Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

THE OBAMANISTA REGIME’S SCAMS

February 1, 2009

Leave it to a Marine to call it as he sees it.

THE OBAMANISTA REGIME’S SCAMS, SCANDALS, CONTROVERSIES, LIES, DECEPTIONS AND EMBARRASSMENTS

Attorney General Eric Holder, revealed to be the man who, as Clinton’s deputy AG, was the driving force behind the sentence commutation of 16 murderous FALN terrorists.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm represents 17 Gitmo terrorists and he is a driving force behind the closing of Gitmo.

On Inauguration Day, Obama granted only ABC News an interview, after they paid him $2 million to sponsor his DC Neighborhood Ball.

After three days in office, Obama ordered an attack on homes in Pakistan. Twenty-one people were killed but only five were reported to have been terrorists; the rest of the incinerated and dismembered victims were children, their moms and dads, and other civilians, according to the New York Times, the AFP, the AP and many other news sources.

On 23 January 2009, Obama demanded that GOP leaders stop listening to Rush Limbaugh or else things would not go well for them during his regime.

William Lind, a powerful defense industry lobbyist, was appointed by Obama to be deputy defense secretary, despite all the rants and promises Obama made about never appointing a lobbyist to a position of power in his regime.

On 23 January 2009, Obama lifted the ban on federal tax dollars funding abortion mill operations in Third World countries where eugenics are now again used to control the population.

Two days after seizing power, Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo, making it clear that the comfort and happiness of the terrorists therein, and Europe’s opinion of us, are far more important than national security and the lives of American families.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to reveal all of the big foreign donors to her husband’s “foundation,” but the Washington Times says huge sums of money came from the People’s Republic of China via a secret 2006 stock transaction.

On 24 January 2009, despite his hundreds if not thousands of pledges and promises of total transparency in his regime, Obama held a secret closed-door meeting with his economic advisors as anger over his $1 trillion “economic stimulus” spending scheme, refusing to allow the media and American people access to what was discussed.

On 26 January 2009, Rep. John Boehner revealed that Obama and his Obamanistas in the Congress had added language in the Democrats’ stimulus bill that would allow Obama’s infamous voter fraud organization, ACORN, to receive billions of dollars in federal funding under the farcical guise of “neighborhood stabilization activities.”

On 26 January 2009, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, stated that the Obama regime seeks direct negotiations with the terrorist regime of Iran.

In a shocking insult to our military’s heroes, on 20 January 2009, Barack Obama became the first president in 56 years–since its inception–to skip the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which is held in honor of Medal of Honor recipients, Purple Heart recipients, paralyzed veterans and other military heroes. Obama did, however, find time to attend the Neighborhood Ball, which was filled with Hollywood’s ultra elite.

On 26 January 2009, with hat in hand and apologizing for the United States, Obama gave his first formal television interview as president not to an American network, but Al-Arabiya, saying America must stop “dictating,” a move and statement that was immediately seen by extremist Muslims as a sign of sure weakness and fear.

James B. Steinberg, whom Obama nominated to be deputy secretary of state, told the Foreign Relations Committee in writing that Americans have a free speech right guaranteed by the Constitution to taxpayer funded abortions.

On 26 January 2009, Timothy Geithner was sworn in as Obama’s secretary of the treasury despite having serious tax problems and having had an illegal alien housekeeper.

On 27 January 2009, Obama, for some reason confused, attempted to walk through a window to get back into the White House rather than using a door. There were no calls from liberals to have him take a urinalysis to determine why he did this.

The Obamanistas added $325,000,000 to the economic stimulus bill for a program to teach Americans how not to get the clap and other STDs. More additions:

The Obamanistas added $1.5 billion to run a contest to capture carbon.

The Obamanistas added $45 million for ATV trails.

The Obamanistas added $572 million to create 1,235 Coast Guard civilian jobs at $460K each.

The Obamanistas added $4 billion for Obama’s voter fraud unit that is under federal investigation for massive fraud.

The Obamanistas added $3.5 billion for new education facilities.

The Obamanistas added $200 million for DoD alternative energy vehicles.

The Obamanistas added $600 million for new government cars.

The Obamanistas added $134 million for hospices.

The Obamanistas added $50 million for the Endowment for the Arts.

The Obamanistas added $650 million for digital TV coupons.

Obama’s economic stimulus bill includes his plan to force all American to have their entire health care history recorded in a government electronic database that privacy experts say could result in your most private medical issues being shared and viewed by no-one-knows who.

After the House passed what conservative watchdog Michelle Malkin calls the Generational Theft Act of 2009 worth $1 trillion + in debt to the American people and loaded with leftist pork like $335,000,000 for training Americans how not to catch the clap, Obama, who promised to lead a “new era of responsibility,” served up $100/ounce wagyu steak for some pals at the White House as shocking numbers of American homeless and jobless struggled to survive.

On 19 May 2008, Obama chided Americans that it is wrong for them to keep their thermostats on 72 degrees and stated, “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.” On 21 January 2009, Obama’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, said Obama will be keeping the Oval Office thermostat so high that “You could grow orchids in there” because “He likes it warm.”

President Obama went to bat for accused USS Cole attack mastermind Abu al-Nashiri and told military judge James Pohl to postpone the terrorist’s trial. On 29 January 2009, Pohl refused the presidential order. The attack killed 17 American sailors and wounded several dozen.

On 29 January 2009, it was learned that despite his many repeated promises, Obama was stacking his regime with lobbyists, such as William Corr (finance industry) and Mark Patterson (anti-tobacco industry, despite Obama being a heavy smoker), in addition to William Lynn of the defense industry.

In January 2009, more than 1 million homes from Texas to Maine were without power after a winter storm; dozens of people died in the storm. Estimates for some areas said it could be two weeks or more before power would be restored. Obama did nothing to save lives and restore power, instead cranking up the heat in the Oval Office, according to David Axelrod, to tropical levels. No liberals complained about Obama total lack of response to the calamity, as they did after Katrina about Bush.

SOURCE

Has free-market capitalism died?

January 27, 2009

Always, and in  all ways  freedom and individual liberty will forever be the favorite whipping boy of those with a socialist bent. Populist’s, such as the new President are in bed with socialist on a number of issues that are directly related. Be that Gun Control, or taxation. However, the economy is currently at the forefront. Below, is an excellent expose of this better than thou attitude by those that are of the collectivist mind set.

Has free-market capitalism died?

Michael Miller

Who would have imagined 20 years ago — when the Berlin Wall fell and we celebrated the death of socialism — that capitalism would be under heavy fire? The cardinal of Westminster, Cormack Murphy O’Connor, reportedly said 2008 was the year when “capitalism died.”

What are we to make of capitalism in light of all the crises, fraud and government intervention, when even some traditional supporters of markets are supporting bailouts?

Before answering this question, it is important to note that “capitalism” is a Marxist term. It gives the impression that the market is a nebulous force. This impersonal understanding can lead us to blame markets when things go wrong instead of exploring reasons that are harder to diagnose.

Pope John Paul II rejected the term, preferring “market economy,” “business economy” or “free economy.” He did so to illustrate that markets are networks of human relationships. This sheds light on the underlying moral nature of markets.

Markets are the combined activities of millions of individuals. They are not composed merely of some guys on Wall Street; they are made up by us. Like anything else run by humans, markets can fail. If we become overly speculative and convinced that prices can go nowhere but up — as happened in the Tulip Bubble in 1637, the dot.com bubble in 2000 and the recent housing bubble — sooner or later reality will set in.

Despite their failures, however, free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and helped create prosperity and peace better than any system.

In these days of financial turmoil, we often hear critics speaking about deregulation or “unbridled capitalism.” But try to think of one country where there are no regulations. For free markets to succeed, they require a framework built on rule of law, contracts and secure property rights.

The real question is what kind of regulation and what level of intervention we should choose.

Many contributing causes of this crisis were an overly invasive government. Federal regulators required banks to provide mortgages to customers who could not pay back the loans; the Federal Reserve manipulated the money supply, exacerbating the housing boom; and politicians promised bailouts that created incentives for irresponsible behavior.

How many of us, out of greed, gluttony or pride, used credit cards to buy things we did not need or could not afford? What about Wall Street bankers who took imprudent risks with clients’ money? Markets cannot succeed without a strong moral fabric among the citizenry.

Yet we again hear calls for increased regulation and government involvement.

If we regulate too much, we concentrate the power of markets in fewer and fewer hands. This has led to all sorts of evil and corruption. Socialist economies, cartels, oligarchies and union-controlled industries produce stagnation and create incentives for corruption. It is a false hope to believe regulation will make everything right.

It is likewise delusional to believe markets alone are enough. Our Founders taught us that without virtue political liberty could not long be sustained. The same holds true for economic liberty. And yet without economic liberty there can be no political liberty. Like liberty, the market must be moral, or it cannot exist.

Michael Miller is director of programs at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids. E-mail letters to letters@detnews.com.

SOURCE

Hope ‘n’ Change: Reform, riffraff and rubbish, oh my!

January 23, 2009

Obamamania has swept the world — or so the Leftmedia would have us believe. Before the Anointed One uttered a word at his inauguration, The New York Times and The Washington Post were headlining polls that purported to show overwhelming support for the new president. The Times said, “Poll Finds Faith in Obama, Mixed With Patience.” Even the UK’s Daily Mail got into the act: “Obama can save us, says America as polls show wave of optimism sweeping the nation.” The Mail must have stopped with polling at NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN offices.

One couldn’t watch so much as the AFC championship football game on Sunday night without the halftime report by Katie Couric on what Barack Obama had for dinner (we couldn’t hear what she really said since the TV was muted). And while the morning shows found time last Friday to discuss such things as “Obama thongs,” President George W. Bush’s farewell speech was almost entirely ignored. All told, Obama’s inauguration received 35 times the coverage that his predecessor’s did. Indeed, the media’s behavior would make Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels proud.

As for new policy, considering Obama’s reforms in his first three days in office, we find little reason for optimism. Among his first acts behind the Oval Office desk was a phone call to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Obama soon set to work with other agenda items such as issuing an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year, as well as preventing CIA interrogators from using lawful techniques not found in the Army Field Manual, which assumes honorable combatants. Items to follow may include re-banning offshore drilling, getting Congress to allow open homosexuals to serve in the military by rescinding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” calling for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and working to make the expired federal “assault weapons” ban permanent.

Meanwhile, Wall Street was not optimistic Tuesday either, dropping 300 points, or four percent, to below 8,000 — the worst Inauguration Day drop in history.

For the inauguration itself, Washington, DC, officials reported that 1.8 million people came to the Mall and the surrounding areas for the ceremony. But how many were actually there? Washington officials claim to have gotten their 1.8 million number from The Washington Post, but the Post said that its analysis “concluded that about 1 million people were on the Mall.” An Arizona State University journalism professor tallied only 800,000 using satellite images.

What we do know is that the word “historic” was used approximately 1.8 million times during inauguration coverage, particularly in The New York Times. Oddly enough, the Times’ own style manual says, “Use [the word historic] with caution for a current event, because history’s verdict is rarely predictable by journalists, and the word suggests hyperbole.” Perhaps someone should have looked that one up beforehand.

However many Obamaphiles showed up, there was certainly enough trash to go around. Estimates are that visitors left 130 tons of garbage — and that was just on the Capitol steps! Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh dubbed it “Hurricane Latrina.”

SOURCE

Better than nothing…

January 20, 2009

President Bush still couldn’t get it right, but at least these two fine men will be out of prison soon.

full story

Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..?

January 18, 2009

Who elected Obama?

By Mark Alexander

Last week we answered the question “Who is Barack Obama” by posing questions that Obama did not answer during the presidential campaign. This week, we take a look at who voted for him.

Police mugshots of Obama constituents

On 20 January, Barack Hussein Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of our United States, according to our Constitution. However, his largest constituencies tend to view this event as either the coronation of the “royal one” or the ordination of the “holy one.”

Before we further define those constituencies, here, for the record, is a recap of the survey data concerning the presidential election.

Some 136.6 million Americans voted — a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO’s support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO’s largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves “lonely or isolated,” 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in “a major way,” and 61 percent of those who claim they are “stressed out” supported BHO.

So, considering the stats, the Democrats’ strategy of fomenting dissent and disunity by promoting themes of disparity was vital to Obama’s election. Indeed, the Left’s political playbook has only one chapter defining their modus operandi — “Divide-n-Conquer.” No wonder their national leadership calls itself the DnC.

Obama’s largest constituent groups fall under the general umbrella of “disenfranchised victims,” those who feel they are ethnically or economically handicapped. Other significant constituent groups are those who identify with the disenfranchised; this includes two small but highly ideologically influential groups, the economic and academic elite.

The disenfranchised victim groups and those who identify with them have a number of common characteristics. They have a low civic IQ and virtually no understanding of our Constitutional Republic and its heritage and legacy of liberty. They have fully bought into the “Politics of Disparity” or “class warfare.”

However, it is Obama’s small economic and academic elite constituencies who pose the greatest danger to that heritage of liberty. They neither know nor care any more about liberty than the disenfranchised legions with which they seek to identify. They are the “king makers,” those who have funded and charted Obama’s course to the coronation.

Some have made a lot of “easy money,” which explains why Obama received far more support from Wall Street than McCain. Others are inheritance-welfare liberals, those who value government welfare dependence because they were, themselves, dependent on inheritance throughout their formative years and never developed the character necessary to succeed on their own initiative.

Whether fast money or inheritance, neither group has direct contact with the unwashed masses other than those who keep their homes, offices and imported autos clean and in good repair. This utter dependence upon the low end of the “service sector” is perhaps the source of the insecurities that drive them to identify with the masses.

Obama’s academic elite are just as insecure, but they are driven by ideology. They are Leftists, Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas. Regular readers of this column will recognize them as “Useful Idiots” for their advocacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Like Obama, they reject constitutional authority and subscribe to the errant notion of a “Living Constitution”.

Among Obama’s Left elite are such Marxist radicals as Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

There are some characteristics that are common to many BHO supporters among both the disenfranchised and the elite.

Obama’s cult-like following among these constituencies is not the result of deception. In fact, it can be attributed to something much more subtle and, potentially, sinister, with far more ominous implications for the future of liberty.

Most of Obama’s supporters identify with some part of his brokenness, his dysfunctional childhood and his search for salvation in the authority of the state. The implications of this distorted mass identity are grave, and its pathology is well defined.

Another common characteristic is that liberals tend to be very emotive. Ask them about some manifestation of their worldview — for example, why they support candidates such as Obama or Hillary Clinton and they will likely predicate their response with, “Because I feel…”

On the other hand, ask conservatives about what they believe or support, and they invariably predicate their response with, “Because I think…”

So, the once great Democrat Party has now devolved into constituencies who view the inaugural as either a coronation or an ordination.

Of course, all the MSM print and tube outlets are fawning over BHO and calling next Tuesday’s inaugural “historic.” Well, it’s not often that I agree with the paper media and 24-hour news cycle talkingheads, but this is truly a historic inauguration — historic for several reasons.

First, never before has such an ill-prepared president-elect been sworn in as president. Second, never before has a more liberal president-elect been sworn into office. And third, never before has a candidate had so little regard for the constitutional oath he is taking.

Oh, and some suggest this election is historic because half of the president-elect’s genetic heritage is African — and here I thought Bill Clinton was our first “black president.”

It is no small irony that the day before Obama’s inauguration, the nation will pause to honor Martin Luther King. In 1963, King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his most famous oration, the most well known line from which is, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But Obama and his party have divided the nation into constituency groups judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual character King envisioned.

Perhaps the most famous line from any Democrat presidential inaugural was uttered by John F. Kennedy in 1961. He closed his remarks with these words: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Barack Obama and his party have turned that clarion call on end, suggesting that their constituents should “ask what your country can do for you.”

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will take an oath “to support and defend the Constitution”, but he has no history of honoring our Constitution, even pledging that his Supreme Court nominees should comport with Leftist ideology and “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.”

Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office?

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –George Washington

source

Gun Salesman of the year!

January 17, 2009

Outdoor Wire Names Obama “Gun Salesman of the Year” By Jim Shepherd Jan 14, 2009 – 7:22:08 AM In recognition of the unprece­dented demand for firearms by nervous consumers, The Outdoor Wire has named President-elect Barack Obama its “Gun Salesman of the Year”. For me, it was a simple fact of recognizing that without President-elect Obama’s frightening consumers into action, the firearms industry might be suffering the same sort of business slumps that have befallen the automotive and housing industries. It’s credit where credit is due. Mr. Obama has consistently voted against individual rights to firearms, appointed a re-tread Clinton administration full of gun banners, and made it plain to anti-gun groups that despite what he might say to the contrary, he’s on their side That history, along with the unquestioned support of anti-gun organizations has spooked consumers into a buying frenzy for firearms that could be outlawed in another Assault Weapons Ban. Manufacturers are months behind on orders for semi-automatic pistols, AR-style rifles, and anything with so-called ‘high-capacity magazines, buyers we’ve surveyed across the country seem to have a single explanation for their rush to purchase firearms – Obama. The buying panic is not limited to people you might be described as aficionados or even ‘gun nuts’. Recently, I was in a gun store when a gentleman came and said he’d never wanted to own a gun before, but wanted to get one while he still could.” Since the November Presidential election, firearms sales have been at unprecedented levels. For December 2008 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) recorded a twenty-four percent increase in background checks for 2008 (1,523,426) over December 2007 (1,230,525). This follows a forty-two percent (42%) increase in November 2008, the highest number of NICS checks in the system’s history. Those FBI background checks are required under federal law for all individuals purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearms retailers. In other words, gun sales have never been better. Sales are so good that on Tuesday, January 6, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a notice to all federal firearms licensees that “an unprecedented increase in demand for ATF Form 4473 had run supplies low enough that dealers were temporarily given permission to photocopy the form until supplies caught up with demand. Completion of a form 4473 is required whenever a federal firearms licensee sells a fire­arm.

Stolen From

Another “Top” list

January 12, 2009

I just knew that there had to be more top (ten) lists. Either for this past year, or for the new year. I found another one, and it is great!

2008 in review: Top questions Barack Obama did not answer

By Mark Alexander

Perhaps you’ve noticed an abundance of “Top Ten” lists in recent weeks. As usual, the mainstream media has churned out a variety of year-in-review pieces of late. Two events vied for top billing on all those lists — the financial meltdown and the presidential election. At present, it isn’t clear which of those debacles presents the greater threat to our nation.

The factors leading up to the economic collapse in the last two quarters are clear (see Economics 101). What is not clear, however, is whether we can limit the damage to a mere recession.

On the other hand, we have learned that Barack Hussein Obama (as he prefers to be named for his oath of office) is a charismatic master of deception and deflection. What we haven’t learned, therefore, are the answers to a plethora of questions about his citizenship, his mentors, his faith, his worldview, and his tragic childhood — a childhood which gave rise to the pathological narcissism that launched his political career and guides him to this day.

Not that many of those questions weren’t asked. Plenty of them were posed in our profiles of Obama but were met with obfuscation, prevarication and equivocation.

Who is this guy?

So, who is this guy?

In one sense he answered that question in his political autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope”: “I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

That explains who he is in the glassy eyes of his messianic following, but who is he really? Who is Barack Hussein Obama, the president-elect of the United States of America?

In pursuit of an answer, I have compiled a list of some important questions directed at BHO that he did not answer in 2008.

Where to start … how about the beginning: Are you a natural-born citizen, as constitutionally prescribed in Article II, Section 1 and Amendment XX, Section 3, for the office of president?

When the question of citizenship came up a year ago, I presumed that this issue was a “straw man” — that your strategy was to send some adversaries on a rabbit trail to nowhere, only to release your official birth certificate just prior to the election. But you didn’t do that.

I believe that you were born in Honolulu, but I have been to the hospital where you were, ostensibly, born, and they could not produce any birth records or tell me who the attending OB might have been. Of course, 1961 is many years past.

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle has sealed your on-file birth records, making them unavailable for verification. You refuse to request that the documents in question be made available for examination by dispassionate analysts.

To obtain a driver’s license, one has to provide some proof of citizenship — so why did you not comply as a presidential candidate? Surely you can influence the state of Hawaii to release your original birth certificate for public inspection, so this lingering question can be put to rest before your inauguration.

We know that you hold constitutional rule of law in contempt, but in the unlikely event that it is revealed sometime after your inauguration that you are not a natural-born citizen, we would be faced with a serious constitutional crisis. When do you plan to release your original birth certificate?

Moving on, given your strange childhood and broken family (similar to that of Bill Clinton, the last unmitigated narcissist to occupy the White House), you indicated that your primary childhood mentor was a communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

How did his mentorship shape your understanding of the role of government and economics?

You claim that you never heard any of the anti-American and black-supremacist rants of your mentoring pastor, Jeremiah Wright. However, you spent 20 years in Wright’s church, he officiated at your marriage and the baptism of your children, and you identified him as a “father” figure.

Is it possible that you have been so steeped in his racist rhetoric and hatred for America that you failed to recognize it for what it was?

You claim that terrorist William Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood,” and that you were “just eight years old when he was a terrorist.” However, you were 34 when Ayers used his radical celebrity to launch your political career from his living room. You were 40 when this unrepentant terrorist was featured in a New York Times article (on the morning of September 11, 2001) and quoted in the opening paragraph proclaiming, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers added, “America makes me want to puke.” You were working on your second major “philanthropic” project with Ayers at that time, and when interviewed for your first Senate run, you claimed that your primary qualification for public office was your role with the ultra-Leftist Annenberg Foundation — an appointment that you received from Ayers.

So, what is the real nature of your relationship with Ayers?

Regarding your ties to the Socialist New Party, the ACORN crowd, Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga and other haters, hard Leftists and convicted felons, are we to assume these were just “guys in your neighborhood”?

If you were a Civil Service Employee, could you pass a background check to receive a basic “Secret” clearance? If not, why should the American people trust you as the steward of their security? (OK, I know the answer. “No.”)

When you turned 18 years of age, did you register with the Selective Service System as required by law?

Regarding your “realtor” friend Rezko, how do the unusual circumstances surrounding the purchase of your Chicago mansion differ from the purchase made by former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) of his California house — a purchase that ended with his arrest and conviction?

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” All committed Socialists understand this principle. In 100 words or less, can you compare and contrast Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations with Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto? In 50 words or less, can you describe any significant difference between International Communism and National Socialism?

Whom do you hold accountable for the economic fiasco, and what is your plan to ensure it doesn’t recur? What is your plan to halt the imminent inflation resulting from the Fed’s printing of money to fund TARP and all the additional handouts?

Why do you think government can provide better and more efficient health care than the private sector? Keep in mind, yours is the same party that was regulating the housing market when it became the first economic domino to fall.

Can you explain how excessively taxing large corporations (which, in turn, pass these “fees” on to the consumer) provides economic “stimulus,” or how this makes lower- and middle-income Americans wealthier?

The motto of your campaign was “change,” but you have never specified what that change means — change from what to what? Based on the goals you have spoken about, it appears that you (and your handlers) would like to change our country from a democratic republic to a socialist/Marxist one. Would you please disabuse me of this notion?

You campaigned about needing “new blood” in Washington. Given this, how do you explain your selection of so many people from the Clinton and Carter administrations?

Our national debt stands at $10 trillion, and rises at a rate of roughly $75 million per hour each day. Do you see any problem with such large numbers, and if so, do you have a plan to fix it?

What is your plan to rein in congressional spending?

Define “rich.” As in “taxing the rich.” The amount appears to have varied depending upon which speech you and Joe Biden made during the campaign. $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? None of these pre-income tax amounts would qualify anyone as being rich, and yet, you voted to increase taxes on the “rich” at the $40,000 level.

During Bill Clinton’s administration, he raised taxes and government revenue collections decreased. George W. Bush reduced taxes and revenue collections increased. Why?

What yardstick will you use to determine when our troops should return home from OIF and/or OEF? How will you measure success? Given that the surge strategy in Iraq has, without question, worked, why is it that you cannot simply admit you were wrong?

What is it about leaders of states who sponsor terrorism and harbor terrorists that makes you believe peace is negotiable with them? What makes you think that Iran, Syria and terrorist entities such as Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah will adhere to anything they might “agree” to in a signed document?

What is your position on amnesty for illegal immigrants? What is your vision for immigration reform, generally?

Vice president-elect Joe Biden said, “Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama. … Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. … He’s gonna need you … to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

What in heaven’s name was he ranting about?

In regard to your so-called “National Service Plan” you stated, “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].” That sounds like a force of like-minded socialists, young pioneers, brown shirts, Obama youth, ready to trade brooms for guns.

What were you talking about?

On the subject of guns, you said of the Second Amendment (the palladium of all other rights), “I believe in the Second Amendment. Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.” However, your nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, reaffirmed in the recent Heller case his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights of individual gun possession by private citizens.

Can we still take you at your word?

What is your position on the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 1359), which would require all legislation introduced in Congress to “contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority” empowering Congress to enact it?

And on the subject of constitutional authority, on 20 January, you will be taking this constitutionally prescribed oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Exactly what Constitution are you swearing to “preserve, protect and defend” — that which was written by our forefathers and defended by the blood of Patriots for generations since, or its vestigial remains, the so-called “Living Constitution” as amended by Leftist judicial diktat? After all, you said you would nominate Supreme Court Justices who met your ideological test rather than those who were impartial jurists.

If the latter, should anyone take your role as commander in chief seriously?

And a final question: At a Florida rally four days before the presidential election, you asserted: “[W]e want to do this, change our tax code (a.k.a. ‘redistribute the wealth’). … John McCain [calls] this socialistic. You know I, I, I don’t know when, when, uh, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

For the record, when you were an adolescent (by your own account, smoking dope and snorting coke) John McCain was a POW in Hanoi. Despite being a Naval Academy graduate and the son of a high-ranking admiral, McCain had requested combat duty and was assigned to the USS Forrestal. He was on the flight deck of the Forrestal during the inferno that killed 134 of his fellow sailors. He was flying his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder over Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. He was subjected to more than five years of horrific torture by the Communist NVA, including two years of solitary confinement.

You claim that John McCain has made “a virtue out of selfishness.” When will you issue a public apology for that odious remark?

source

Before things get out of hand..?

January 10, 2009

The sheer hypocrisy of the drug war is nothing new. By anyone’s standards it has been a losing battle since President Nixon declared it!  Now, since those in high places have refuse to acknowledge that fundamentally this is an economic battle;  violence has ravaged Mexico, and spilled over into the United States.Please note that in the following article said officials state that they fear that the violence will spill over… Perhaps they should check with the locals in San Antonio and Laredo, Texas for an outdated “update” so that they can get up to speed on this issue.

More to the point though is the absolute garbage tossed out by Michael Chertoff at the very end of the story. Hey! Jerk! Remember Compean and Ramos? The guys that were tossed under the bus by a renegade U.S. Attorney?

New voices in Congress..?

January 6, 2009

The new voices that are coming to the Congress appear to be sending differing signals to observers. We very well may be seeing the groundwork for a classic clash between Blue dog and Red dog Democrats. Or more probably with the Yellow Dogs in a coalition that will thwart extremism.

story here

Still, rumors of pay back time political extremism have been popping up just enough to let those in the know realize that there are some pretty extreme actions on the agenda. Other bloggers are already going after these stories with a vengeance and I will defer to them so that their work gets proper attribution.

Abortion full federal funding, gun control that will make the “Assault Weapons Ban” look like a has been, and a Constitutional Convention that will have as it’s goal the destruction of the Bill of Rights are all being discussed behind closed doors.

Time will tell.

2009, a look to the future

January 1, 2009

As I wandered around the Internet today I found a common theme on a lot of forums, blogs, and personal websites.

What will 2009 bring to us ordinary, and not so ordinary people here in America, and across the world. Here is my list; I really hope that some of these things don’t happen, but, that does not change my thinking that they very well might.

  1. America will continue in becoming balkanized. The ground work for an actual secession of many states, or an actual revolution is being laid as I type this.
  2. Israel will attack Iran after Iran delivers a devastating blow to Israel. Much of the world will be drawn into the conflict, and it will go nuclear.
  3. The American economy will go into an actual depression, as defined by economics. The trickle down effect will have terrible consequences for the rest of the world. See #1 above.
  4. The Bill of Rights will be gutted, and shaped to fit those that have come into power. Call them what you want; NWO, Elitist’s, it really will not matter.
  5. The issue of illegal immigration will be settled. By the issue of Gun Control.
  6. The issue of “Gay Rights” will be settled. Again, by the issue of Gun Control.
  7. The issue of Private Property Rights will be settled, not by the cowards in the Supreme Court. Again, by the issue of Gun Control.
  8. Education will fall by the wayside in human priorities. It will be food, or can Johnny learn to be a good socialist.
  9. The people of the world will return to a precious metal standard for monetary purposes. Because the mints print worthless currency.
  10. Irish Whiskey will regain it’s position of supremacy as the finest gift from heaven to man. Our Scot cousins will still be allowed in our homes though. After all, family, is family.

Please note that nearly all of these relate directly to number one. I fear for the future of these United States of America.