlon.

Developers of the controversial Park51 Islamic community center and mosque located two blocks from ground zero earlier this month applied for roughly $5 million in federal grant money set aside for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after the attacks of September 11, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

The audacious move stands to reignite the embers of a divisive debate that dominated headlines surrounding the ninth anniversary of the attacks this fall, say people vested in the issue.

The application was submitted under a “community and cultural enhancement” grant program administered by the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corporation (LMDC), which oversaw the $20 billion in federal aid allocated in the wake of 9/11 and is currently doling out millions in remaining taxpayer funds for community development. The redevelopment board declined to comment on the application (as did officials from Park51), citing the continuing and confidential process of determining the grant winners.

While news of the application has not previously been made public, developer Sharif El-Gamal outlined it in closed-door meetings, according to two individuals he spoke with directly. The thirtysomething, Brooklyn-born El-Gamal is motivated more by real estate ambition—one of these sources describes him as aspiring to be the next Donald Trump—than Islamic theology or ideology.

Park51’s developers clearly have a legal right to apply for the grant. A list of Frequently Asked Questions that accompanied the application specifically states that religious organizations can make funding requests for capital projects “as long as the request is for a facility or portion of a facility that is dedicated to non-religious activities or uses.” According to an individual familiar with the Park51 application, it requests funds to cover a number of cultural, educational and community development aspects of the proposed 13-story building—but the prayer room is excluded from the grant application.

But the question on whether they could have is trumped by the question of whether they should have.

But the question on whether they could have is trumped by the question of whether they should have. The stated aim of the Park51 developers is to provide a community center for lower Manhattan’s 4,000 Muslim residents. Their own website explained that they understood the need to “appeal to the undecided, and change the conversation about Muslims in America.” It’s pretty clear that this play for federal dollars will generate none of that, starting with the lack of disclosure or community consultation before developers submitted their application, which was due November 5.

"If Imam Feisal and his retinue want know why they're not trusted, here's yet another reason,” says Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam and director of the Moral Courage Project at NYU, when I asked her about the grant proposal. “The New Yorkers I speak with have questions about Park51. Requesting money from public coffers without engaging the public shows a staggering lack of empathy—especially from a man who says he's all about dialogue."

As a witness to the 9/11 attacks and someone who currently lives in the revived neighborhood, I can tell you that anger over the Park51 project was more intense outside the community than within it.

After all, the local community board approved the Park51 development in two separate votes—and the right of the project to proceed was honorably affirmed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg against a torrent of criticism this fall. Politicians across the country tried to turn the development into a partisan political football, including notable ads from Florida’s Governor-elect Rick Scott (“Obama’s Mosque”) and the newly elected North Carolina Republican Congresswoman Renee Elmers.

But attempts to turn the mosque into a campaign issue in New York were strikingly unsuccessful (think Rick Lazio). And after a series of protests and counter-protests surrounding the building site on Park Place, the issue has receded. New Yorkers live with diversity every day—we understand how essential it is to embrace our fellow citizens who are Muslim while never forgetting the terrorists who attacked us. Reasonable people who recognize the Islamic community center's right to develop on private property, however, will object to their use of public funds to do so.

Part of the strangeness of the application is that it blows past the suggested range of $100,000 to $1 million that these grants are supposed to fall to within (I’m told the entire pool for this round of cultural funding will come in under $20 million). According to the two sources knowledgeable about the thinking behind the proposal, the strategy behind the $5 million ballpark was trying to yield a higher figure in the end.

But the project likely doesn’t qualify for a grant in the first place. Specifically, the grant criteria mandate a demonstration of a project’s financial feasibility, based on benchmarks set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The government will help complete development projects—but it does not provide seed capital. And in their last public financial statement, Park51 was found to have less than $20,000 in the bank for a project with a slated cost of $100 million.

"Any solicitation for LMDC funds would have to meet the HUD criteria for eligibility," explains Julie Menin, an LMDC board member and the chairperson of New York’s Community Board 1, which includes the World Trade Center site.

It will be interesting to see how the LMDC deals with the appropriateness of this application, especially given its stated commitment to “an open, inclusive, and transparent planning process in which the public has a central role in shaping the future of Lower Manhattan.” After all, among its advisory councils are representatives of the victim’s families, who are unlikely to be sympathetic to the subject.

President Obama came under fire this fall for alternately asserting the mosque's right to exist and then subsequently questioning the wisdom of the project. He was essentially right, and this new chapter in the Park51 saga shows that wisdom is the essential component missing from this development.

In the end, Park51’s application is likely to be unsuccessful financially while mobilizing a new round of opposition. It’s a lose-lose proposition put forward by a tone-deaf organization that seems determined to alienate allies and embolden opponents.

*John Avlon's new book Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America is available now by Beast Books both on the Web and in paperback. He is also the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics and a CNN contributor. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.

The Individuals behind the Ground Zero Mosque (January 3, 2011)

Mayor Bloomberg outrageously told reporters it was “un-American” to investigate the individuals behind the Ground Zero Mosque – this coming from a man who bought his way into elected office.

The following was discovered by Judicial Watch in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The Borough President (and Councilmember Chin) have a firm policy at speaking up at public agencies only after the community board has taken a position on an item.  So withdrawing the resolution may affect their thinking about how helpful they can be on June 22.  That in itself may not be fatal to getting [the site] de-designated but I do know that [Landmark Commission] Chairman Tierney was looking forward to having the "political cover" their support would bring him. 

The Landmark Commission ultimately decided to de-designate the property.

Now there is no doubt.  Mayor Bloomberg’s office was working hand-in-glove with the Muslim activists driving the unpopular Ground Zero mosque project.  Now we know what the Mayor was trying to hide and why his office did not bother to comply with the Freedom of Information Law.  But it shouldn’t have taken a lawsuit to get the details.  New Yorkers want honesty and transparency from their Mayor, not obfuscation.  They deserve to know the truth about this mosque.

And just to give you a sense of the close “allies and friends” of Mayor Bloomberg’s staff…

Feisal Abdul Rauf is well known for making a number of radical and controversial statements regarding Islamic extremism, particularly the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  For example, during a 60 Minutes interview about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rauf said: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened.  But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened…we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.  In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

Now Rauf wants to build a Muslim complex adjacent to the spot where Muslim radicals murdered 3,000 innocents.  And thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and his staff, it looks like he may get his wish.

Postal Service Announces $8.5 Billion Loss (December 13, 2010)

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has announced a net loss of $8.5 billion for fiscal 2010.  Since 2006, the USPS has lost $20 billion, and the organization is close to maxing out its $15 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury.  Although the USPS has achieved some cost savings, they haven't been enough to overcome a large drop in revenue due to the recession and the greater use of electronic alternatives by the public, says Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute.

The USPS is required to make substantial annual payments to prefund retiree health care benefits.

    * Last year, Congress allowed the USPS to postpone $4 billion of its fiscal 2009 into the future.

    * However, Congress did not provide similar relief on this year's required payment of $5.5 billion.

Critics of the retiree health care prefunding requirement argue that no other federal agencies or private companies face such obligations.  The argument is largely irrelevant for two reasons.  First, the federal government's financial practices are nothing to emulate.  Second, very few private sector workers even receive retiree health care benefits.

    * In 2008, only 17 percent of private sector workers were employed at a business that offered health benefits to Medicare-eligible retirees, down from 28 percent in 1997.

    * The actual number of private sector workers receiving these benefits is even lower, as not all employees employed at the 17 percent of businesses that offers retiree health benefits are eligible to receive them.

Policymakers should properly view the retiree health care benefit as a symbol of postal labor excess, which continues to weigh the USPS down like an anchor.  Therefore, they should avoid allowing the USPS to further postpone these payments into the future, which could lead to a taxpayer bailout, says DeHaven.

Source: Tad DeHaven, "Postal Service Announces $8.5 Billion Loss," Cato-at-Liberty.org, November 17, 2010.

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs (November 22, 2010)

As the U.S. government retaliates against an American for refusing to allow airport security to grope his genitals, the nation’s Homeland Security secretary considers waving the intrusive “pat-downs” for Muslim women who consider them offensive.

The demand came last week from the politically-connected Muslim rights organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Calling the searches “invasive” and “humiliating,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advises Muslim women wearing religious head covers known as hijabs to reject full-body checks before boarding planes.

Those who are selected for the secondary screenings should remind Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers that they are only supposed to pat down the head and neck and that they should not subject Muslim women to a full-body or partial body pat-down, according to CAIR’s advisory. It further says that, instead of a body search, Muslim women can request to check their own hijab and have officers perform a chemical swipe of their hands.

While Americans are forced to deal with the degrading searches, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR’s demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

In the meantime her agency is targeting a San Diego man who received worldwide media coverage for refusing to let a TSA agent conduct a thorough body search that he felt amounted to a “sexual assault.” Referring to his genitals, the man told the TSA officer; “you touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.”

The head of TSA in San Diego called a press conference this week to announce that the agency has launched an investigation into the 31-year-old software programmer who was not allowed to board the plane. The feds plan to prosecute and fine him thousands of dollars for making them look bad. Actually, the official charge is leaving the airport’s security area without permission, which is prohibited to prevent terrorism.

Speaking of, TSA’s lapses over the years have certainly left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The agency in charge of securing the nation’s transportation system has approved background checks for illegal immigrants working in sensitive areas of a busy U.S. airport and has failed miserably to ensure the security of tens of thousands of cargo packages transported daily in the bellies of passenger planes.

Just last week a Massachusetts news station revealed that TSA cleared dozens of illegal immigrants to train as pilots in the U.S., despite “strict security controls” implemented after 9/11. Some of the illegal immigrants provided the station with official TSA documents approving pilot lessons through the agency’s alien flight student program. After the story broke, Homeland Security officials promised to “review the process” for clearing foreign nationals to become licensed pilots.

GOP Picks Up 680 State Legislator Seats (November 22, 2010)

NationalJournal.com

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era.

To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina -- probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats -- Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

The Republican State Leadership Committee took the lead in the state legislature contests. Chris Jankowski, a spokesman for the committee, said they were very specific in where they used resources this year.

"These are not races that usually see the level of sophistication that we used," he said.

The news was not entirely bad for Democrats.   They point to their holding on to the redistricting "trifecta" in eight states. (That number jumps to nine if Democrats hold onto the Colorado state House and 10 if you include Rhode Island, which just elected independent Lincoln Chafee as governor).    That's more states than the Democrats controlled during the last redistricting battle in 2001.

The GOP holds the redistricting trifecta in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Ohio - plus, as noted earlier, Nebraska and North Carolina.

Of those, South Carolina, Utah, Georgia and Texas are projected to gain seats after the census.   Florida is also slated to gain, but the state just passed a ballot referendum seeking to take control of redistricting process away from the state legislature.

Ohio and Michigan are also important because they are projected to lose at least one seat, making the redistricting lines all the more important.

Source: http://hotlineoncall.NationalJournal.com/archives/2010/11/devastation-gop.php

Wake Up and Smell the Thorns (November 22, 2010)

The Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security recently swore in two devout Muslims in senior posts.

Arif Alikhan -- a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 9 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 14 at Fort Hood?

And now the building of not just a mosque, but an Islamic Training Center near Ground Zero! The Imam is radical and blames 9-11 on the United States!

Even though we are for religious freedom, why should someone be against a Mosque at Ground Zero? Strangely enough, let's look at the Qur'an:

1. Read Sura 18:21 and you will know WHY Muslims insist on building a mosque over Ground Zero (they also built mosques, as symbols of victory, over Spanish churches in Cordoba and Seville and Segovia, and Agia Sophia in Constantinople)

2. Kill Non-Believers. Sura 9:5, 9:3, and 9:29 of the Koran effectively commands Muslims to kill the non-believers

3. Democracy and Imposing Sharia Law. Sura 5:48 makes it clear that Muslims do not accept the manner by which men choose to rule themselves (i.e. a Constitution, laws, Democracy), but that the Muslims must rule over us "in accordance with God's revelations to you" (i.e. to the Muslims). This Sura puts them in direct opposition to the Constitutions of all Western Countries.

Here is what their Qur'an says about:

4. Jews and Christians. Sura 5:51, 5:54, and 5:60 label Jews and Christians as "pigs and monkeys"

5. The Qur'an Supersedes All Previous Scripture. Sura 5:48 and 5:57 establish that the Qur'an supersedes all previous scripture (i.e. including the Bible and the Torah)

6. Later Verses of the Qur'an Supersede Earlier Ones (Sura 5:48). This means that the last Suras are what govern a devout Muslim and NOT the early ones. The latter ones are the ones calling for the killing of Jews and Christians.

In fact, you might also want to note that Sura 5 and 9 are among THE LAST THREE SURAS written. There are 114 Suras in all. To a devout Muslim, these commands are clear. We live in dangerous times.

On September 17 we celebrate Constitution Day in the US. Our Constitution is very much under open and surreptitious attack by the forces of Islam.

A resurgent Islam is threatening us not only abroad, but inside the borders of America.

The controversy surrounding the building of a giant mosque and Islamic community center at Ground Zero is but a mere manifestation of the insensitivity and organized campaign of Islam to change America. The families of the 9-11 victims deserve much respect---building an Islamic mosque near their death spot is NOT "respect"!

The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 in Egypt and pursues an Islamic fundamentalist agenda, has been actively trying to subvert the U. S. way of life for decades.

In November 2008 a Federal Court for the Northern District of Texas found the defendants guilty of raising $ 12 million in donations from trusting Americans to the Holy land Foundation. Holy Land Foundation turned out to be a front for collecting and sending money to Hamas, an organization based in Gaza and classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

During the trial, a vast array of secret documents of the Muslim Brotherhood came to light, which the defendant acknowledged as original. They laid bare the Brotherhood's use of "front" civic organizations. One of the documents produced and acknowledged as original was an "Explanatory Memorandum" authored by Mohamed Akram, and dated May 22, 1991. The memorandum calls for the Muslim faithful in America to engage in "a kind of Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilizations from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house..."

It refers to the need to present "Islam as a civilization alternative" and states that "It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad..." The Federal Judge on this case was so outraged by the evidence presented that he ordered the list of 302 Unindicted Co-Conspirators to be published on the Court's web site. You can still find it there today on the Internet.

Europe is slowly, but steadily, being Islamized!

Stop the Ground Zero Mosque (November 22, 2010)

The developer of the Ground Zero "victory" mosque Sharif El-Gamel, a man who views himself as a peacemaker between the Muslim faith and the American people has a lengthy arrest record for assault, DWI, numerous disorderly conduct arrests and a $227,000 real estate tax bill that he hasn't yet attempted to pay.

It is also reported that in an October, 2007 deposition for his assault case, El-Gamal responded "no" to the question had he ever been convicted or pled guilty to a crime.

And let's not forget about Imam Feisal Rauf, and his apparent obsession with Shariah law - he founded the Shariah Index Project - an effort to rate which government best follows Islamic law. Many analysts see in the project his support for "a Taliban-style Shariah" or imposing Islamic law in the United States.

The fact that these two very questionable men are behind the Ground Zero "victory" mosque have already raised the suspicions of New Yorkers - 71 percent of whom do not support a mosque built anywhere near Ground Zero.

Given their backgrounds, and the historical context of the so-called "Cordoba House" mosque, this is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attempt to as Rush Limbaugh said, "hoist a victory flag" near the site where Muslim extremists murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans!

This is sacred ground. If Muslims were truly interested in establishing a healthy relationship with Americans, they would be sensitive to the placement of their mosque and move it to a different area.

Sign the “No Victory” Mosque Petition today at: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=31679&RID=24090772

Another Obama Stimulus Plan – for the Chinese! (November 15, 2010)

Even though President Obama is against offshore drilling for our country, he recently signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayer dollars (which we can't afford to loan since we're broke) to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE  USA !

Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels"..

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! How does Obama justify this under the General Welfare clause or any other provision of the United States Constitution?

Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was President Obama's most

generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am.

Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Are they doing their job? Think about it. This is why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC

Feel free to send this information to others who care about this country and where it is headed. Also, let all your Government representatives know how you feel about this.

Obama Lies in Ohio Speech (N0vember 15, 2010)

by David Swindle

The naked lies were too numerous to count in President Obama’s speech in Ohio. But let’s try and respond to a couple plus one Freudian slip.

15. “We also hoped for a chance to get beyond some of the political divides between Democrats and Republicans…”

One cannot “get beyond” the political divides of this country when the objective is to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Obama’s talk of bi-partisanship has been clearly demonstrated to just be a campaign technique to woo moderates.

He could have ruled from the Center — the model was there in Bill Clinton’s second term. Instead he chose to push a leftist agenda, thus further exacerbating the divide.

14. “Because we are proud to be Democrats, we are prouder to be Americans.”

Says the Post-American President who rejects the concept of American exceptionalism and bows to foreign kings.

13. “I ran for President because for much of the last decade a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about how American should work.”

He expects us to believe that anything President Bush did in any way inspired him to run for President?

12. “Folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and to borrow against homes that many couldn’t afford to buy in the first place.”

“Forced?” As if Discover Card and American Express put a gun to their customers’ heads and demanded they load themselves up with debt? Monster House came by and threatened to devour people if they didn’t sign the mortgage?

11. “I ran for president because I believed that this kind of economy was unsustainable for the middle class and the future of our nation.”

Obama is not interested in sustainability. The debt levels we already have and that he is further burdening us with make a mockery of his claims for interest in sustainability.

10. “I ran because I had a different idea about how America was built. It was an idea rooted in my own family’s story.”

“Built?” Obama does not have a different idea about how America was built. The historical facts are quite clear. He has a different idea about the America that he wants to build — and build by destroying what already exists.

9. “Yes, our families believed in the American values of self-reliance and individual responsibility and they instilled those values in their children. But they also believed in a country that rewards responsibility, a country that rewards hard work, a country built on the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.”

If Obama was raised with the American value of self-reliance and individual responsibility then why was a communist like Frank Marshall Davis allowed to be one of his mentors?

8. “The flawed policies and economic weaknesses of the previous decade culminated in a financial crisis and the worst recession of our lifetimes.”

This is perhaps the most fundamental, important lie in Obama’s entire speech: the recession we’re going through right now was caused by Republicans’ economic policies. The truth is far less dramatic: everyone is to blame for the economic recession. “Blame” can be pointed toward the Left, the Right, the Democrats, the Republicans, the “fat cats” on Wall Street, and the poor people who took out mortgages they could not pay

If everyone is to blame for something then no one is to blame for it. And we can understand this recession as just one more wave in a perpetual cycle of booms and busts.

7. “Some Republicans thought it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess. Others believe on principle that government shouldn’t meddle in the markets — even when the markets are broken.”

No, Republicans thought it would be smart politics to fight Democrats and try to stop them from making the problems we face worse. No, conservatives who believed on principle that government should not interfere in a company failing did not believe the market was broken. A boom and bust business cycle is not an example of the market being “broken” but of it functioning in the same pattern it has ever since the Roman empire.

Obama — and the rest of the Left — are unable to actually confront the conservative argument. They always have to lie about their opponents’ position. Observe how in the fight over the Ground Zero Mosque somehow the debate magically shifted to whether there was a legal right to build a mosque at the location.

6. “The same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place.”

What was the philosophy that led us here? Friedman economics? Keynesianism? Obama can’t say because he needs to be as vague as possible in order to try and manipulate the least educated people listening. That’s who Obama relies on to develop and maintain power.

5. “Their argument is should insurance companies go back to denying care for people who are sick or let credit card companies go back to raising rates without any reason… Cleveland, that is not the America I know. That is not the America we believe in.”

Insurance companies do not “deny care.” They deny paying for some procedures. This is an inevitability of every healthcare system on the planet. If we had the most socialist healthcare system imaginable — like Britain’s for example — all that would be different is it would be the government being forced to make the decisions to deny paying for something. There is not a health insurance tree in the backyard yielding unlimited insurance fruit for all.

But at least there is a moment of honesty here — yes, the America that actually exists today is not something Obama believes in. When he talks of an America he loves he speaks of the country that exists in his imagination — one decades down the line that has come into being through his brilliant policies.

4. “It’s still fear versus hope, the past versus the future.”

As stated in “The Art of Political War,” “fear” and “hope” are just symbols used in political combat. In his previous breath it was Obama himself evoking fear by lying about insurance companies “denying” people care.

3. “I’ve never believed that it’s government’s role to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, small businesses, the skill and dedication of our works that’s made us the wealthiest nation on earth. “

You can just feel the disdain in his voice. He can push through government “stimulus” programs that cost more than all the money spent on the Iraq war and actually tell us this with a straight face.

2. “I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.”

If this was the case the he would fuel that engine through slashing taxes across the board.

1. “But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.”

Yeah, um, let’s read the quote in context to see what a shameless liar our current president is.

And the *damning* Freudian slip:

“I believe government should be lean, government should be efficient, I believe government should ‘lead’ people free to make the choices that are best for themselves and their families so long as those choices don’t hurt others.”*

He meant to say government should “leave” people free to make the choices. But “lead” came out instead. Read the prepared remarks here. This is, of course, his embrace of the big government philosophies of his czar Cass Sunstein, co-author of the book “Nudge”* which argues government should push people to make the right choices.

This is a President with such disdain for America and its people that he demands he and his elite team “lead” the citizens in making the choices that are best for you.

In the words of Kathy Shaidle : “You’re not smart enough to tell me how to live!”

Obama Caught in Another Lie (November 15, 2010)

Report On Offshore Drilling Ban Was "Doctored" To Mislead The Public.... White House Orders!

By Ed Lasky

In the wake of the BP oil spill, the Obama White House rushed out a report from an independent group of scientists and engineers that strongly suggested they supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling. Economic damage resulted throughout the Gulf region (red-state territory, by the way), thousands of jobs were lost, income plummeted, offshore drilling equipment was sent to overseas locations, oil production plummeted , prices went up, and oil exporting nations benefited from the rise in oil prices

The problem? The White House cheated and lied.

From Politico:

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report's executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts - who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations - endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

"The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts," the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

The report regarding the creative editing came from the Inspector General of the Department of Interior who investigated the issue at the behest of several Gulf state Congressmen.

There is predictable pushback with the White House saying the report vindicated their version that it was all just a "misunderstanding" and that the report from the panel of experts did not summarize "the recommendations and associated timetables well enough" so it required improvement from the White House. The White House "edited" report was then used to justify the moratorium imposed by the administration.

When the experts and scientist read the final report issued by the White House they registered their surprise and dismay and disavowed the edited version and the moratorium. Later, the Interior Department's ban was overturned by a federal judge who stated that the Department had exceeded its authority.

Imagine that: Barack Obama's administration exceeding its legal authority.

I am just shocked!

Of course, again we know why Barack Obama and his team have publicly fired and lambasted Inspector Generals Gerald Walpin snd Neil Barofsky and tried to cut them out of a planned new $30 billion dollar program (i.e., slush fund.

The Obama team now has a name for their internal enemies list: the Interior Department Inspector General.

These Inspector Generals are truly the "Unsung Heroes of the Federal Government".

They will have their stories told as Congressman Darrell Issa (chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) and other Congressmen in charge of committees finally have the power to call hearings and issue subpoenas that will start revealing the mischief that Obama's White House has been perpetrating over the last two years.

Fed to Print $600 Billion to Pay the Debt (November 15, 2010)

By Robert Romano*

The sovereign debt bomb is ticking — and time is running out before it goes off.

On November 3rd, while the American people were soaking in the results of the Republicans’ historic rout of congressional Democrats, the Federal Reserve had its long-awaited meeting to discuss the implementation of “QE2”, or the second round of so-called quantitative easing.

The central bank ultimately announced its intentions to purchase of $600 billion of treasuries over the next eight months. According to the Fed, “To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities.”

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, however, is skeptical of the Fed’s motivations for making the purchases. He believes that the real reason is to paper over the debt.

Wilson said, “The Federal Reserve’s reckless program to purchase $600 billion of treasuries over the next eight months is taking the U.S. into uncharted waters, where the nation’s central bank will be the largest holder of the national debt in the entire world next year. The Fed already holds $834 billion of treasuries, and was already on pace to have over $1 trillion in treasuries by August, 2011, more than China, Japan, or any other foreign creditor.”

Wilson continued, “With another $600 billion on top of the Fed’s expected trillion-dollar stake in the debt, the signal we are sending to the world is that the way to pay for our obligations is to print a ton of new money.”

That would bring the Fed’s stake in the national debt to about $1.6 trillion in just the next year. In comparison China only holds $868.4 billion of the national debt as of August 2010. Japan has $836.6 billion.

So, why wasn’t the trillion dollars of purchases already planned enough? Wilson explains: “In the next three years alone, $5.2 trillion of debt will be coming due. In addition, the Obama Administration plans on increasing the debt another $3.6 trillion over that same period. That means that the Treasury has to sell $8.8 trillion of debt over three years, or $2.93 trillion every year.”

But, that “$2.93 trillion a year is more than the Treasury has ever had to sell,” Wilson noted, adding, “Approximately $630 billion more than it has ever sold. So it is little surprise that now the Fed is coming out saying it is buying another $600 billion of treasuries. This action by the Fed has nothing to do with ‘a stronger pace of economic recovery,’ as the central bank claims. It has everything to do with the fact that we are broke, and we’re printing money to pay the bills.”

So, the nation, after decades of being warned that the national debt is unsustainable — it now totals $13.6 trillion — has finally reached the point where it cannot sell enough treasuries just to roll the debt over. So the Fed is just going to print the money.

Wilson believes that time is running out to change this trajectory, and that Congress has to act. He said, “It is up to the newly elected Congress to rein in Washington’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory so that the possibility is eliminated of further Fed purchases of the debt. Otherwise, they will be signing up to have the U.S. triple-A credit rating downgraded, and will preside over the decline of the nation as an economic superpower.”

What can be done? Wilson explained, “Spending must be cut, and the Fed has to be reined in and audited. The very solvency of the Treasury is in danger, and only Congress can reverse course and begin to pay down the debt, before it is too late.”

The consequences of inaction are clear. Besides the Fed becoming the lender of first and last resort to the U.S. Treasury, by the end of Fiscal Year 2011, the national debt will total $15.144 trillion, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. That’s more than the entire Gross Domestic Product, which currently stands at $14.73 trillion.

And, growing at a rate of $1.06 trillion every year for the next ten years, the economy would have to grow in excess of 7 percent every year to prevent the debt from exceeding 100 percent of the GDP, let alone outpacing the growth of the debt. More likely, the debt will top GDP in the next two or three years, if not sooner.

That is startling. The debt is growing so fast that the economy will not be able to grow out of this crisis. It is this very fiscal and monetary recklessness by government that has the American people up in arms.

Now, with the sovereign debt bomb ticking away, it is up to new members of Congress to do something — before it goes off.

*Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

United States Funding Mosques Abroad (November 15, 2010)

Amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the planned mosque near New York’s ground zero comes the disclosure that American taxpayers are funding the construction and renovation of mosques around the world.

The State Department’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) is spending millions of dollars on at least 29 mosque-related projects in 18 countries, including Pakistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, and Albania.

State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told The Daily Caller website that the AFCP is a type of “diplomatic effort and outreach.”

She said: “It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures. It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.”

The State Department recently provided Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, Ranking Republican on the Committee on Foreign Relations, with a document explaining that the funding of mosques was given a green light in 2003. At that time the Justice Department said the Constitution did not bar using federal funds to preserve religious structures if they had cultural significance.

But Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, told The Daily Caller that funding mosque renovation and rehabilitation is “disastrously wrongheaded and unconstitutional. They are not going to win hearts and minds. It is not as if they are going to say, ‘the Americans built this mosque for us so we shouldn’t wage jihad on them.’”

He added: “A mosque is a mosque is a mosque. It is where prayers happen. That is a religious installation.”

And Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said: “We have always felt this type of outreach is completely ineffective and that ultimately we have to approach it like the Cold War where we are fighting an ideology.

“If we are going to have this long war of ideas we cannot fund these religious institutions. We can fund anti-Islamist institutions based in liberty.”

Report Questions Citizenship for ‘Anchor Babies’ (November 8, 2010)

The issue of “anchor babies” — children who automatically become citizens upon their birth to illegal aliens in the United States — has become a hot topic as their numbers continue to soar.

But nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose “birthright citizenship,” according to a Rasmussen poll, and some lawmakers are calling for legislation to end it.

House Minority Leader John Boehner says that a revision of the 14th Amendment — which forms the basis for birthright citizenship — is “worth considering.” And legal scholars including Yale Law School Prof. Peter Schuck and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner question whether the amendment does in fact confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has released an in-depth report on birthright citizenship that includes these disclosures:

Due to birthright citizenship, the undocumented immigrant families of anchor babies can qualify for welfare benefits they would otherwise not be entitled to receive.

Also, a child born into those families has the ability “when he grows up, to legalize his parents, and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings,” according to CIS Legal Policy Analyst Jon Feere.

“The sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn, sponsor their own foreign-born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain.”

The child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens thus forms an anchor for the legal immigration of a number of relatives — hence the term “anchor baby.”

The anchor baby phenomenon has led to the growth of “birth tourism” — pregnant women traveling to the United States to give birth on American soil.

Feere points out: “Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S. Constitution? On its face, the answer is ‘no.’

“The 14th Amendment confers citizenship through naturalization or by birth to persons ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

“One might say the practice has become policy without becoming law.”

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, and its Citizenship Clause was intended to ensure that freed slaves would be recognized as U.S. citizens.

“There is simply no direct evidence that Congress wished to confer citizenship on the children of temporary or illegal visitors, but there is some evidence that they did not,” Feere observes.

Sen. Jacob Howard, a Michigan Republican who debated a resolution that would become the Citizenship Clause, limited citizenship by birth by stating in 1866: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

Feere also notes that an illegal alien is, under law, a citizen of a foreign country and therefore subject to that nation’s jurisdiction, and the authors of the Citizenship Clause intended that “jurisdiction as to the child would be imputed from the status of the parents.”

He maintains, then, that a child born in America to illegal aliens is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore is not entitled to citizenship.

John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, said in a media conference in August that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the American military or tried for treason against the United States.

Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a U.S. passport, even if born on American soil, according to Eastman’s statements reported by the Christian Science Monitor.

Furthermore, Eastman said, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee.

Therefore, CIS report author Feere concludes, “Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.”

To that end, last year Nathan Deal, then a Georgia Republican in the House, introduced legislation — which has nearly 100 co-sponsors — that would limit birthright citizenship to persons born in the United States to at least one parent who is either a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident alien, or an alien performing active duty in the armed forces.

Are Muslims Part of America's Heritage? (November 8, 2010)

Barack Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story."

AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your familys "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present.

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field n Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East . No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America.

Oh, I'm sorry; I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.

And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That, Mr. Obama, is the "Muslim heritage" in America.

Letter Posted on Freerepublic.com by an unknown author.

SEIU to Nevada: "You Vote, We Decide" (November 1, 2010)

By Adam Bitely*

Did you know that the SEIU represents the voting machine technicians in Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada? Is it any surprise, as reported yesterday, that there was a voting glitch in Clark County, Nevada? The glitch caused Harry Reid's name to be automatically checked on the ballot before voters had indicated who were they were supporting.

According to Joyce Ferrara, who was an eyewitness to this strange ballot ordeal, the problem was widespread, "One person that's a fluke. Two, that's strange. But several within a five minute period of time — that's wrong."

It is particularly troubling that Clark County has put the uber left-wing SEIU Local 1107 in charge of their voting machines.

The agreement between the SEIU and Clark County specifically puts all voting machines under the control of the SEIU. See the collective bargaining agreement (CBA):

"The County hereby recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative of the County employees assigned to the classifications listed in Appendix A who are eligible to be represented by the Union except as limited by Section 2 of this Article. The Union shall be notified of additions to the list of classifications (Appendix A), within seven (7) days of posting for the position classification and shall receive 30 days advance notice of any deletions. Upon written request by the Union, the parties shall meet and confer regarding deletions within the 30 day notification period referenced herein. Both parties recognize that the Union retains its right to appeal under the provisions of NRS 288.170."

On page 75 of the agreement, in Appendix A, Voting Machine Technician is listed as a classified position that the SEIU represents. Even though the CBA expired on June 30th, 2010, the CBA continues until this day because of language in Article 43 which says that the County and SEIU can continue the CBA year to year until one party deems it unfit.

Responding to the story, Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said, "It is positively outrageous that in Clark County, Nevada, the SEIU Local 1107, which supports Harry Reid, controls the ballot boxes by contract through their representation of the voting machine technicians.  It is not surprising that Senator Harry Reid's name was automatically checked off on the ballot when individuals went to vote." 

Wilson called for authorities to intervene: "The U.S. Attorney's Office, the Nevada State Attorney General, and the U.S Marshalls need to act now to ensure that the SEIU does not continue to compromise the integrity of ballots in Nevada, and anywhere else in the country.  The democratic process is too precious to be tampered with and abused."

What a coincidence that the voting machines in Clark County just happen to be automatically set to support the candidate that the union that represents the "voting machine technicians" supports… "You vote, we decide."

*Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com.

De-fund National Public Radio (NPR) (November 1, 2010)

Juan Williams, a moderate liberal, has been fired as a commentator at National Public Radio (NPR) for telling Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Even under the best of circumstances, taxpayers should NOT be paying for National "Public" Radio. But it is clear the network has no tolerance for viewpoints outside of its liberal dogmas.

Please sign the petition below to members of Congress demanding that NPR be de-funded by the federal government:

Whereas, with an almost uncountable number of news and public affairs programs on radio stations throughout the nation, there is no justification for taxpayers’ money being used to fund a government radio network; and

Whereas, in these times of dangerous deficits and sky-high unemployment, scarce resources should be used for much more critical needs; and

Whereas, National Public Radio (NPR) has recently shown that it does not respect opinions outside of its narrow ruling class liberalism and is not serving the public interest in any way; therefore We the undersigned, strongly request that all federal funding be ended for NPR.

Sign the petition at:

http://conservativehq.com/nprpetition/

Some Thoughts on Labor Day Past (November 1, 2010)

By Lynne Holicky, Liberty Central

There wasn’t a lot of labor going on this past Labor Day weekend.  First time jobless claims came in at 472,000 on Thursday, and that number was lower than expected!  Really?  We’ve been seeing these enormous numbers for many months now.  According to the Washington Post, the number of claims has been hovering just below 500,000 for roughly nine months.  This is not what America is all about. American’s love to work.  America is built on free enterprise and entrepreneurship. The problem seems to be we’re living in Bizzarro World, where the public servants are sucking the life out those they serve.

According to USA Today, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what the private sector workers earn. Federal civil servants took home $123,049 in pay and benefits in 2009, while private sector workers were compensated $61,051. This reflects federal compensation growth of 36.9% since 2000, while the private sector worker’s pay has increased by only 8.8%.

When I think of Federal Civil Servants, I think of our Representatives in DC, Postal Workers, and Educators to name a few.

But the amazing thing is, in 8 out of 10 occupations, public sector workers make more than their counterparts in the private sector.  From Budget Analysts to Clergy and Landscape Architects to Sheet metal workers, if you perform these duties for the government, you make more money.

We know this path is unsustainable, so on this Labor Day, remember those in need of work.  Do what you can to help, pray for answers on how to turn this trend around and pray for our great country.

Update on the Obamacare Lawsuit (October 25, 2010) 

As some of you may know, I am one of several plaintiffs in an action challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. This is an up-to-date report on the progress of that lawsuit by Van Irion, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

 Good news! A Federal court has ruled that most Americans have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently ruled that Americans who “reorganize their affairs,” and “forego certain spending today, so they will have the funds to pay for health insurance when the individual mandate takes effect in 2014,” have standing. This is most Americans.

The Obama administration filed a notice in our lawsuit last week acknowledging the Michigan court’s ruling and its relevance to our case. However, their notice reemphasized their assertion that Congress has authority to enact Obamacare.

Today we filed a response to that notice. Our response demonstrates, once again, that our lawsuit against Obamacare is unique. Rather than arguing that current precedent limits Congressional authority, we used this opportunity to reiterate and emphasize the argument that we have been making since the beginning: Current precedent leaves zero limitations on Congressional authority, and that violates the clear meaning of the Constitution. Obamacare is simply the latest in a long line of Federal legislation that increasingly intrudes upon personal rights. If the courts don’t overturn the flawed precedent currently in place, Obamacare will not be the end of these intrusions. That is why all Americans that want to reign in Congress should be part of this class action. Send out this link for others to JOIN THE OCA.

Ours is the only lawsuit against Obamacare that is making this point in this way. Ours is the only lawsuit that explicitly acknowledges that Congress currently has no limits on its authority, and argues that this must change. Ours is the only case that begins and ends with our assertion that specific precedent must be overturned.

Now that the “standing” issue has been effectively eliminated, the court is left with one simple question: Will it follow the clear meaning of the Constitution, or will it follow clearly erroneous precedent? Our latest filing presented this question very clearly.

The defendants’ most recent filing and our response can be viewed at our website. The ruling from the Michigan court can also be reviewed from our web site.

Our first appearance in court for the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit has been scheduled. The Eastern District of Tennessee noticed all parties that a scheduling conference has been set for November 19th in Chattanooga, Tennessee. While a scheduling conference is usually routine, this one will likely become a discussion of the pending motions. The judge from the Eastern District of Tennessee now has all the briefs related to our motion for preliminary injunction and to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. If a separate hearing date is not set before the November 19th scheduling conference, we’d like to encourage everyone that can be present for the scheduling conference to be there. We will update you further as that date approaches.

We are excited that a Federal judge now has the opportunity to make history. It only takes one brave judge to re-establish our Constitutional Republic by overturning Wickard v. Filburn.

If we are able to tell the judge that we now have over 100,000 plaintiffs it would have a much stronger effect on his decision. Please continue to tell everyone you know about the OCA. Please forward this e-mail to everyone on your e-mail lists. Please encourage them all to join the OCA. You can them this link - JOIN THE OCA.

Van Irion

President, Lead Counsel, Co-Founder

Liberty Legal Foundation

P.S. Liberty Legal Foundation is a non-profit organization. We appreciate all contributions. Please give what you can to help support our work to re-establish our Constitutional Republic.

©2010 Liberty Legal Foundation | 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 223, Knoxville, TN 37923

Obama Goes Ballistic (October 25, 2010)

 With only two weeks left before the midterm elections, President Obama is relentlessly singling out one group for attack in his speeches:  Americans for Prosperity (AFP).

 On at least 13 occasions now, including the MTV Townhall meeting this past Thursday, the President has attacked the grassroots activists, donors, and staff who make up Americans for Prosperity.  Click here to see the video of the President's attacks.

Why is Obama so upset by AFP? 

I believe Americans for Prosperity is the most effective grassroots organization opposing the big government agendas of the President, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

In recent months one can see Americans for Prosperity's massive, nationwide operation up close and it's making an enormous difference for our nation.

The President focuses on Americans for Prosperity's millions spent on television ads.  They're effective.  

But, what sets Americans for Prosperity apart is the fact that they have built a state-based grassroots army across our nation that's fighting to protect our economic freedoms. 

Right now, as part of their "November is Coming" effort, AFP activists are making thousands upon thousands of at home "freedom phone" calls to educate Americans on the voting records of liberal members of Congress in priority districts. 

Along with the at home "freedom phone" effort, there is a carefully targeted door-to-door program being executed in priority districts across the nation, as AFP activists use good old fashioned shoe leather to deliver their message. 

Their "November is Coming" and "Spending Revolt" bus tours are crisscrossing the nation, as well holding events that accomplish two key goals:  recruiting tens-of-thousands of new grassroots activists and generating enormous media coverage that forces these liberal members of Congress to defend their votes on the health care takeover, cap-and-trade, and the counterproductive Stimulus Bill. 

Americans for Prosperity has executed over 500 stand-alone rallies and bus tour events this year alone. 

On the new media front, Americans for Prosperity is also in the forefront of the conservative movement.  In July, the 3rd annual "Right on Line" conference trained well over 1,200 activists to be more effective online for the conservative cause.  On YouTube, AFP is consistently among the top non-profit organizations in terms of Americans viewing their videos.

Americans for Prosperity was launched in 2004.  Now seven years later, they've built a powerful group that this year will spend $35 million in defense of our free market economy. 

What I like best, though, about Americans for Prosperity is that their efforts are not about any one year or any political party.  They are committed to building a long-term, grassroots infrastructure across our nation that will effectively protect and advance our economic freedoms in the years to come. 

Let's keep up our efforts in these last days before November 2nd.

Then let's make sure we stand ready to do battle during the coming lame-duck session of Congress and then in January when the 112th Congress convenes.

Americans Continue to Support our First Principles (October4 25, 2010)

A *Heritage Foundation article

Poll after poll has shown that Americans are not happy with the direction our nation is heading. Through tea party protests, town hall meetings, and Washington rallies, citizens are turning up the volume of their disapproval of bigger government, runaway spending, and disregard for America’s First Principles.

Last Saturday, an estimated 300,000 Americans gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial for the Restoring Honor rally hosted by conservative Fox News commentator Glenn Beck. Their cry: return our nation to “faith, hope and charity.”

While the rally didn’t have a specifically political message, the participants plainly supported America returning to the principles and ideals that made this country great from its inception, its First Principles.   

Many Americans believe that policies implemented by this administration and this Congress are leading us astray from the fundamentals that the Founding Fathers had in mind at our country’s inception.  And they’re right.

Due to record “stimulus” spending and other misguided policies, this administration is doubling the national debt, threatening to bankrupt the government during one of the worst economic crises in decades. According to a Gallup poll, concern over the national debt is tied with terrorism as voters’ number one worry leading up to the November elections.

Or consider taxes. Small businesses are responsible for 64 percent of new jobs in the last fifteen years. But the administration isn’t acting to stop a massive tax increase on this growth sector of the economy. As Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation points out, even the “stimulus” is based on tax increases: “Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy.”

These excesses are why Heritage has developed Solutions for America, a blueprint for conservative reform in the new Congress. Our plan promotes free enterprise, balanced budgets, marriage-friendly policies and a return to constitutional government.

Americans object to the liberal policies of the President and Congress at rallies like Beck’s, at tea party events, in the polls and at the ballot box. They do not seek a change in the fundamental character of the United States, but to preserve it. Americans continue to believe in American exceptionalism and that the American people can thrive if given the freedom to do so.

*Rebuilding the foundation that America was built upon is the strategy core mission of The Heritage Foundation.

Washington Passes Secret Energy Tax (October 25, 2010)

It looks like the climate bill debate has already been decided by Washington and voters didn't even have a chance to say "NO!" A staggering $65 billion dollars has been transferred from the private sector to fund the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI.) RGGI is government created entity that is choking companies in the northeast with huge tax increases in the name of the environment. Our tax dollars are funding this secret climate initiative. Soon RGGI will expand to every state and stick you with astronomical energy prices.

RGGI is the nation's first mandatory greenhouse gas cap and trade regulating entity. This waste of tax dollars is responsible for "making an impact on climate change" in 10 Northeast states. Never mind that GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T EVEN REAL! The only impact RGGI has made so far is they have raised energy prices and created a slush fund for each member state. What exactly that money is being used for is unclear. Each state is capped on their carbon emissions and taxed if they use them up. RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England.

The Beltway sense of entitlement is mind boggling. While everyday Americans struggle to pay the bills and live through the stress of the Recession, RGGI is rolling in the dough. RGGI Chief, Jonathan Schrag is living a life most of us could only dream of. In June, Schrag and his wife Kristen purchased a $2.2 million dollar loft in Manhattan. Schrag's posh condo is 2,000 square feet and has three bedrooms and two bathrooms with a nice view of the Manhattan skyline. Schrag's luxurious residence is only a five block walk to the RGGI headquarters. I guess he didn't want to risk creating a carbon foot print by driving to work.

OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE FUNDING LUXURIOUS LIFESTYLES FOR CROOKS

Schrag is paid to keep secrets. He has refused to disclose how much money he makes and the salaries of his employees. Schrag told New Jersey Watch Dog to get lost when they asked him to disclose RGGI's records. In the most recent public disclosure requests from the IRS Schrag declined to reveal how much everyone is paid in the organization. Most companies have to reveal to the IRS the salaries of their employees. RGGI is given special treatment because our government is backing their scheme.

The corruptocrats in Washington are completely responsible for this gigantic waste of tax dollars. Everyday Americans work hard to earn money and provide for their families while Washington fat cats get paid to accomplish nothing! The crooks behind RGGI must be exposed and help accountable!

I urge all readers to Bookmark their Senator’s and Representative’s web sites to send them an e-mail demanding an investigation into the secret Cap & Tax entity. Having their telephone numbers on speed dial is another way to go.

U.S. Files New Suit on Arizona Immigration Issue (October 25, 2010)

By Jerry Markon

The Justice Department filed another lawsuit against immigration practices by Arizona authorities, saying Monday that a network of community colleges acted illegally in requiring noncitizens to provide their green cards before they could be hired for jobs.

The suit against the Phoenix area Maricopa Community Colleges was filed less than two months after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) over the state's new immigration law. It also comes as the department is investigating Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in Maricopa County, who is known for tough immigration enforcement.

In Monday's lawsuit, Justice officials said the colleges discriminated against nearly 250 noncitizen job applicants by mandating that they fill out more documents than required by law to prove their eligibility to work. That violated the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, the department said.

The law's anti-discrimination provision "makes it unlawful to treat authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for Justice's Civil Rights Division. He said the government "is acting now to remedy this pattern or practice of discrimination."

Tom Gariepy, a spokesman for Maricopa Community Colleges - which operates 10 colleges and two vocational training centers in and around Phoenix - declined to comment.

Justice Department officials said the lawsuit is unrelated to the case against Brewer and the probe of Arpaio and stems from a different investigation that began in January 2009 - the month the Obama administration took office.

It is the latest example of stepped-up enforcement by the department's Civil Rights Division, which has been reshaping itself after an exodus of lawyers during the Bush administration. It filed a similiar lawsuit in April against John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a Justice Department unit that adjudicates immigration cases. It was filed on behalf of Zainul Singaporewalla, a U.S. permanent resident who was offered a math teaching position at Glendale Community College, part of the Maricopa network.

After filling out a federal form attesting to his immigration status and producing a driver's license and Social Security card, he was told to complete another form with more immigration-related information, the lawsuit said.

That form required other documents and his green card. When he couldn't present his green card, the suit said, the college would not process his paperwork and would not let him work.

The government is asking a judge within the Justice Department unit to order the Maricopa colleges to pay a civil penalty of $1,100 for each of the 247 non-U.S.-citizen job applicants it says were required to produce the additional documents. It says the colleges ended the practice in January.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2...

[E-mail your discussion comments to “Sound Off” at hklee@kleekal.com and name the article in the Subject line]

Administration Halts Prosecution of Alleged USS Cole Bomber (September 6, 2010)

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."

The statement, tucked into a motion to dismiss a petition by Nashiri's attorneys, suggests that the prospect of further military trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has all but ground to a halt, much as the administration's plan to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in federal court has stalled.

Only two cases are moving forward at Guantanamo Bay, and both were sworn and referred for trial by the time Obama took office. In January 2009,

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates directed the Convening Authority for

Military Commissions to stop referring cases for trial, an order that 20 months later has not been rescinded.

Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready to go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.

"It's politics at this point," said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.

Read the rest of the story at http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/administration-halts

Inconvenient Truths – A Closer Look at Industry Misdirection (September 6, 2010)

by M. Chris Riley

In the latest game of “back and forth with industry lobbyists,” Verizon responded to a Free Press statement strongly criticizing its assertion that the Google-Verizon proposal would protect Net Neutrality.

Verizon’s “facts” are expert efforts at misdirection – they say a lot of things, but they aren’t telling the truth about the real details of their own proposal and intentions. Painted in full, there can be no doubt that the Verizon-Google proposal would not protect the open Internet and would not promote competition, now or in the future.

Verizon assertion: Our proposal enforces a tough non-discrimination requirement and promotes and protects Internet access.

Real facts: The proposal’s nondiscrimination requirement includes multiple loopholes:

1) It only prohibits “undue” discrimination – a term never before defined.

2) It only prohibits undue discrimination “that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.” A standard of “meaningful harm” creates a high barrier, in practice, for individual Internet users who have complaints that feel very meaningful to them.

3) The nondiscrimination rule does not apply to wireless Internet access service, even though mobile broadband has become a key component of the broadband marketplace for both speech and commerce.

Verizon assertion: It includes a presumption against all prioritization on Internet connections.

Real facts: The framework includes a presumption that prioritization of Internet traffic is “inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard.” This is not the same thing as a presumption against prioritization. With this phrasing, prioritization would still be permissible under the broad carve-out for “reasonable network management” if the network operator claims that its purpose is “to ensure service quality to a subscriber” or for any number of other open ended reasons. This is a blanket loophole for network operators to engage in any prioritization they want.

Furthermore, the presumption can be rebutted, and no standard or purposes is given for the rebuttal – though it seems unclear how or why prioritization of specific traffic would be considered non-discriminatory. This is an entirely separate loophole that would apply regardless of the purpose of the prioritization.

Verizon assertion: The non-discrimination provision and presumption against any prioritization are stronger than what the FCC could obtain through Title II reclassification.

Real facts: The loopholes and ambiguities demonstrated above undermine any such assertions. But even if this were true, then Verizon should no longer have any objections to Title II reclassification, as the company has voluntarily agreed to a supposedly stronger set of protections than the FCC could accomplish post-reclassification.

Verizon assertion: The non-discrimination provision for Internet connections is in line with the President’s priority on Net Neutrality, and it establishes specific FCC authority called for by Free Press.

Real facts: The proposed framework limits FCC authority more than it establishes it, and the loopholes in the nondiscrimination proposal render it unable to achieve any of the goals set out by the president in his support for Net Neutrality – it would not create a level playing field for competitors, and it would not protect Internet users.

Verizon assertion: The FCC is given specific authority for the first time to oversee these provisions.

Real facts: The FCC currently regulates a number of small and rural Internet service providers as Title II telecommunications service providers, and the FCC regulated all Internet service providers under the Computer Inquiries framework for many years. Although the statement is true as to providing “specific authority” related to “these provisions” (meaning, the exact provisions proposed by Google and Verizon), the FCC has held authority to apply comparable or stronger provisions in the past, and still holds such authority for many services offered today.

Verizon assertion: Our proposal protects Internet users by ensuring that potential services beyond robust Internet access (e.g. medical monitoring, smart grid and other ideas in the National Broadband Plan) are differentiated from the Internet and subject to GAO and FCC monitoring and reports to Congress.

Real facts: By eliminating FCC oversight authority from any “additional” services that may be offered, the proposal condemns Internet users to any abuses that network operators may choose to engage in, until further Congressional action can be taken. A legislative framework that “protects” users by waiting for additional legislation before correcting harm offers no protection at all. Furthermore, the concept of a service that is “distinguishable in scope and purpose” from Internet access, but can nevertheless incorporate Internet content, applications or services, creates substantial opportunities for services that undermine the functionality of the open Internet. In practice, this provision empowers network operators to create a true “private Internet” in which content and applications companies could pay for prioritized treatment, relegating the “public, open Internet” to a backwoods of residual bandwidth while large incumbent interests with resources can purchase their way into the future.

Verizon assertion: Openness is fast becoming the standard in the wireless industry, as the FCC envisioned. Verizon purchased spectrum in the FCC’s 700 megahertz auction for national deployment of our 4G network, knowing it came with open access, non-discrimination and no-blocking requirements. Others are following suit.

Real facts: Verizon fought each of those conditions vehemently before the auction, and common understanding is that Verizon would likely have failed to match the auction’s reserve price had Google not competed with Verizon by bidding on the spectrum. Verizon has not yet deployed 4G networks in the United States. Fellow wireless carriers such as AT&T persist in a range of limitations to content, applications and services on their wireless networks. Finally, if Verizon has no objections to openness, then Verizon should have no objections to FCC rules promoting openness.

Obama Hauls Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council (August 30, 2010)

By Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Apparently Barack Obama is not content to make a federal case out of his immigration feud with Arizona; he just made it an international one.

The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution, America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, h***sexuals, and the handicapped.

After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.

In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass.) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border. Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations.

The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference).

This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law. Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.

Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.

When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations.

Unforgivable (August 30, 2010)

By Ayad Rahim*

It is unforgivable that we, as a nation:

·        Considered, for president of the United States, somebody, with no discernible affection for, pride in, or allegiance to the country.

·        Considered, for president of the United States -– and “Leader of the Free World” -– a “red-diaper baby” (with a Third World twist, and a side of Islam), marinated in Marxism for three generations (on both sides of the family).

·        Considered a candidate, who -- based on his life story, family pedigree, the lives and views of immediate and extended family members, and his own past and current political teammates, friends, mentors and heroes -- is, at best, not sympathetic to the country’s traditions, core values, founding principles, free-enterprise system, military and police.

·        Considered, for high political office, someone who might not be able to obtain a security clearance to enter the White House.

·        Considered, for president, somebody with an Arabic name, with whom Arabs identify, while we are at war with Arab fascism (and not even asking whether the first name comes from Baraka (meaning blessing) or Buraq (the name of the horse that Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, rode to heaven)).

·        Considered, for high political office, somebody with Third Worldist sentiments, allegiances and ideologies.

·        Considered for president, someone with no appreciation or regard for what made the country great.

It is unforgivable, that we:

·        Have gone the way of Third World dictatorships (including that with which I am most familiar, my native Iraq), by succ**bing to what Arabs call “empty talk” – the hollow slogans and fantastical rhetoric upon which Arabs have feasted and been deluded for generations.

·        Demonized our last (and last patriotic) president and many patriotic Americans (as well as patriotic Iraqis), thus paving the way for demagoguery.

·        Have gone the way of the Arab world, with scapegoating and demagoguery, messianism, tribalism and identity politics, political idolatry, cult of personality, mass hysteria and delusion, the pathology of perpetual crises and emergency rule, a political culture of angels and devils, criminalizing politics, and seeking redemption and salvation through politics.

·        Have gone the way of the Third World, where each incoming ruler seeks to remake the nation anew.

·        Cared so little about this great country, as to entrust its leadership to the most untested, inexperienced, unaccomplished, unexamined, un-vetted and unknown presidential candidate in memory, and, probably, in the country’s history.

It is unforgivable that our media:

·        Have become defense counsel and propagandists for a particular party, forcing Americans -– as Iraqis did, in the days of Saddam -– to turn to foreign sources to find out what’s happening inside their own country (in our case, Izvestia, students in Communist China and the British press).

·        Did not demand a presidential candidate’s personal, school, financial, medical and psychological records.

·        Did not closely examine a candidate’s -– let alone a presidential candidate’s upbringing, family background, personal history, psychological makeup, political history and teammates, financial patrons, ideology, worldview, and attitude towards business, to enable citizens to discern how those might affect that candidate’s motivations and views on American traditions and values, the middle class, the “American Dream,” the role of government in people’s lives, and the need to be taken care of.

·        Did not attempt to discover who a candidate’s friends have been, and who, his enemies.

·        Did not scrutinize how a presidential candidate climbed the academic and political ladders, to enable us to judge his qualities and qualifications.

·        Has not looked into the lives and politics of a candidate’s sister, brothers and other family members.

·        Has not examined that candidate’s father -- his life, ethnicity, politics, personal behavior, alcoholism, work history, and parental role, and their effects on the son.

·        Has not examined that candidate’s mother -- her politics, behavior, and parental role, and their effects on the son.

·        Did not look at Kenyans’ animus toward England (an animus surpassed only by the Irish), and a certain politician’s feelings towards his Kenyan grandfather’s alleged treatment by the British (under Winston Churchill).

·        Did not examine a candidate’s views of American power and historic role in the world, and what those views might mean for the world, our allies and our adversaries.

·        Have abdicated their proper role as watchdogs, and, in the manner of dictatorships, become not only lap dogs for the state (or a particular party), but attack dogs, scrutinizing, investigating and attacking any private citizen or public official who dares to question the anointed leader.

·        Cover up news and scandals, rather than uncovering them.

·        Have made our fate, in some ways, worse than in a dictatorship, where people know their media are not free and independent, and thus disbelieve everything they say.

·        Divulge operational secrets of the war effort -- and get away with it

·        Reported in bad faith on Iraq and the military effort as a wh***.

·        Painted the toppling of the world’s greatest terrorist and biggest sponsor of terrorism, as not only wrong and having nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism, but illegal, immoral, and “the original sin.”

·        Made “Iraq” a dirty word.

·        Mock, smear and impugn the motives of American citizens, peacefully exercising their right to protest their government, by insulting them with such slurs as racists, bigots, Nazis, skinheads, klansmen, “angry white men,” haters, a mob, terrorists, violent, lunatic fringe, wackos, and tea-baggers – and get away with it.

·        Do not criticize or ask difficult questions of a politician, for fear of being called racist.

·        Did not examine what a candidate meant by “change” and “transformation” of the country.

Unforgivable

·        The “loyal opposition” cynically switching its position on Iraq, for no reason but to gain power.

·        Maligning and demoralizing the troops, undermining the war effort, and stabbing in the back the commander-in-chief and the military, in wartime

·        Knee-jerk America-blaming and fault-finding.

·        An arrogant class’s bigotry against Southerners, conservatives, Christians, white men, patriots, traditionalists, morally upright citizens, people from small towns, people not of the right schools, people who don’t speak with the approved accents, people who work their way through school, people who go into the military, people with large families, people who don’t kill their babies in the womb (especially if the baby is “defective”) -– or, as one presidential candidate famously said, “people who aren’t like them.”

·        Crying wolf, as a nation -- about loss of liberties, invasion of privacy, lying, lack of science, suppression of dissent, shredding the Constitution, a lawless and rogue regime, illegitimate rule, a power grab, crony capitalism, arrogance, egomania, narcissism, “father issues,” dictatorship, fascism, Hitler, Nazi, disastrous economy, abuse of power, scaremongering and hatemongering, “culture of corruption,” a compliant press, impending, catastrophic natural disasters, and an apocalypse around every corner.

·        Our tremendously wide fifth column, that has now conquered the country.

·        An arrogant class’s scurrilous and malicious treatment of a high-ranking and courageous politician, with a string of accomplishments, a remarkable life story, and one of the highest approval ratings in the country -- and, on top of that, the vile treatment of that politician’s children.

·        Immigrants -- and others -- who use the country and benefit from it, while constantly disparaging it and complaining about its people and culture.

·        Sacrificing America at the altar of…I-know-not-what -- “white guilt”? assuaging our narcissism by making us feel good about ourselves? affirmative action? encouraging people’s self-esteem? wishful thinking about “race relations” or “world peace”? utopian visions? political correctness? the god of multicultural diversity?

·        Making our professional clowns and mimics into opinion leaders and experts on everything under the sun -– including the sun itself.

Unforgivable, this president’s:

·        Unleashing and feeding resentments, class warfare, hatreds and racial hostilities -- destructive forces, that, once unleashed, are well-nigh impossible to contain.

·        Targeting, attacking and vilifying professions, businesses and industries.

·        Pitting segments of society against each other, and sicking them on each other.

·        Engaging in racial and identity politics -– and the backlash that has created.

·        Sitting in the pews of an America-hating bigot’s church -– and subjecting his children to that abusive venom.

·        Trillion-dollar budget deficits.

·        Making trillion an everyday number.

·        Firing a private-company executive.

·        Gross interference in the economy and takeover of sections of the private sector.

·        Centralizing control of the economy.

·        Rewarding bad behavior and punishing good.

·        Taking us down “the road to serfdom,” by undermining and destroying enterprise and the spirit of self-reliance.

·        Putting a stake through the heart of the country -– its very spirit, drive and energy.

·        Playing the blame game -- the stock-in-trade of the Arab world.

·        De-emphasizing the 9/11 attack and war, reducing it to a crime and a “tragedy,” to be “remembered” by “service.”

·        International spitting-on-America tour.

·        Un-presidential behavior, language and comportment.

·        Mocking and snearing at political opponents.

·        Showing disrespect to the citizens of the country he putatively leads.

·        Showing more sympathy towards terrorists and this country’s enemies, than towards its friends.

·        Friendliness to dictators and communist regimes.

·        Disdain and betrayal of democracies and democratic movements.

·        Lack of fondness and affinity for the U.S. Constitution.

It is unforgivable that we

·        Fell for media propaganda -– that propped up a naked emperor and smeared good and decent patriots.

·        Bought something, without knowing what we were getting.

·        Fell for the biggest scam and con-job in America’s history.

·        Thought so little of the United States as to roll the dice with the country, risking its future and very essence.

·        Are so cavalier with the country, as to turn it into a laboratory for social engineering.

·        Were so gullible as to fall for the fraudulent hoax of global warming.

·        Have been so conceited and narcissistic as to think we are greater than the sun, the seasons, and the natural world; that we know what the right temperature should be; and believing we can do something about the weather.

·        Are trading individual liberty, for the potential of (Third World-like) government-promised security.

·        Accept more and more government subsidies (in Iraq, Saddam “bought” people, with subsidized homes, land, jobs, food, fuel, healthcare and education).

·        Grow increasingly dependent on government.

·        Are turning ourselves from free and independent citizens, to subjects of the state, beholden and indebted to the beneficent leader -- the source of all things -- our welfare, our property, and our very lives.

·        Have forgotten Thomas Jefferson’s maxim that “the government that governs least, governs best.”

·        Do not understand -– or care -– that the bigger the government, the less freedom we, as individuals, have.

·        Have mainstreamed radicalism.

·        Have become ahistorical and apolitical.

·        Have become ignorant of the true nature and reality of Marxism, socialism and demagoguery, and not recognizing them when they hit us in the face.

·        Equate the country with the leader, as is done in the Third World.

·        Look increasingly to the state to create work and jobs, rather than to ourselves.

·        Have eroded and weakened our democracy, with an uninformed and ill-educated populace.

·        “Talked down” the economy and the country, thus undermining Americans’ faith and confidence.

·        Have “trashed” America for a couple generations, thus turning Americans against their country and churning out, as in the Arab world, a couple generations of America-haters.

·        Have become economically illiterate, ignorant of the most basic laws of economics, how goods and services are produced, how wealth is created.

·        Abandoned skepticism of politicians and the ways of politics.

·        Did not act in the tried-and-true American way, by kicking the tires, taking the car around for a spin, and checking under the hood.

·        Did not demand some accomplishments from a candidate.

·        Considered a candidate (for any office) who, as a legislator, voted against providing medical care to babies surviving abortions who are left to die (what can, at best, be called “passive infanticide”) -– and who did so more than once.

·        Lacked the basic common sense and patriotism to see through the propaganda, BS and the “con.”

·        Handed over our government -– and country -– to a bunch of neo-Comms.

·        Set aside patriotism and basic love of country, as requirements, for any public office.

·        Gave our country its first Third Worldist president.

·        Gave our country its first Marxist president.

·        Gave our country its first anti-American president.

·        Put a demagogue in the White House, maybe for the first time.

·        Introduced the cult of personality to the country.

·        Introduced our country to a “true believer,” a revolutionary, and the politics of mass movements.

·        Were so ignorant, gullible and unpatriotic, as to have given such a person a hearing.

·        Vote, based on identity, or for racial, ethnic or tribal reasons.

·        Make everything about race, to the exclusion and detriment of everything else, including the country, and “race relations” themselves.

·        Jettisoned human history’s most successful experiment in individual liberty.

·        Took America for granted.

*Ayad Rahim is a Cleveland-based bookseller and former journalist.

Muslims are Exempt from Obamacare Tax (August 30, 2010)

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations (that's us folks!) conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax.

Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.

Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims.  Period. This is Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the Muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"

Amish are also excluded. I think I could become Amish a whole lot easier than Muslim!!

Advantages and Responsibilities of an American Citizen (August 16, 2010)

An 1896 political science textbook used at the university level titled "Issues of the Day" describes the "Advantages and Responsibilities of an American Citizen" to include:

"Our nation is what we as citizens make it … safe citizenship demands a careful study of our country and its people, our government and all the questions of vital interest constantly pressing to the front. He who will not inform himself upon the living issues of the day and interest himself in these subjects so essential to national life, does not deserve the name of citizen, and by is very ignorance and selfishness become in fact, if not intention, an enemy of his own nation."

Following the compelling assertion that ignorance and inaction are equivalent to being an enemy of the state, the textbook describes, "Duties of an American Citizen":

1. Political Rights – "… In order to sustain a good government every man should exercise his political rights to the best of his knowledge … every man should be able to vote intelligently."

2. Your Duty – "It is your right to expose the folly or injustice of a law, to demand its repeal, and to try to get a majority to repeal it. But while it remains a law, you are to obey it."

3. Voting at the Polls – "It is the duty of every American citizen to exercise his right to vote at all the primaries and all the elections to which he is eligible. The American people are too indifferent in nominating and supporting men for office."

4. Prompt Execution of the Laws – "It is your duty to insist upon the prompt execution of the laws."

5. Act Generally with Some Political Party – "It is your duty to act generally with some political party and to exert your influence upon its leaders to induce the nomination of capable and honest men for office."

6. Watch the Conduct of Public Officers – "It is your duty to watch the conduct of public officers, to see that they perform their duties and observe their constitutional limitations …"

There is so much more in this textbook that is profoundly relevant for today but I will just reference one more clause under "Political Training for the Citizen" that I think you will find of interest due to its obvious application:

Making Citizens of Foreigners – How safe we should be from the pernicious effect of much ignorance and vicious anarchism which now trouble us if committees of good citizens had attended at our courts of naturalization and had forced upon … all officers … that this wise law be obeyed. But in practice … the process is "mechanical, because it is usually conducted in the interest of one or the other of the party "machines".

George Santayana’s observation is as applicable today as when first spoken: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Birthright or Birthwrong? (August 16, 2010)

By Virgil Goode

In his address to the country on immigration, President Obama said that “being an American is not a matter of blood or birth.”  Our current government policy of giving automatic US citizenship to the children illegal aliens who are born on American soil makes being American solely a matter of birth.

Americans are quickly waking up to the disaster that is the arbitrary government policy of guaranteed automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.  A Rasmussen Poll found that 58% of Americans opposed granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, while only 33% supported it.

Birthright citizenship creates a massive fiscal burden on the American taxpayer.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 specifically states illegal aliens and even many legal immigrants are “not eligible for any Federal public benefit” with a few exceptions such as disaster relief.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are four million children of illegal aliens who received US citizenship by the sole virtue of being in the United States.  Over one-third of these children live at or below the poverty line and are eligible for a host of welfare programs that they would not receive were it not for birthright citizenship.

Additionally, Obama’s health care legislation created a huge loophole that allows illegal aliens to use birthright citizenship to receive government subsidized health care.  While there are verification loopholes, the legislation makes illegal aliens ineligible for taxpayer funded “Affordability Credits.”

However, the bill intentionally does not address what would happen if an illegal immigrant family had a US citizen child.  According to Pew, 8.8 million people live in such mixed families.

The Congressional Research Service noted that under Obama’s legislation, “it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.”

In other words: Obama’s Health Czar will decide whether or not to give free healthcare to the families of illegal aliens.  I wonder what side they will rule on!

Birthright citizenship makes it much more difficult to enforce our immigration laws.

When an illegal immigrant is detained, they can use the fact that they have citizen children as extenuating circumstances that make them a “hardship case” when appealing deportation orders.

This is why I have used the term “anchor baby” to describe them.   The critics of this term are the same people who are trying to make the anchor drop even deeper.  During his speech last week, President Obama stated we cannot deport illegal aliens because “it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

The costly policy of granting birthright citizenship is based upon a misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.  It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This was clearly designed to guarantee for the purpose of ensuring that the children of freed slaves could not be denied citizenship.  Granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is a completely arbitrary interpretation that has never been ruled on by the Courts or passed by statute.

When I served in Congress, I co-sponsored 10 bills to end birthright citizenship either by statute or Constitutional Amendment.  Rep. Nathan Deal’s Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (H.R.1868) currently has 92 co-sponsors.  This is a start, but unless the debate changes, it is unlikely that the Republican leadership, much less the Democratic majority in Congress, will address the issue.

With the federal government far behind on upholding its constitutional duties on immigration, the States are once again stepping in.

State Rep. Leo Berman of Texas introduced a bill to deny benefits to children of illegal aliens, and State Rep Randy Terrill of Oklahoma and State Sen. Russell Pearce of Arizona–who wrote SB 1070–are planning on introducing similar legislation.

Mark Twain wrote, “Citizenship is what makes a republic.”  Our policy of giving the children of illegal aliens citizenship cheapens one of the most basic building blocks of our Republic.

Virgil Goode Represented Virginia’s 5th Congressional District from 1997 until 2009.

                   Amnesty for Millions without Any Vote in Congress (August 9, 2010)

The U.S. Senators who have been demanding answers from the Administration about a rumored administrative amnesty have now revealed shocking memos from top Obama officials.

They show Obama Administration officials offering a detailed plan that would offer actual or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without Congress ever taking a vote.

In this way, the Administration would be able to reap the thanks of all the cheap-labor, outlaw industries relying on illegal labor, as well as the entire pro-illegal voter base.

But no Member of Congress would have a vote for amnesty on his/her record while facing elections.

A day after a federal judge ruled that the people of Arizona can't enforce immigration laws against illegal aliens, this memo shows a grand plan for the Obama Administration to ensure that most illegal aliens get work permits, keep their jobs and prevent unemployed Americans from getting the jobs instead.

 Reported in NumbersUSA.com. Update to come later.

Mexico's Brutality Towards Illegal Aliens Ignored by Obama, US Media (August 9, 2010)

By Jim Kouri

"Besides the news media's overall silence on illegal immigrants being terrorized, robbed and killed by Mexican authorities, the Obama Administration and US lawmakers are equally silent."

If the news media were truly unbiased in their reportage of Mexican illegal immigration and told the whole story, Americans would be shocked at the degree of President Felipe Calderon's hypocrisy.

For instance, Calderon's government is filing a lawsuit against Arizona over their new immigration enforcement law. Calderon himself during a visit to Washington, DC scolded the state of Arizona and its citizens and received a standing ovation from Democrat members of Congress.

However, Calderon and his government appear to be unwilling to acknowledge their own hypocrisy in dealing with illegal immigrants who enter Mexico from Central American countries. Considered felons by the Mexican government, these immigrants fear detention, rape and robbery. Police and soldiers hunt them down at railroads, bus stations and fleabag hotels. Sometimes they are deported; more often officers beat them and simply take their money and possessions.

Anyone who doesn't believe the above treatment of illegal aliens by Mexican authorities should peruse reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

"This 128-page report examines the commission's work on more than 40 human rights cases, including recent abuses by soldiers involved in law enforcement operations, police crackdowns against demonstrators in Guadalajara and San Salvador de Atenco, and the killings of women in Ciudad Juárez over the past decade, among others. The report also examines the commission’s role in addressing abusive laws, including restrictions on freedom of expression, and responding to important reforms..." states the Human Rights Commission report's preface.

Besides the news media's overall silence on illegal immigrants being terrorized, robbed and killed by Mexican authorities, the Obama Administration and US lawmakers are equally silent.

"They allow Calderon and his flunkies to denigrate and scold Americans who call for tougher border security and a sane immigration policy while the blood of Central Americans who've entered or attempted to enter Mexico across its southern border stains their own hands," says former military intelligence officer, and NYPD detective, Sid Franes.

While illegal immigrants in the United States have held huge rallies in the U.S., without any consequences, the thousands and thousands of undocumented Central Americans in Mexico endure their inhumane treatment in silent fear. In fact, Mexico's constitution prohibits non-citizens from participating in protests or other public demonstrations against the Mexican government.

And while President Calderon demands humane treatment for his countrymen who break US immigration laws to enter and remain in the US, Mexico provides few -- if any -- protections for its own illegal immigrant population.

The level of police brutality Central American illegal immigrants endure in Mexico was apparent, when a police raid near a rail yard outside Mexico City ended in the death of an innocent man. Mexican cops shot and killed a local man, because the poor soul's appearance made officers think he was a immigrant.

Undocumented Central Americans complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the US side of the border, where aliens may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail, according to this writer's sources within the intelligence community.

If an immigrant is carrying any money, Mexican police officers or soldiers take it from the hapless illegal immigrant. And it's not just local cops: Federal (Federales) and state police officers are equally corrupt and brutal. There is no such thing as a sanctuary city in Mexico. And the illegal immigrants are lucky if the are confronted by police officers; the soldiers are far worse in their treatment of these foreigners.

While most countries including the United States have some police corruption, the level of corruption in Mexico is shocking. To many, the only difference between Mexican organized crime gangs and the police is that the cops wear uniforms and badges.

While the Obama Administration praises Mexican cooperation with fighting a war on drugs, most law enforcement commanders know better. The Mexican government has been bought and sold by the drug gangs. The only time there is a crackdown on a drug gang is when a rival drug gang "requests" police action in order to eliminate their competition.

Mexico's President Felipe Calderon has called US residents', who live along the US-Mexico border, plans to build a fence along their properties "shameful." What's shameful, Mr. President, is your hypocrisy, lies and corruption.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

Obama's Growing Racist Government (August 2, 2010)

Barbara Simpson

For a president and an administration with the media in its pocket, it's amazing they haven't convinced the American public that it's OK to protect lawbreakers by racial profiling.

I know, I know – if you believe the left's rant, only conservatives are racist bigots. But the truth is, the liberals lead on that one, and they're proud of it.

When they demand special rights for a certain class of "brown" people, they're racially profiling and are bigots.

They should be ashamed. Not only have they opened racial divisions in this country that were virtually closed decades ago, but they cater to it and are moving this country to the breaking point.

The issue is illegal aliens: foreigners who cross our borders illegally, stay in this country illegally, take jobs using fake identification – both of which are illegal – and feed at the trough of American generosity for food, housing, medical care, education and whatever else they can get.

On top of that, too many get involved in criminal activities from petty crimes to felonies. The costs to the criminal justice system and the numbers of incarcerated illegals prove the point.

Arizona hit the breaking point: bankrupt hospital emergency rooms, overcrowded schools, enormous social costs on every level, escalating crimes, record-setting kidnapping rates and violence against private citizens as well as police officers and Border Patrol, including murder.

It's a basic responsibility of the federal government to protect the borders and the citizens living within them. There are laws on the books to accomplish that.

But for political and philosophical reasons, politicians for decades have chosen not to enforce the law. They've chosen not to think first of the welfare and safety of the country and all Americans. They do what they please, hoping it will buy them votes and change the face and culture of this country permanently to their advantage. Their attitude is: The country be damned.

Their hubris is astonishing, and it's getting worse. The federal government, from the president on down, is doing as little as possible to strengthen the border, has encouraged the demonization of any entity – read that Arizona – and anyone who disagree.

To liberals, Arizona is the ultimate "racist" – all because Arizonans have had enough of what illegals are doing to them because the feds virtually ignore the problem.

The legislature passed S.B.1070, which allows law enforcement to question a suspect's immigration status, if, during a stop for another criminal issue, the officer has reason to suspect an immigration violation.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill. She's clearly one of the most politically courageous politicians in decades.

Barely had the ink dried, then the long swords were drawn with everyone from politicians, immigration activists, education hacks, the media, ignorant citizens and religious hierarchy, most especially clerics of the Roman Catholic Church, piling on.

Liberals say 1070 mandates racial profiling and is racist – but in truth, liberals are the racists since they seem to think only "brown" people are illegals. Facts prove otherwise, but facts confuse them.

Under the guise of "human rights" and a "religious halo," they advocate criminal lawbreaking, and the government isn't letting up. In addition to demonizing the state and its residents, the feds plan to sue and had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announce it during a press conference in Ecuador.

Gov. Brewer was furious at the insult of the foreign announcement, but is hanging tough and touts her record of winning such court cases.

After a long delay, Obama did briefly meet with Brewer, promising a border security plan in two weeks. She's heard nothing.

When Sen. John Kyl, Ariz., told a public meeting that the president told him privately he would only secure the border after "comprehensive immigration reform" – leftist political shorthand for "amnesty."

The audience was appalled. The White House, furious, called Kyl a liar. It became a political p---ing contest; another unflattering reflection of the president.

Unflattering but accurate – as accurate as the rumors now circulating that Obama plans to get immigration "reform" by a presidential executive order. There's enough concern that eight GOP senators wrote to Obama warning him against it.

They said such a move "would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government."

Confidence? Hah! More than 80 percent of Arizona citizens support the new law. Upward of 70 percent of the country supports the Arizona law.

Fremont, Neb., last week passed a referendum making it illegal to rent to or hire illegal aliens. Kris Kobach, the attorney who help draft that ordinance, also helped craft the Arizona law and has won court battles defending similar laws in Arizona, Missouri and Nebraska.

Americans are furious that Obama sided with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in criticizing Arizona and even more furious now that Mexico has petitioned American judges to void the Arizona law.

And the bad news continues – with reports of increasing numbers of illegals from Muslim countries crossing the Mexican border, with increasing drug trafficking and weapon smuggling, with the discovery of another tunnel under the border, with confirmation that the "teen boy" shot and killed by the Border Patrol after rock throwing attacks, had a long, border criminal record including deportations.

Despite this, the Border Patrol has to pay for environmental damage resulting from its patrols and also has to contend with wildlife protection.

Yet, despite widespread calls to boycott Arizona, the AP reports at least 20 other states plan similar legislation.

If Obama tries to shove amnesty through despite public opinion, his head will spin at the reaction he'll get. It won't be pretty.

Arizonans wanted protection. Who knew it would provide the flashpoint to protect the country? Good for them!

Racism Runs Rampart in the Obama Administration (August 2, 2010)

It appears that the Department of Justice has implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black based on actions taken by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission is requesting further information from the Department of Justice based on credible allegations that the DOJ is afflicted by a "culture of hostility" toward prosecuting black perpetrators of voting-rights violations against white victims.

J. Christian Adams, a recent top trial attorney in the voting section of the DOJ, testified before the Commission that former DOJ attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that "the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”

Adams pointed out that over the past 45 years, the department has brought hundreds of cases against whites violating the rights of ethnic-minority voters, but only two cases against blacks violating the rights of whites.

Adams resigned from the department after he was ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won – the notorious New Black Panther Party intimidation of voters in a majority-black precinct in urban Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.

Amateur videographers had caught New Black Panther Party activists on video wielding a baton, intimidating the elderly black man serving as the Republican poll watcher and calling for the murder of white babies in their cribs. Klee’s Kaleidoscope previously posted the video on its website. See below.

One of the four New Black Panther Party members charged in the case is also an elected Democrat holding a local office.

When they were ordered to drop the case, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

Adams claimed that the decision to drop the case was made by Obama political appointees, and that the decision to drop a case that was already won was "unprecedented."

The full story is reported in World Net daily at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=175729

YouTube Video: "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly"

Five Ways the Obama Administration Has Made the Gulf Oil Crisis Worse (August 2, 2010)

By John Hawkins

The oil spill in the Gulf AKA Obamatrina has been a disaster for everyone involved. Millions of ordinary people who did nothing wrong are taking a huge economic hit, it's a genuine environmental disaster, BP may end up going bankrupt over the whole disaster, and Obama's incompetence has been so galling that even Democratic apparatchik's like James Carville and Chris Matthews are criticizing him publicly.

The political beating Obama has taken over the spill has been entirely appropriate. After all, this is a far left-wing President who believes in inserting the Federal Government into EVERYTHING because he thinks there's nothing they can't do better than the private sector. Run the banks? Run the auto-companies? Student loans? Health care? You name it and Barack Obama wants the government to control it.

Of course, the government can't handle any of those industries any better than they can this oil spill, but there's the rub: This time, there's no waiting. People are getting to see the failure of government in the Gulf in real time. Here's a test of the government's preparation and competence that can be judged by a simple standard: How long will it take them to "plug the damn hole" and get the mess cleaned up? Answer: Apparently, a long, long, long, long time.

Yet, what is Obama primarily being criticized for? His inability to even pretend that he cares more about the Gulf than his golf game. His creepy autocratic demand that BP give him 20 billion dollars to use... instead of staying within the law of the land. His disengagement. His flat emotionless response to this disaster. His inability to make any significant progress, even though he has admitted that his Administration, not BP, is calling all the shots.

While these are all valid grounds for criticism, there's another area where Obama has actually been getting much more of a pass than he deserves: His administration has greatly hindered the clean-up efforts in the Gulf. In other words, there are businesses that have been ruined, people's livelihoods lost, and beaches that have oil on them today as a direct result of the Obama Administration's incompetence. It's a real world example of Ronald Reagan's famous quotation, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm fr... Here's some of the "help" the Obama administration has provided to the Gulf states in the aftermath of this crisis:

Why Won't Obama Waive the Jones Act? Waiving the Jones Act would make it easier for "foreign vessels to move in U.S. waters and between ports." This is quite significant, since the "State Department acknowledges it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries." Getting that help could have been the difference between skimming off the oil at sea and seeing that same oil wash up on American beaches. George Bush waived the Jones Act during Katrina, so why hasn't Barack Obama followed his lead? Whatever his reasoning may be, the consequences of his inaction have been rather severe.

Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) pressed the president on the Jones Act during a recent face-to-face meeting. LeMieux said the action would signal America's allies that their help is wanted. Given the dire situation in the Gulf, what's the harm? Two other members from Florida, Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and John Mica (R), said their state is suffering while skimmers sit idle. At a hearing on Thursday, Brown held up photos of vessels in Mexico and Norway, asking, "What is the process for the state to take advantage of skimmers from other countries?"

Mica trained his criticism on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to mobilize the entire American fleet. "U.S.-flag vessels have the capacity to bolster the current oil skimming and removal taking place in the Gulf of Mexico," he said. "Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen oil products wash up on the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida while vessels, which could have been pressed into service, sit idle. This is unacceptable."

Perhaps the real problem Obama has with waiving the Jones Act is that it would be an acknowledgement of the obvious truth: That government regulations often slow the private sector down and get the way. When you're a liberal who has never seen a regulation that you don't like, that can be a hard admission to make.

The Louisiana Sand Berms: Louisiana has been trying to build sand berms to keep oil away from their coastal marshes, where it would obviously cause a lot of environmental damage. Rather bizarrely, after dragging their feet about approving the sand berms, The Obama Administration has told Louisiana to stop building the sand berms because they might cause environmental damage. In other words, their logic is that Louisiana needs to allow oil to permeate their coastal marshes in order to prevent possible environmental damage. No wonder Bobby Jindal is pleading for, "the federal government to get out of the way."

16 Crude Sucking Barges Taken Out Of Action By The Feds: Believe it or not, the Coast Guard actually stopped 16 crude-Sucking Barges from siphoning up oil in order to make sure "there were fire extinguishers and life vests" on the ships. Had Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal not pitched a fit to the media and called the White House, those barges might still be sitting around today, waiting for some Coast Guard bureaucrat to allow them to get back to work.

Government Delays Hamstring Alabama: Alabama Governor Bobby Riley's biggest hurdle in dealing with the oil spill has apparently been the Coast Guard,

As an example, (Riley) said a Coast Guard plan for protecting the Alabama shoreline has been held up for 45 days because another member of the committee is reviewing it. "You can't continue to do that. We're going to have to have one person who makes the call on what we do and where," he said.

Imagine desperately needing to swing into to action to help safeguard your state and having some bureaucrat strangling you in red tape for 45 days. But wait, it gets worse.

Riley, who has quietly lobbied for weeks for more oil-blocking barriers called booms, said the Coast Guard wrongly decided to remove miles of boom from Alabama and Mississippi last week and take it to Louisiana after large amounts of oil began hitting that state. Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press during a three-state conference on hurricane planning, Riley said the decision meant wetlands, estuaries and beaches on the northern Gulf Coast are more at risk from the oil that began hitting their coasts in reddish-brown globs on Tuesday.

The Coast Guard wrongly believed floating booms could be returned to their original positions and used along with oil-removing boats called skimmers to keep oil off the coasts, Riley said, and the agency has held up approving the use of hundreds of private boats to remove oil.

If you think this is bad, just wait until the American people get to experience this sort of bureaucracy in action as the government takes over America's health care.

Deploying Only A Tiny Percentage Of Skimmers: As of a week ago, only 1/100th of the skimmers in the United States were deployed to help clean up the Gulf oil spill. Here's what Florida GOP Sen. George LeMieux had to say about this from the floor of the Senate:

“61 days ago is when the tragedy started. We are here 61 days later, we still have this tremendous pouring of oil from the bottom of the sea floor into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the amount of oil that is coming into the gulf now equals the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill every 2 1/2 days.

“ ...Last week -- a week ago tomorrow, I met with the President of the United States and Admiral Allen in Pensacola.

“At that time, I raised the issue of skimmers. Why are there so few skimmers in the Gulf of Mexico? Why were there only at that time 32 skimmers off the coast of Florida?

“...And I'll come to the floor tomorrow to talk about that in more detail. But the state of affairs is that there are only now 20 skimmers off the coast of Florida for.

“When there were 32 last week, there are now just 20.

"While there are 2,000 skimmers available in the United States alone. That number comes from Admiral Allen.

“I spoke to Admiral Allen last week, along with my colleague from Alabama, senator Sessions, and we said, where are the skimmers?

“I showed him information like I have here today which is the Deepwater Horizon response report from the incident command in the state of Florida.

“Then it showed 20 skimmers.

“Today it still shows 20 skimmers.

“And I asked him to reconcile this for me. If we're asking for all these skimmers, if we're calling for all of them to come here, where are they?

“The response is anemic, at best.

“So, Mr. President, today I've sent a letter to Admiral Allen asking for an inventory of the 2,000 skimmers that he has said are available in the United States of America.

“Now, when I talked to the President and Admiral Allen about this last week, they said, look, some of these skimmers are not available because we may need them for an oil spill. Well, we have an oil spill.”

It wasn't so long ago that Obama said, the Gulf Oil Spill "echoes 9/11."

Yet, the Obama administration is holding back all those skimmers in case there's a real emergency? I guess we're lucky Obama wasn't President when 9/11 happened or he'd probably still be trying to figure out who to bow to and where Afghanistan is on a map between games of golf.

A Victory for All Americans (July 26, 2010)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Calling it ‘a victory for all Americans’, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) praised the recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court McDonald v. City of Chicago decision.

The ruling finds it unconstitutional for state and local governments to restrict individual gun rights of law-abiding Americans.

Hutchison and Tester led a bipartisan effort in Congress urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side in favor of individual gun rights and to strike down local restrictions.

Hutchison and Tester are Congress’ leading gun rights advocates. They said today’s decision gives all law-abiding American gun owners reason to celebrate.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families,” said Hutchison. “The Supreme Court once again sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments: the individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law abiding Americans, regardless where they live.”

“Today, we ensured that law-abiding folks have the same Second Amendment rights no matter where in America they live,” said Tester, co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “This decision is a major victory for America’s gun owners and I’ll keep fighting hard to protect our gun rights.”

Hutchison and Tester wrote and delivered a 59-page friend-of-the-court brief to the Court last October for McDonald v. City of Chicago.  The document, which argued for inherent individual gun rights under the Second Amendment, included signatures from 309 senators and representatives from both parties—more members of Congress than any friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. history.

Hutchison and Tester also led a successful effort in Congress to support gun rights in the landmark Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia.  That case overturned Washington, D.C.’s longstanding ban on firearms 5-to-4.

The 5-4 decision is scary in that one more liberal on the Court would have changed the result. Keep an eye on how the Senate votes on Kagan’s nomination and vote out of office anyone who votes in favor of her nomination.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010 (July 26, 2010)

I’d like to see Obama and the Democrats push this one through Congress.

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms

B. Six Two year House terms

C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2.  No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. 

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. 

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Snopes Fox Fit to Guard Hen House? (July 26, 2010)

By Sibyl West, Texas Insider Report

So now we learn that David Axelrod has a military chauffeur.  Axelrod, the man who invented astroturfing, has been the man at President Obama’s right elbow from the get-go. In addition to the familiar SEIU rent-a-mob often pictured in the state run media, astroturf is also a technique of layering seemingly different entities that actually have the same source. 

And, they often speak off of the same talking points with the goal of:

   1. Shaping public opinion, or

   2. Covering up the facts, actions & motivations they do not want the public to know.

In other words, shaping public opinion. Marxists everywhere know that if you control a man’s opinions, you can control his convictions, his actions and his life.

For this purpose we find entities like True/Slant, FactCheck.com, About.com and Snopes.com. I have long suspected Snopes as being unreliable without being able to put my finger on the exact reason, other than I knew nothing about the people who own it.

In a dangerous world I have learned: “Don’t trust until you verify.”

But now that we know their names, who are David & Barbara Mikkelson? What are their political convictions? And who gave them the power to affirm or deny every piece of information that exists?

Exhibit A – Is the owner of Snopes.com a liberal? (Nov 27, 2008)

Over at RenewAmerica.com Donald Hank takes a shot (figuratively, of course) at ferreting out how reliable they are and finds them wanting.

Snopes.com has been accused of being run by a “flaming liberal.” But now a defender of Snopes, about.com, has rushed to their aid, writing a story about how conservatives have attacked poor Snopes.     [...]

First, there is something you should know about About.com. As clearly stated at the bottom left of their home page, they belong to the New York Times, a news outlet most Americans have said they don’t trust and that is demonstrably far left. Hardly inspiring of confidence. Frankly, the reader should be questioning About.com a whole lot more than snopes.com, although the fact that about.com is defending snopes is to snopes’ discredit.

Beyond that, there are little clues that stand out everywhere in the article appearing on Snopes itself and quoted at About.com. For example, if you look up the stuff about Obama’s nationality, you find that they print a version that accentuates the silliest claims in order to make the reasonable ones seem silly too. That is what we call a red herring. The Left is very adept at this tactic.

Yes indeed. Read the whole article. Hank is very well reasoned and he ends by saying this:

Conclusion: be wary of Snopes. I don’t necessarily think they lie, but they present conservative emails in a very unfavorable light, so unfavorable that it is hard to call their presentation objective.

Exhibit B – Snopes: Reliably Liberal & Liberally Unreliable – Ace of Spades

I’m not sure if I ever posted the German brothel story — a story about women being told they might have to take jobs as sex-workers (i.e., whores) or lose welfare benefits — but if I did, I guess I have to note that Snopes “debunks” the story.

But a sharp-eyed reader of National Review’s The Corner debunks that debunking, and notes that Snopes is hopelessly left-leaning.

Ace’s language is, generally speaking, a bit raw, but I agree with him when he says, “So, read Snopes at your own risk. For urban legends and email scams, it’s a great site. For anything having to do with politics, it’s a lefty spin-site.”

Exhibit C – In good company?

David and Barbara Mikkelson appeared along with the atheist Richard Dawkins in the 2005 “documentary” film The God Who Wasn’t There. (Full cast list here.) The teaser line is:

“Did Jesus exist? This film starts with that question, then goes on to examine Christianity as a whole.  A bold, eye-opening and hilarious film!”

There are no photos and no bio whatsoever available of these two on this site.

Exhibit D – Snopes Exposed

This email, which I received, is literally all over the internet, presented by those both for and against its viewpoint.  It has been read on the air on conservative talk shows. The author Alan Strong is actually listed on TechServe Executive Board of Directors 2010.

In any case, here are some excerpts:

For the past few years http://www.snopescom has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email.  But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding.  Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?     [...]

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ’supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claimed to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com.  In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place.     [...]

Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose and agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock!

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more.     [...]

Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to YouTube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things.  So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.     [...]

What Works and What Doesn’t (July 19, 2010)

By Congressman John Carter

In 1986 the United States suffered from millions of illegal aliens who had infiltrated our largely unguarded southern border, with hundreds of thousands more pouring in each year.  Most were folks looking for work, but some were drug dealers and criminals.

“Comprehensive immigration reform” was touted as the only realistic solution to the problem.  We were falsely told our only option was between the extreme of mass deportation or the granting of amnesty for virtually all the illegal aliens in the country followed by creation of a “more reasonable” immigration and guest worker program to reduce illegal immigration in the future.

So we passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, granting legal status and a pathway to citizenship to 2.8 million illegal aliens in the country. An additional 400,000 late filers were granted amnesty in 2000. To top things off, we are now allowing up to 1 million LEGAL immigrants per year into the United States – more than all other nations on earth COMBINED. 

How has it worked out?

There are now more than 12 million illegal aliens in America, with estimates of a million more pouring across the border each year.  Phoenix is second only to Mexico City as the kidnapping capitol of the world.  Outgunned and outnumbered American lawmen are being shot to death defending our border, and U.S. citizens are being murdered on their ranches by criminal aliens.

Houston is on terror alert after radical Islamists with ties to Al Qaeda successfully infiltrated our Texas border, and smuggled across an estimated 200 Somali illegal aliens who have spread across the country and disappeared.

So now that there is solid empirical evidence that “comprehensive immigration reform” – amnesty – is an absolute failure and only makes matters incredibly worse, what do Democrats and the White House propose as a solution in 2010?

More “comprehensive immigration reform” – amnesty.

The federal government under the past five Presidents has failed to secure the lawless southern border, or to enforce the law against those who have willfully broken it.  If we are to remain a sovereign nation, we must secure our borders.  The only question is how best to do so.

We don’t need to speculate.  We’ve had security problems with our southern border ever since we’ve had a southern border, and we know what works and what doesn’t from experience. What has worked in every instance is a deployment of troops and security personnel in numbers comparable to what we have deployed on other troubled borders around the world.

The U.S. Army maintained dozens of active bases on the border with Mexico to combat Apache attacks, cross-border cattle raids, and general unrest until the close of the Geronimo campaign in 1886, after which around 50 camps and posts were decommissioned.

However, the Army remained as a safeguard against border lawlessness, with up to 30,000 troops including the famed 10th Cavalry “Buffalo Soldiers” stationed at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and other border posts.

The border turned increasingly deadly again after the Mexican Revolution of 1910 broke out, with American soldiers in the trenches outside Douglas, Arizona in 1915 to block either of two opposing Mexican armies in the Battle of Agua Prieta from coming across the border. 

Then when Mexican gunmen under Pancho Villa crossed our border in 1916 and killed 17 American civilians in a raid on Columbus, New Mexico, the U.S. Army under General Blackjack Pershing mounted the Mexican Expedition to restore order, taking a force of 12,000 American soldiers into Mexico itself for a year to destroy Villa’s ability to mount future attacks inside the United States. 

The U.S. Army battled Villa’s army again in 1919, when 3,600 American troops defended El Paso after Villa’s forces fired into the city from across the border in Juarez. U.S. infantry, cavalry, and artillery immediately counter-attacked into Juarez and beyond, routing Villa and his forces and permanently ending his threat to the United States.

President Woodrow Wilson deployed a total of 100,000 U.S. Army and National Guard troops over the period to restore order – and they did. 

20,000 U.S. soldiers remained on border duty through the 1920’s, allowing time for the U.S. Border Patrol to be formed in 1924 and gradually assume control of the border from the Army.

The Border Patrol does a great job maintaining order as long as they are given sufficient manpower for the job at hand.  From the 1920’s into the 1960’s the job was primarily preventing illegal immigration, which was not the epidemic it is today.  When illegal immigration got out of hand in the 1950’s at the close of the Bracero guest worker program, the Border Patrol alone was able to remove an estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants without military involvement. 

Interestingly, at one point during that program, the Mexican government provided a bulwark against their workers entering the U.S. without a valid employment contract in order to ensure Mexican citizens received fair pay and working conditions.  How Mexico City has changed its policies over the years!

But with the advent of drug smuggling and mass illegal immigration starting in earnest in the 1960’s, our Border Patrol has simply been overwhelmed.  They do a phenomenal and professional job, they simply lack the manpower resources to secure 2,000 miles of border.

Based on over a century-and-a-half of border history, it is an indisputable fact that a sufficient deployment of an armed force will secure our border.  How many is sufficient?  There is existing data that answers that question.

Obviously the 100,000-man 1916 deployment under Blackjack Pershing would be enough, but research says that with modern technology and the improved infrastructure available today less than half that many would get the job done.

Our military is already re-engaged.  Since 1989, the Department of Defense Joint Task Force-North (JTF North) – a combined force from all branches of our military – has provided surveillance and control services in drug-interdiction efforts with our Border Patrol, DEA, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies operating along the border. (JTF North was formally JTF-6)

The Border Patrol has already demonstrated that with proper manpower the border can be secured, first in 1993 with Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, followed by Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego in 1994.   In each demonstration project, the number of deployed agents was dramatically increased to man forward observation posts on the border, with each post in sight of the next, and with backup teams at the ready for pursuit and apprehension of illegal crossers.  Wherever the mass deployments were conducted, illegal crossings virtually ceased.

When the Minuteman organization sent volunteers into the Arizona desert in 2005 as border watchers, wherever their volunteers were in place at the rate of around 6 per mile illegal crossings were eliminated, according to Border Patrol officers on the scene.

Taking all the data into consideration, a deployment of somewhere between 25-to-50,000 troops would secure our 2,000 mile southern border immediately.   Cost estimates range around $3 billion per year, a small fraction of the current $78 billion taxpayer cost of illegal immigration, even after counting tax payments by illegal workers.

These manpower numbers are well within the range of similar current deployments.  28,000 U.S. troops are helping guard South Korea’s 151-mile border with North Korea, and have been there since 1950.  The U.S. Army is helping Iraq put a 45,000 man border force in place to patrol its 2,200 miles of border.

In homeland security missions, 70,000 troops were deployed for Hurricane Katrina by President Bush.  President Obama has authorized 17,500 so far for the BP oil spill.  Isn’t the security of our own border as important as any of these missions? 

President Bush gave lip service to the idea in 2008 for political purposes with his deployment of 6,000 National Guard for a year under Operation Jump Start.  President Obama is doing the same with an even less-serious number of 1,200 National Guard this year.  Our National Guardsmen performed their every assigned duty flawlessly, but under manpower and rules of engagement restrictions that made securing the border an impossibility.

The Obama proposal is destined for the same results as the Bush deployment – a photo op for the White House, with no improvement in border security.

The reason is well-defined in a 2007 Heritage Foundation report on securing the border with troops.  There must be a sufficient number, and they must be deployed together as a massed force to be effective.  A gradual buildup, or securing only targeted areas while other parts of the border are permanently ignored, does not work.

We need 25,000 troops deployed immediately to stop the madness on our southern border.  That figure probably needs to jump to around 50,000 for the long haul.  After the border is absolutely secured against illegal entry, we can consider handing duties back to a greatly enhanced Border Patrol sector-by-sector as conditions permit.

The historical evidence and current data is indisputable.  “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” will make our border less secure.  A massed troop deployment will absolutely secure it.

All the data is not even necessary to recognize reality.   People are coming across our border en masse illegally – workers, drug dealers, human traffickers, and even potential terrorists in a time of war.  What we do with illegal workers currently in our country has nothing to do with stopping that.

There is not a single Al-Qaeda terrorist or drug-cartel member that will decide that if we’ve made it easier to live and work in the U.S., they will give up war or drug-running across our southern border.

If our borders are left open, it really doesn’t matter what we do about illegal immigration or guest workers, even at the extremes of mass deportation or blanket amnesty.  If we kick out those here illegally without securing our borders, they will walk right back in.   If we grant amnesty without securing our borders, tens of millions more will walk in expecting the same treatment, just as they did after the 1986 amnesty.

Congress need take no action.

The President can simply order the deployment immediately as Commander-in-Chief and stop the anarchy on our southern border within a few weeks. If the President fails to do so, our Governors have been pre-authorized since 2005 to request the Department of Defense pay for calling up the National Guard at the state level for  homeland security duty.  One would assume that Al-Qaeda terrorists infiltrating our borders and setting up shop in Houston and elsewhere would be considered a legitimate national security concern that should be defended against.

In terms of national security, illegal immigration is only a symptom.  Our problem is our failure to secure our border for decades on end, through both Republican and Democrat Administrations and Congresses.  A nation that cannot secure its borders cannot survive. 

We know what works and what doesn’t to achieve that end. Now we only need discover whether we have the political will to do it.

14 Reasons Illegal Aliens Should Vacate America (July 19, 2010)

1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens. (that's a billion with a 'B' )

2. $2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. -

3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. 

4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English! 

5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. -

6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year. 

7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. -

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border.

12. The National Policy Institute estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families & friends. 

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!

Total cost: A whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!

If There Were No Illegal Immigrants (July 19, 2010)

Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, 'Mexican Visitor's Lament' that was published October 25, 2007. She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver. Hernandez said, 'They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?' Ms Griego did her due diligence, buried her nose as a reporter into the FACTS and wrote the following.

It's a good question - it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America ?

The answers she found may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs.

It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's unemployment rate would drop as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over-crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

America’s economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America's economy - which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.

Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico 's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from  Brownsville , Texas  to  San Diego, California  in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta  where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America 's new 'Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias.

(I've seen them personally in Texas and  Arizona ; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to  Mexico.  We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

Undercover Census Fraud Investigation – New Jersey (July 19, 2010)

by James O'Keefe

On April 27, 2010, I got a job with the United States Census Bureau in New Jersey. With a hidden camera, I caught four Census supervisors encouraging enumerators to falsify information on their time sheets. Over the course of two days of training, I was paid for four hours of work I never did. I was told to take a 70 minute lunch break, was given an hour of travel time to drive 10 minutes, and was told to leave work at 3:30pm. I resigned prior to doing any data collection but confronted Census supervisors who assured me, “no one is going to be auditing that that level,” and “nobody is going to be questioning it except for you.” Another Census supervisor only said he’d adjust my pay after I gave him a letter recanting my hours.

As to whether this is an “isolated incident” or if there are more Census videos showing more waste, fraud, and corruption, we’ll let you take a wild guess.

America, real journalism has been dead for a long time now. With $1500 Hannah Giles and I were able to break a story that the New York Times couldn’t have broken no matter how many times they mortgaged their building.  The government took our camera, so I bought another.  The government put us in jail and deleted our tapes, but we got out and we’ll just make more.  My travel was restricted to the state of New Jersey, so that’s where I got back to work. The media establishment is busy doing character assassinations on my friends and me but time and truth is on our side. Congress answered to our ACORN videos, now it will be up to the Department of Justice to explain why it edited out of a press release their admission we had no intent to tamper with Senator Landrieu’s phones. More importantly, it will be up to the Census Bureau to explain why their supervisors are systematically falsifying time sheets.

Exposing corruption requires standing up to power, because power hates sunlight. We should have known they would try and ruin the reputations of those who try and expose them. But in response, we are going to build an army of citizen investigators. There’s hundreds more where I came from.  You have awakened a sleeping giant. And you can’t ruin us all. In fact, in the coming months you will see this army expanding into every state, every statehouse, every city council, every school board, and everywhere people are conspiring to keep themselves in power, practice favoritism, or line their pockets with tax dollars.

This isn’t a political movement. This is a movement to clean up society through transparency and accountability. Corruption, dishonesty, waste, and secrecy are anathema to all Americans. I happen to love liberty but I will happily expose Democrats and Republicans, public and private sector… anyone who deserves it.

These days, Americans know that people in backrooms are taking advantage of their power. And they’re fed up with it. We are sunlight. All we’re going to do is continue to expose the truth, and then it’s up to democracy to decide the verdict. Have faith in Americans armed with the facts.

Every dishonest politician, bureaucrat, and business in America is now on notice. You are being watched.  Next time you try and take advantage of honest Americans, remember the person sitting in front of you just may have a camera or a microphone. America is watching. And if you’re cheating, stealing, or scamming, we will find you, we will film you, and we will make you an unwilling celebrity.

It Took a Czech to Say It (July 12, 2010)

This quote was translated into English from an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of 28 April 2010 – although I essentially said the same thing when Obama was first elected.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Elections have consequences, but as we are discovering, a country educated by the government is reaping far greater consequences. It is churning out generation after generation, each one more enamored with government and the possibilities of plunder. Government-run schools and tenured educators pose more of a long term threat to the safety and stability of this country than does Al Qaeda. It is exactly for this reason that correcting the damage caused by years of 'education' by the government-run system we now have will be a lot harder to overcome than any policy implemented by Obama or any attack on our country.

And remember Klee’s Law: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”   Thomas Jefferson

Still Not Convinced? (July 12, 2010)

By  Joseph A. Gamero

I have maintained from the word go, that Barry Soetoro is an empty suit, completely unqualified for the White House. He’s the fast-food of the presidency: great advertising, no substance. The last eighteen months or so have proven me right.

His policy of “appeasement” is a misnomer rather, his administration has a policy of surrender to the biggest, openly declared enemy the U.S. (the world) has ever had: Radical Islam.

He started with changing the name “war on terror” with “Overseas Contingency Operations.” What does that mean? A search brings this: con•tin•gen•cy (k n-t n j n-s )

1.

a. An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended; a possibility.

b. A possibility that must be prepared for; a future emergency.

2. The condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty.

3. Something incidental to something else.

In your opinion does that resemble at all the war on terror that is absolutely needed to defend the nation? Any corporation with branches overseas will have “overseas contingency operations” without firing a shot, nor protecting a single American life. It sounds more like capitulation to me.

Then, he gave the first foreign interview to an Islamic TV Network, followed by a trip to Egypt where he profusely apologized for all the atrocities committed by the “Great Satan” such as saving Europe from the most evil man of the 20th century until Stalin help defeat his competition; or preventing the Sovietization of the rest of Europe and the rest of the world; or implementing the Marshal plan without which, Europe might have taken many more decades to recover from WWII, not to forget the fact that the U.S. has always been the first nation to respond to world disasters by sending the best equipment, man power and supplies available coupled with the fact that the people of the U.S. are the most generous donors in the world when it comes to charity. I almost forgot to mention the many men and women of the U.S who unselfishly gave lives and limbs to save others.

Mortal sins indeed, and about, time an apology was offered, what took you so long? The man who promised that dialogue with the enemy would solve all the problems of the world, has gotten America in the worst position ever, vis-à-vis international relations.

Iran is getting offensive nuclear weapons with which it WILL destroy Israel if allowed. It has been clearly stated as their goal and the stupidity and appeasing naiveté of the rather lefty European governments, is now matched by the soon to be Communist America.

The ex-most powerful nation in the world is the laughing stock of those who hate it; there’s no fear, there’s no respect.

Oh well, not to worry, on the domestic front he’s doing much better. Remember his campaign as the Unifier; the One who would end patronage; the One who would bring transparency to Washington? Well, his transparency begins with his display, for everyone to see, of his long form live birth certificate; continues with his full disclosure of his records and the same with his ties and connections with the worst elements of the America-hating extreme left. Let me spell it out in case any of you has any doubts: most of his appointees and pretty well all of his backers are radical Socialists/Marxists/Communists. So much for ending patronage.

A serious investigation of where his donations came from and the use to which they were put, could prove very interesting.

Let’s face it the man is a puppet of Soros, big Unions, Islamic Heads of State, etc. His appointments are dictated to him and he has no choice, because that was the original deal. That was why they got him elected. Americans still don’t know why him and his wife are no longer licensed to practice Law and they are still keeping many secrets from their bosses, the American voters. I’m referring to the real, valid voters not all the people that ACORN et al, registered as voters, illegally.

Barry changed the name of the War on Terror because he’s engaged in another war, more important to his agenda: the War on Capitalism, the War on the America of The Founding Fathers, the War on The Constitution of The United States of America. That “dreadful” document is an obstacle to surrendering America’s sovereignty in favour of One World Government.

Is the same with the currently existing laws on immigration (if applied), they are an obstacle to importing illegal immigrants who, once they become voters, Barry expect they’ll vote for him. That’s why loud-mouth useless Hillary, has announced the administration will sue Arizona for its new law.

Sue for what? It is almost identical to the federal law that has not been applied for a long time! I guess this is Barry’s a.k.a. Barack, interpretation of unifying the nation. There are more states every month, reclaiming their rights as per the constitution, as well as more and more talk about secession. Some unification! Unless the current Hypocrats are voted out in November, we will have two Americas, the Blue and the Red.

Let us look at the latest deed, the Gulf Coast arrangement between Soetoro and Hayworth. BP is not going to pay $20 billion for damages, you are! This sludge fund will come in handy for the current administration to help achieve its agenda. Rahm Emmanuel said it clearly: never let a serious crisis go to waste. Well, we do not know as yet what caused this so beautifully timed disaster to help the government push the cap-and-trade which would be the coup-de grace to the American economy. Barry’s string-pullers hope that out of desperation, the American people will accept to give-up their freedom in order to save their jobs, thus you have a dictatorship a la Hitler.

Speaking of which, preparations are already taking place to implement the most effective way of “behaviour modification” like the Nazis did in the 1930s. But I digress.

American Lawmakers were grilling Tony Hayworth of BP in an effort to look good in the eyes of the electorate and placing all the blame on the company. The furthest thing on my mind is to defend BP when I don’t have all the elements of judgement I need, but it occurred to me that no one questioned the inquirers about the real reason why the drilling was being done in such deep waters.

The answer is simple. The environazis of the extreme left, forced the issue by forbidding drilling closer to shore, where it would have been a breeze to plug any spill in no time flat. I guess the deal between Barry and Tony Hayworth was such that he had to take the insolence of the Hypocrats questioning him, without counter-attacking with the truth.

By-the-way, the Resident of the White House has placed a moratorium of further ocean drilling in U.S. waters, but is giving Brazil a $2 billion loan to do it on their waters. I guess that will truly make America self sufficient, ha? Kind of interesting to look at whom the shareholders of the beneficiary of that loan, PetroBrass, are. I’ve been informed that George Soros is one of them but I’m sure that’s pure coincidence. Or perhaps the re-distribution of wealth doesn’t apply to everyone.

Instead of a moratorium for six months, any honest administration would respond to the crisis by dismantling EPA and all the other crappie regulators that are destroying America; by cutting spending drastically and by reducing all taxes greatly. Instead, Obama has created over 400,000 temporary jobs for the census alone, further draining an already broken treasury. So much for the saviour!

Get the economy back on its feet quickly and you can get back the real America. I can’t wait until November to see if Americans got hold of their senses once more.
If it’s not been removed, I recommend watching this: http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103489477510&s=11617&e=001h5c...

If it doesn’t work, please cut & paste onto your browser.

If you had any doubts on what I’ve been writing about for the last couple of years, this article and video should change your mind.

God Bless,

Joseph A. Gamero

How Others Perceive Us (July 12, 2010)

From The London Daily Telegraph On Foreign Relations

"Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favour of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue."

One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain, presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963).

One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11.  He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.

The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America’s closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.

Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified." There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House," said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes.  Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable," Mr. Hughes said.

The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina’s specious claim to the Falkland Islands , a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British -- with strong support from President Ronald Reagan -- expelled them.

"It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him?" One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?

"I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. "A lot of hemming and hawing ensued." One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, "Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama."

Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend.  Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse. Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran. Syria’s support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea.

And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community.

They soon will.

 London Daily Telegraph, Alex Singleton, Editor

The Shameless Gall of the Current Marxist Administration (July 12, 2010)

By Joseph A. Gamero

Here. I’ve always called a spade, a spade and there’s no reason for me to change now. I’m amazed and appalled at the lack of honesty of the current administration.

Once more, The Usurper ran on the basis of uniting the country; ending corruption; ending patronage; working together with the opposition; etc., etc. Can anyone show me examples of his keeping any of those promises? I sure would be very grateful.

About one and one half years latter, the country is more divided than ever and showing, for the first time since the Civil War, signs of several states thinking of secession; corruption is at an all time high and with attempts to bring it into the SCOTUS; patronage seems to be the unofficial middle name of this administration and the POTUS has on several occasions refused to even meet with the opposition. Oh, I almost forgot, the country is on the verge of bankruptcy, while the POTUS takes his sweet time dithering about what to do with the biggest man-made ecological disaster in the history of the nation.

How conveniently timed was the Gulf “accident” to prop-up the most destructive environmental law ever envisioned by any American administration. If the progressives manage to pull it off, it will be the end of the U.S.A as we new it.

If this anti-American; anti-Christian; anti-Jewish administration is allowed to continue, Barry Soetoro will achieve his goal of becoming the long-term dictator his backers want him to be: King Barry (the I) and the first pro-Islam ruler of the ex-Republic.

Let's see. One of the first duties of any head of state is purely and simply to protect the borders of its nation against foreign invasions whether armed or just illegal immigration. Well, after the dereliction of duty by the current President and the Marxist-controlled Upper and Lower houses before him, the State of Arizona had no choice but to defend itself against the high crime brought about by the illegals and the drug cartel.

Other states have also passed laws, some of which truly encroach the federal (purposely un-enforced) existing laws. What do the federal cronies do? They challenge the only state which chose to mirror the federal law the closest!

It is my sincere wish that all Americans unite behind Governor Brewer and the people of Arizona to end this despicable charade of the Marxists in power federally.

You see, Barry chastises the Republicans for “not agreeing with comprehensive immigration reform.” Now, for those not yet familiar with Barry’s a.k.a. Barack’s lexicon, that means total amnesty for those who broke the U.S. laws by entering the country in a criminal manner. Never mind the unfairness of that move to those trying to follow the existing law and waiting for the government’s approval. It is fair to assume that those coming in legally are more likely to follow all laws and be productive members of society. The key operative word here is: illegal. Does Obama care?

Of course, there’s that tiny little expectation by the Marxists that, those who broke the immigration laws, will vote Democrat if nothing else, out of gratefulness for their pardon. I’m sure that is not the real motivation of the powers that be for the amnesty though.

Well, those of us who have been following the Obama saga have noticed the enormous and growing discontent of more and more legal citizens, thus the growth of the Tea Parties and other spontaneous demonstrations of disapproval of the out-of-control socialism being rammed down your collective throats.

President Soetoro came to power to bring America to the Socialist level of Europe except, the man and his lackeys and controllers are so out-to-lunch, they haven’t realized Europe is now suddenly moving to the right because its rampant Marxism hasn’t worked at all.

What the U.S. needs is a total reversal of policies; a condemnation of what was done in the past; a dismantling of all artificial barriers to growth that were built by the decades of Marxist domination; a limiting of the totalitarian powers of the Unions (at the hands of unscrupulous union bosses); a normalizing of the pensions and fringe benefits to a fair manageable and sustainable level; a drastic reduction of the public sector; a brutal reduction of the excessive taxation and a return to the principles, safeguards and checks-and-balances that the Founding Fathers put in place in anticipation of the kind of people who are now in and around the White House.

It is totally immoral that farmers in California do not have access to water for their fields, because another out-of control federal aberration wants to protect a few small fish. This is only an example of the kind of dictatorship Americans are enduring.

The Gulf devastating spill is Obama’s doing and a moratorium will not do America any good, rather, getting the government to do its duty and to perform its inspecting obligations, would have prevented the present situation. Sorry Barry, no blaming “Georgy” for this one.

Drill baby drill. Drill everywhere so America is independent of foreign oil. Control the abusive powers of the unions (or rather of the union bosses) and get back the legendary greatness of America to create, invent and manufacture as it did in the past when America was free of Marxism!

Get America back!

Judge Blocks Obama's Gulf Offshore Drilling Moratorium (July 5, 2010)

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge in New Orleans blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.

The White House promised an immediate appeal. President Barack Obama's administration had halted approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling of 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama believes strongly that drilling at such depths does not make any sense and puts the safety of workers "at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium, arguing it was arbitrarily imposed.

Feldman agreed, saying in his ruling the Interior Department seemed to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

"An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," Feldman wrote.

The moratorium was imposed after the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers and blew out the well that has spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf.

The Interior Department said it needed time to study the risks of deepwater drilling. But the lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La., claimed there was no proof the other operations posed a threat.

Company CEO Todd Hornbeck said after the ruling that he is looking forward to getting back to work.

"It's the right thing for not only the industry but the country," he said.

The moratorium was declared May 6 and originally was to last only through the month. Obama announced May 27 that he was extending it for six months.

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal and corporate leaders have said the moratorium will force drilling rigs leaving the Gulf of Mexico for lucrative business in foreign waters.

They say the loss of business will cost the area thousands of lucrative jobs, most paying more than $50,000 a year. The state's other major economic sector, tourism, is a largely low-wage industry.

In its response to the lawsuit, the Interior Department said the moratorium is necessary as attempts to stop the leak and clean the Gulf continue and new safety standards are developed

"A second deepwater blowout could overwhelm the efforts to respond to the current disaster," the Interior Department said.

The government also challenged contentions the moratorium will lead to long-term economic harm. Although 33 deepwater drilling sites were affected, there are still 3,600 oil and natural gas production platforms in the Gulf.

Catherine Wannamaker, a lawyer for environmental groups that intervened in the case and supported the moratorium, called the ruling "a step in the wrong direction."

"We think it overlooks the ongoing harm in the Gulf, the devastation it has had on people's lives," she said. "The harm at issue with the Deepwater Horizon spill is bigger than just the Louisiana economy. It affects all of the Gulf."

Index of National News publications available on this page

To read a particular article, simply click on the title below

Articles Published During the Last 6 Months

2011 Articles

2010 Articles