Aliens, beware.
 |
| Take Us to Your Reader |
Thursday, September 30, 2010
U.N. Alien Ambassador
We should rename the United Nations to Universal Nutcases. I learned the other day that the U.N. had named an Alien Ambassador to greet extraterrestrials when (if) they visit planet earth. The identity of the recipient of this dubious designation wasn't something I was inclined to uncover. However, thanks to this mornings Washington Post, we can all rest easier to know that brave person who will be the first to encounter E.T. will be an astrophysicist from Malaysia by the name of Mazlan Othman. He is head of the Universal Nutcases Office for Outer Space Affairs. Yes, the U. N. actually does have such an office and such an official. Evidently not satisfied with raping the riches of every developed country on Planet Earth, the U.N. has put itself in place to be ready to start acquiring the wealth and resources of any extraterrestrial that may be unwise or naive enough to make itself known. I didn't see the movie Avatar, don't really care to from what I've read about it; it's purported to show the United States as being the villian victimizing a peaceful people. The reality is, it's the United Nations that is making developed, resourceful countries pay thru the nose. I wonder what will happen if the visitors from outer space arrive anywhere except Malaysia? I can just see them setting their spacecraft down in Washington DC and saying "Take us to your Reader".
Aliens, beware.
Aliens, beware.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A Tale of Two Countries
There's a lot of coverage today about last weeks' election in Venezuela. As I read an article about it in this mornings' Washington Times, I was struck by similarities between Venezuela and the United States. For anybody who might not know a lot about the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, here's a brief recap:
he is a former military officer who attempted a coup against the Venezuela government in 1992. It failed and he was imprisoned, then in 1998 he managed to get elected President of Venezuela, survived a coup against him in 2002 that de-throned him for a while, and in 2007 almost succeeded in getting a referendum passed to do away with presidential term limits so that he could continue to get "re-elected" president. Articles in the London Telegraph in 2007 and the Huffington Post in 2008 described Chavez as wanting to make himself "president for life". The London Times on Line reported on 2/16/09 that Chavez was successful in getting the Venezuelan law changed to eliminate term limits. So, he had cleared the way to keep himself in power.
The Chavez administration lost enough seats in the National Assembly last week to take away the majority it has held since 2005 which let him govern virtually unopposed. An opposition leader said Chavez had turned the election into a plebiscite (direct vote by an electorate on a single issue or proposal) on himself. Our 2008 election seems to me to have been a plebiscite on Obama. Most voters didn't care about the issues or party platforms, they just voted for Obama regardless of what he was or was not going to do. It appears that both men think it's all about them and what they want. Chavez had a "supermajority"; Obama came into office with a Democratic majority left over from the Bush presidency, and that majority was increased even more by the Democratic wins in the 2008 Congressional elections. The Venezuelan election last week is taken as a sign that they don't want an authoritarian, militarized or centralized government. Think about our upcoming election in November and the signal the American people intend to send to the present administration.
The loss of a majority by Chavez and his cronies came as somewhat of a surprise, since most Venezuelans figured that "electoral machinations" would have assured Chavez retained his majority rule. That brings to mind all the voter fraud and "electoral machinations" perpetrated in America's 2008 election by ACORN, et al, on behalf of the Democratic candidates, that insured their win, whether it was accurate or not. And it was most likely not accurate. We have no way of knowing or guaranteeing that our upcoming election will be honest or accurate. The wins by opponents of Hugo Chavez was notable in light of Chavez spending massively on giveaways, ads and public works. Reminds me of the pay-backs and pay-offs here in America since our own 2008 election. In Venezuela, the opposition to Chavez was aided by the defection of members of his own constituency who were disenchanted with his institutional control, his manipulations, and the deterioration of the economy. Brings to mind the Democrats distancing themselves from Obama. A related article today in the London Globe and Mail says that Venezuelans displayed voter discontent over Chavez's handling of the economy, his marathon television speeches, and his clamp down on opposition media. Doesn't that sound familiar?
I can see the similarities continuing in several ways after we have our own election in November. Venezuela's National Assembly still has a lame-duck session where hard-line measure could still be passed, maybe even stripping the legislature of some power. We don't know what the lame-duck Democrats might try to ram thru Congress once the Republicans pick up some more seats in November. The loss of his majority means that Chavez can no long pass laws by decreee, place appointees in his administration or take other actions without the input of the National Assembly. We could only hope that our November election could curtail dictating by Executive Order, appointing Cabinet level "advisors" and "assistants" without Congressional confirmation, and generally rendering Congress irrelevant. We know that won't happen. However, there is still hope. The Venezuelan opposition to Chavez now has to develop policy ideas to deal with the problems facing the country and find a leader who can effectively put forth a vision for a post-Chavez Venezuela; and use them so it will be well-positioned for their 1012 elections. We need the Republican party, once it makes the great strides we are sure it will in November, to develop the ideas it set forth in it's Pledge to America, coalesce on an effective leader, and position itself for victory in 2012 so that we can fulfill a vision for a post-Obama America. Yep, hope and change from this administration is what we need. Venezuela did it. We can do it, too. Yes, we can.
he is a former military officer who attempted a coup against the Venezuela government in 1992. It failed and he was imprisoned, then in 1998 he managed to get elected President of Venezuela, survived a coup against him in 2002 that de-throned him for a while, and in 2007 almost succeeded in getting a referendum passed to do away with presidential term limits so that he could continue to get "re-elected" president. Articles in the London Telegraph in 2007 and the Huffington Post in 2008 described Chavez as wanting to make himself "president for life". The London Times on Line reported on 2/16/09 that Chavez was successful in getting the Venezuelan law changed to eliminate term limits. So, he had cleared the way to keep himself in power.
The Chavez administration lost enough seats in the National Assembly last week to take away the majority it has held since 2005 which let him govern virtually unopposed. An opposition leader said Chavez had turned the election into a plebiscite (direct vote by an electorate on a single issue or proposal) on himself. Our 2008 election seems to me to have been a plebiscite on Obama. Most voters didn't care about the issues or party platforms, they just voted for Obama regardless of what he was or was not going to do. It appears that both men think it's all about them and what they want. Chavez had a "supermajority"; Obama came into office with a Democratic majority left over from the Bush presidency, and that majority was increased even more by the Democratic wins in the 2008 Congressional elections. The Venezuelan election last week is taken as a sign that they don't want an authoritarian, militarized or centralized government. Think about our upcoming election in November and the signal the American people intend to send to the present administration.
The loss of a majority by Chavez and his cronies came as somewhat of a surprise, since most Venezuelans figured that "electoral machinations" would have assured Chavez retained his majority rule. That brings to mind all the voter fraud and "electoral machinations" perpetrated in America's 2008 election by ACORN, et al, on behalf of the Democratic candidates, that insured their win, whether it was accurate or not. And it was most likely not accurate. We have no way of knowing or guaranteeing that our upcoming election will be honest or accurate. The wins by opponents of Hugo Chavez was notable in light of Chavez spending massively on giveaways, ads and public works. Reminds me of the pay-backs and pay-offs here in America since our own 2008 election. In Venezuela, the opposition to Chavez was aided by the defection of members of his own constituency who were disenchanted with his institutional control, his manipulations, and the deterioration of the economy. Brings to mind the Democrats distancing themselves from Obama. A related article today in the London Globe and Mail says that Venezuelans displayed voter discontent over Chavez's handling of the economy, his marathon television speeches, and his clamp down on opposition media. Doesn't that sound familiar?
I can see the similarities continuing in several ways after we have our own election in November. Venezuela's National Assembly still has a lame-duck session where hard-line measure could still be passed, maybe even stripping the legislature of some power. We don't know what the lame-duck Democrats might try to ram thru Congress once the Republicans pick up some more seats in November. The loss of his majority means that Chavez can no long pass laws by decreee, place appointees in his administration or take other actions without the input of the National Assembly. We could only hope that our November election could curtail dictating by Executive Order, appointing Cabinet level "advisors" and "assistants" without Congressional confirmation, and generally rendering Congress irrelevant. We know that won't happen. However, there is still hope. The Venezuelan opposition to Chavez now has to develop policy ideas to deal with the problems facing the country and find a leader who can effectively put forth a vision for a post-Chavez Venezuela; and use them so it will be well-positioned for their 1012 elections. We need the Republican party, once it makes the great strides we are sure it will in November, to develop the ideas it set forth in it's Pledge to America, coalesce on an effective leader, and position itself for victory in 2012 so that we can fulfill a vision for a post-Obama America. Yep, hope and change from this administration is what we need. Venezuela did it. We can do it, too. Yes, we can.
Monday, September 27, 2010
U.N. Circus Came to Town
When you are living the nightmare that is life in America under the current regime, sometimes it gets overwhelming. I am one of the many that has been financially devastated by the actions of THIS administration, not the previous one that they like to throw blame at. Between January 20, 2009 and November 2009, my income, which is business-based commission, dropped 90%. The small town I live in, which had grown from 1,400 residents to over 2,200 residents in the 5 years that I've lived here prior to 2009, has become stagnant. Not only are there no new businesses, there has been a decline in the number of businesses. There are no jobs available without commuting up to an hour each way, and even fewer open to a person of my age. I had a small 401K, which was growing steadily; it was enough to cover my yearly property taxes and property insurance and any maintanence on my property until I was ready to sell and move; and there would have been enough still in it to leave untouched to continue growing. When the stock market reacted to obamanomics, 40% of it went up in smoke. Because of the loss of income directly due to obamanomics, I've had to drain my 401K to live on; to the point there is nothing left. And let's not forget the culpability of the Democratic Congressional majority for the last 6 years, who drove the housing market into the ground. Under the last Presidential term of George Bush, the Democratically controlled Congress ignored 16 out of 17 times the pleas of the Republicans, to rein in and get control over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and to stabilize the housing market. Yes, George Bush signed the TARP Bill, but it was a final desperate act to save the housing market, when the Democrats in Congress would finally, at the 11th hour, allow action to be taken. So thanks to the Democrats reckless abandon with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, my property, which prior to 2009 had a 50% increase in investment, now has a 50% decrease in investment. If I could even sell now, it would have to be at a loss of half of what I've got invested in it. I know this is the story of millions that have had their lives ruined by the actions of Obama and his cronies, who are trying to bring America down to the level of the poorest countries in the world and "level the playing field". Knowing that doesn't make it any easier to accept. Sometimes it just gets overwhelming. So I spent the weekend reading a good book and listening to the rain, ignoring the news and the internet.
The United Nations circus was in New York City last week and at the edge of the funk I was in, I was aware of some of the goings on. It seemed like a case of school-yard one-up-man-ship. Drawing from CNN, Newsmax and the U.K. Mail; here's a synopsis of how it went: Obama gave his speech to the U.N., once again the appeasor-in-chief offered an olive branch to Ahmahnutjob. Then Ahmahnutjob gave his speech, asserting that the U.S. carried out the attack on 9-11-01 itself to bolster support for Israel. This is the same Ahmahnutjob who says the Holocaust killing of Jews in Europe never happened, who is now on the U.N. Womens' Rights Council, and from the text of his speech (Winds of Jihad has it) thinks Iran should sit on the U.N. Security Council, and wants the entire world to embrace "monotheism" in the form of Islam and thinks it's his place in history to begin Armageddon by destroying Israel. So after Ahmahnutjob's speech, Obama's response was that it was offensive and hateful. Then Ahmahnutjob retorted to Obama's criticism as being amateurish and insulting. See what I mean, school-yard: take that. No, you take that. No, I'm going to take my ball and go home. Good Grief. Don't we have an adult in the White House?
A couple of interesting things of note did happen at the U.N. last week. According to U.K. Mail, Obama, who gave his speech on a day that the Israeli delegation didn't attend due to a Jewish holiday, called for the establishment of a Palestinian State within one year, and not once mentioned Palestinian Hamas which refuses to accept Israel's right to exist. So Israel is to acknowledge Palestine, which they do; but Palestine doesn't have to accept Israel. The other thing of interest I have to thank Bobby for bringing to my attention. From Reuters News Agency; the Swiss president of the General Assembly opened the U.N. meeting by calling on the world leaders at the U.N. to fulfill it's global governance role. To which, the Czech President said that the U.N. should leave global governance alone and let the national governments take care of their own. He said they would destroy the markets and the chance for economic growth and prosperity; and also that the U.N. should stay out of science, including global warming. That seems like a more worthwhile exchange than the juvenile mud-slinging between Obama and Ahmahnutjob.
I awoke to the news this morning that while he was in New York City, Ahmahnutjob met with Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panthers Party. So I looked it up on the internet, and sure enough, they had a "secret" (did they really expect to keep it secret?) meeting behind closed doors in a conference room at the Warwick Hotel. Ahmahnutjob stayed at the Hilton Manhattan East while in town. Nobody knows (yet) what was discussed in this not-so-secret meeting, but with those three getting their heads together, it sure can't bode well. You can be sure if I find out more, I'll let everybody know. I also got an interesting email outlining how often the Arab Countries vote against the U.S. at the U.N., and how much we still send them in aid. I looked it up on Snopes. The letter originated in 2003, and didn't specify if the figures included the entire history of the U.N., so Snopes took an 18 month period between 2003 and 2004 and checked it out. While the email said that most of the Arab Countries voted against the U.S. on U.N. measures about 70% to 80% of the time, Snopes found it was even worse; Snopes came up with an average of 88% that Arab (muslim) Countries didn't support the U.S. position at the U.N. That was 6 years ago; I can't imagine it has gotten any better; and yet, we are still sending them billions of dollars in aid each year. Also interesting is what Snopes discovered about how our allies vote in relation to the U.S. stance on U.N. measures. Our allies, Britain, Australia, Canada, China, etc., withheld their support between 40% and 60% of the time. Our staunchest ally, drum roll please, is that much-maligned thorn in Obama's side, ISRAEL. Israel had only opposed the U.S. in 11% of the U.N. measures in the Snopes study.
And to keep this particular blog post from being dry and completely uninteresting, one last thing on the U.N: I was watching Meghan Kelley on Fox News while eating lunch today and a report by Trace Gallagher caught my attention. Some high ranking Air Force officers in the U.S. and Britain have reported that on several occasions unknown craft have hovered over our nuclear missile sites, disabled and disarmed them, then disappeared. They are calling upon the U.S. and British governments to make public the classified material they have on extraterrestrial crafts and beings. What does that have to do with the U.N.? This: the U.N. has named an official "Alien Ambassador" to greet any aliens from outer space, when and if they ever make themselves known. And these are the people who want to govern the globe. The official U.N. Alien Ambassador wasn't named in the report and I'm not sure I care enough to dig into who it is. If it's not Obama, they probably made the wrong choice. Sorry this isn't up to par, but it's all I've got in me today.
Until next time, Happy Trails.
The United Nations circus was in New York City last week and at the edge of the funk I was in, I was aware of some of the goings on. It seemed like a case of school-yard one-up-man-ship. Drawing from CNN, Newsmax and the U.K. Mail; here's a synopsis of how it went: Obama gave his speech to the U.N., once again the appeasor-in-chief offered an olive branch to Ahmahnutjob. Then Ahmahnutjob gave his speech, asserting that the U.S. carried out the attack on 9-11-01 itself to bolster support for Israel. This is the same Ahmahnutjob who says the Holocaust killing of Jews in Europe never happened, who is now on the U.N. Womens' Rights Council, and from the text of his speech (Winds of Jihad has it) thinks Iran should sit on the U.N. Security Council, and wants the entire world to embrace "monotheism" in the form of Islam and thinks it's his place in history to begin Armageddon by destroying Israel. So after Ahmahnutjob's speech, Obama's response was that it was offensive and hateful. Then Ahmahnutjob retorted to Obama's criticism as being amateurish and insulting. See what I mean, school-yard: take that. No, you take that. No, I'm going to take my ball and go home. Good Grief. Don't we have an adult in the White House?
A couple of interesting things of note did happen at the U.N. last week. According to U.K. Mail, Obama, who gave his speech on a day that the Israeli delegation didn't attend due to a Jewish holiday, called for the establishment of a Palestinian State within one year, and not once mentioned Palestinian Hamas which refuses to accept Israel's right to exist. So Israel is to acknowledge Palestine, which they do; but Palestine doesn't have to accept Israel. The other thing of interest I have to thank Bobby for bringing to my attention. From Reuters News Agency; the Swiss president of the General Assembly opened the U.N. meeting by calling on the world leaders at the U.N. to fulfill it's global governance role. To which, the Czech President said that the U.N. should leave global governance alone and let the national governments take care of their own. He said they would destroy the markets and the chance for economic growth and prosperity; and also that the U.N. should stay out of science, including global warming. That seems like a more worthwhile exchange than the juvenile mud-slinging between Obama and Ahmahnutjob.
I awoke to the news this morning that while he was in New York City, Ahmahnutjob met with Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panthers Party. So I looked it up on the internet, and sure enough, they had a "secret" (did they really expect to keep it secret?) meeting behind closed doors in a conference room at the Warwick Hotel. Ahmahnutjob stayed at the Hilton Manhattan East while in town. Nobody knows (yet) what was discussed in this not-so-secret meeting, but with those three getting their heads together, it sure can't bode well. You can be sure if I find out more, I'll let everybody know. I also got an interesting email outlining how often the Arab Countries vote against the U.S. at the U.N., and how much we still send them in aid. I looked it up on Snopes. The letter originated in 2003, and didn't specify if the figures included the entire history of the U.N., so Snopes took an 18 month period between 2003 and 2004 and checked it out. While the email said that most of the Arab Countries voted against the U.S. on U.N. measures about 70% to 80% of the time, Snopes found it was even worse; Snopes came up with an average of 88% that Arab (muslim) Countries didn't support the U.S. position at the U.N. That was 6 years ago; I can't imagine it has gotten any better; and yet, we are still sending them billions of dollars in aid each year. Also interesting is what Snopes discovered about how our allies vote in relation to the U.S. stance on U.N. measures. Our allies, Britain, Australia, Canada, China, etc., withheld their support between 40% and 60% of the time. Our staunchest ally, drum roll please, is that much-maligned thorn in Obama's side, ISRAEL. Israel had only opposed the U.S. in 11% of the U.N. measures in the Snopes study.
And to keep this particular blog post from being dry and completely uninteresting, one last thing on the U.N: I was watching Meghan Kelley on Fox News while eating lunch today and a report by Trace Gallagher caught my attention. Some high ranking Air Force officers in the U.S. and Britain have reported that on several occasions unknown craft have hovered over our nuclear missile sites, disabled and disarmed them, then disappeared. They are calling upon the U.S. and British governments to make public the classified material they have on extraterrestrial crafts and beings. What does that have to do with the U.N.? This: the U.N. has named an official "Alien Ambassador" to greet any aliens from outer space, when and if they ever make themselves known. And these are the people who want to govern the globe. The official U.N. Alien Ambassador wasn't named in the report and I'm not sure I care enough to dig into who it is. If it's not Obama, they probably made the wrong choice. Sorry this isn't up to par, but it's all I've got in me today.
Until next time, Happy Trails.
Friday, September 24, 2010
PULPIT FREEDOM SUNDAY
This Sunday, September 26, 2010, is Pulpit Freedom Sunday. It's a movement that started in 2008 with less than 36 pastors participating, continued in 2009 with 84 pastors participating; and this year there will be at least 100, perhaps several hundred, pastors involved. These brave men and women will speak out from their pulpits on the political candidates and issues for the upcoming November 2nd elections, in direct violation of federal tax regulations; and they will record, videotape and print manuscripts which will then be sent to the Internal Revenue Service. I looked up the tax regulations at Pew Forum; it says that clergy cannot speak about a political candidate from the pulpit; they can speak about a political candidate outside the pulpit, but not so that any member of their congregation can impute (discern) their preference. They can have a political candidate speak to their church, as long as they have the opposing candidate speak also, and as long as the church does not give any money to the candidates. Prior to 1954, clergy were not thusly restricted. They could, and did, speak about any candidate or issue they wished. Texas, at that time, had a Senator in Washington DC, Lyndon Johnson, who was the target of critical comments from Christian leaders about his conduct in Washington. Senator Johnson proposed, and got passed thru Congress, a law that prohibits any speech from a church pulpit for or against any political candidate. The penalty is loss of tax-exempt status and/or a fine.
World Net Daily reports about Pastor Mark Holick of Wichita, KS, who was targeted by the IRS for "engaging in political activities". He received a warning from the IRS to not put his Christian beliefs on the sign at his church. Can you believe that? A church is told not to put their beliefs on their sign. What were the dastardly messages? One was a notice that Kathleen Sebelius (then Governor of Kansas, now Secretary of Health and Human Services) had accepted $100,000 from abortion doctor George Tiller. The other sign quoted Obama saying he didn't want his daughters punished with a baby. Nothing more insidious than that. And nothing but the truth. Another pastor, H.Wayne Wiliams of South Dakota was targeted for voicing his preference for a gubernatoral candidate. A Minnesota pastor was investigated by the IRS for addressing the moral qualifications of the political candidates in 2008. Pastor Gus Booth preached on moral issues with regard to both the primary election and the general election that year. The IRS began an audit of his church; then closed the investigation, citing a "procedural issue" but left the case open for future inquiry. I can just hear the Terminator: "I'll be baaack".
The tax codes against churches, that were put into place by a man who didn't want to be called out on his behaviour, need to be changed. Maybe the wonderful members of the clergy who are putting their necks on the line and standing up to the IRS, will be able to make that happen. By the way, did y'all know that there is nothing, no law, nowhere in the Constitution that calls for, or even uses the words "separation of church and state"? That's merely a phrase coined by anti-Christian politicians, activists, and groups. America, stand up.
What I found disturbing in the tax codes, which I read, is that while clergy are prohibited from endorsing a political candidate, or speaking against a political candidate, from the pulpit; they are in no way restricted from speaking on issues or actions being considered by Congress. So while politicians and elected officials are lowering the boom on Christians about such things as praying in public, scripture in public buildings, Bibles in schools, and speaking out against homosexuality, promiscuity, or abortion; they have no qualms about asking churches to help them get their pet legislations passed. According to America's Watchtower on 5/10/10, Nancy Pelosi talked to Catholic leaders about supporting amnesty, and told them "But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit". According to First Read, an on-line publication of MSN 8/19/09, Obama had a conference call with faith leaders where he asked them to help pass obamacare and speak out to those "bearing false witness" about it. And now that obamacare has passed, and America still doesn't want it, Obama had another conference call last Tuesday, September 21, 2010 which was reported by The Blaze 9/22/10, where he asked thousands of religious leaders to "spread the word" from their "perches of power" and to help him convince America that obamacare is good for them. Such hypocrisy. Clergy members are not to have any say about who may or may not be elected, but then they can be exhorted by any politician in office to push their agenda.
The tax codes against churches, that were put into place by a man who didn't want to be called out on his behaviour, need to be changed. Maybe the wonderful members of the clergy who are putting their necks on the line and standing up to the IRS, will be able to make that happen. By the way, did y'all know that there is nothing, no law, nowhere in the Constitution that calls for, or even uses the words "separation of church and state"? That's merely a phrase coined by anti-Christian politicians, activists, and groups. America, stand up.
A Wealth of Poverty
The United States Census Bureau last week released it's annual state-of-the-economy report. It's findings are really heartbreaking for the greatest, richest nation on earth; 1 out of every 7 Americans is now living in poverty. Look around you; for every 7 people you see, 1 of them is probably extremely poor, maybe even homeless or near it. The figures released are for 2009, Obama's 1st year in office, and wipe out the gains made by the long-running War on Poverty. Poverty is now winning the war. The percentage of Americans, of all ages, living below the poverty level is now at 14.3%. That's up almost 4,000,000 people from the year before (2008). The percentage is the highest it's ever been since the Census Bureau started keeping records in the 1950's, and the highest it's been since George Bush was elected President the 1st time in 2000. Then it was 11.3%, and began to steadily climb once the Democrats gained a Congressional majority during his 2nd term. The increase in poverty-stricken Americans would have been worse last year except for the increase in people drawing Social Security benefits and unemployment benefits.
The face of the homeless is changing, too. Instead of the stereotypical alcoholic or addict homeless, today's poverty-stricken is likely to be workers who can't earn enough to survive, or middle-class workers who are unemployed, or under-employed. Poverty is not just for the unskilled or uneducated anymore. My daughter goes with her church mission to downtown Phoenix to pass out food and bottled water; she said it has changed her entire perception of what homeless people look like. It's not just the stereotypical male homeless person anymore either. Families are being affected in greater numbers than ever before. Families are being separated, leaving children with relatives while parents move to look for work, or go into homeless shelters. They are having to rely on friends or family for support; "doubling up" increased 8.6% since 2008. The number of families receiving food stamps has increased by about 25% since Obama took office. Child poverty rose to 20.7%; that's more than 1 in 5 children in America living in poverty now. That's a crying shame. America, wake up.
(sources: Yahoo News and Los Angeles Times)
The face of the homeless is changing, too. Instead of the stereotypical alcoholic or addict homeless, today's poverty-stricken is likely to be workers who can't earn enough to survive, or middle-class workers who are unemployed, or under-employed. Poverty is not just for the unskilled or uneducated anymore. My daughter goes with her church mission to downtown Phoenix to pass out food and bottled water; she said it has changed her entire perception of what homeless people look like. It's not just the stereotypical male homeless person anymore either. Families are being affected in greater numbers than ever before. Families are being separated, leaving children with relatives while parents move to look for work, or go into homeless shelters. They are having to rely on friends or family for support; "doubling up" increased 8.6% since 2008. The number of families receiving food stamps has increased by about 25% since Obama took office. Child poverty rose to 20.7%; that's more than 1 in 5 children in America living in poverty now. That's a crying shame. America, wake up.
(sources: Yahoo News and Los Angeles Times)
Thursday, September 23, 2010
A PLEDGE TO AMERICA
Text of New Republican "Pledge to America" Released The Weekly Standard
The text of the Republican Party platform for Election 2010 is a conservative 21 page document, modest compared to the monstrosities we're used to seeing from the Democrats. If you want to see the entire document you can find it at http://www.gop.gov/ This link to The Weekly Standard has the best breakdown of what's in the Republican agenda I could find. It gives it straight, without all the partisan rhetoric of either side.
However, it didn't publish the preamble to it, and I think it's impressive; so here it is:
A PLEDGE TO AMERICA
America is more than a country.
America is an idea - an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government's powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can - given economic, political, and religious liberty - advance themselves, their families, and the common good.
America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.
Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.
In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.
Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to acommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country's compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.
The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.
With this document, we pledge to dedicate couselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.
We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored - particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.
We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizatons that form the core of our American values.
We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.
We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.
The text of the Republican Party platform for Election 2010 is a conservative 21 page document, modest compared to the monstrosities we're used to seeing from the Democrats. If you want to see the entire document you can find it at http://www.gop.gov/ This link to The Weekly Standard has the best breakdown of what's in the Republican agenda I could find. It gives it straight, without all the partisan rhetoric of either side.
However, it didn't publish the preamble to it, and I think it's impressive; so here it is:
A PLEDGE TO AMERICA
America is more than a country.
America is an idea - an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government's powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can - given economic, political, and religious liberty - advance themselves, their families, and the common good.
America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.
Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.
In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.
Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to acommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country's compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.
The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.
With this document, we pledge to dedicate couselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.
We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored - particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.
We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizatons that form the core of our American values.
We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.
We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.
Close The Back Door
FULL TEXT: Amnesty Memo Released! « Fox News Insider
We can add another path to the chart I post the other day about how this administration circumvents Congress and just goes ahead and does what it wishes. Here's the full text of the Dept. of Homeland Security memo detailing how amnesty can be implemented by an executive order signed by Obama, in the event that Congress doesn't pass an amnesty bill into law. The memo is 11 pages long, full of legalese and internal abbreviations. I'll hit some of the highlights for you. There is a category designated as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which is granted without any background investigation. This doesn't apply only to Mexicans; during the earthquake in Haiti, after admitting in the press that there were already over 100,000 illegal Haitians in the country (begs the question, if the administration knew they were here, why were they still here?), the administration then granted TPS to tens of thousands more Haitians. One provision in the DHS amnesty-by-executive-order memo is to change the status of all those with TPS directly to Legal Permanent Residency. Still no going to the back of the line, still no background investigation. Another suggestion is to grant work visas to spouses of those who already have work visas, regardless of the spouses legal status. Yet another move would be Parole in Place (PIP) which would parole any arrested illegal immigrant back into the community they were living in illegally, instead of processing them for deportation. One more proposal is to use "deferred action"; i.e., take no action on any known illegal immigrants because they might one day be eligible for any amnesty law that Congress MIGHT pass. (Washington Times 9/21/10)
Perhaps the most insidious action is one that the administration has quietly been implementing for a couple of months now, according to examiner.com on 8/25/10. That's when ICE began dropping deportations cases in Houston, TX, numbering in the thousands. A Houston immigration attorney, Raed Gonzalez, was told by the DHS deputy chief counsel in Houston that the policy is expected to be implemented throughout the rest of the country soon. Remember a few weeks ago when ICE directors were given a "no confidence vote" signed by EVERY ICE agent in the country? The ICE union representative in Houston, Tre Rebsock says that this new order from the Obama administration is going to make ICE officers feel even more powerless.
As per Obama administration policies, Dept of Homeland Security is refusing to discuss it with Congress. (Remember the case of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers Party, where Congress subpoenaed officials from the DOJ and was ignored?) All 7 Republican members of the Senate committee that oversees immigration signed a letter to Janet Napolitano, the director of DHS, asking for clarification on the amnesty memo. That was more than 2 weeks ago, and she said the DHS would respond directly. However, as of 2 days ago, Senator Jon Kyl of AZ and Senator John Cornyn of TX say they have had no answer. Last night on Fox News, Senator Graham addressed the issue and reaffirmed that the DHS has not responded to Congress.
Yesterday, in a Congressional hearing, Senator McCain of AZ tried to question Janet Napolitano and the 2 of them got into a shouting match. But still no answer about what is going on with the administrations covert plans to take an end-run around Congress and implement amnesty by executive order. Napolitano still takes the stance that our southern border is "as safe as it's ever been"; Obama has sent 1,200 boots-on-the-desk National Guard troops. President George W. Bush, when called up to assist with border enforcement, sent 5,000 National Guard troops. A study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that although the number of illegal immigrants dropped by about a million between 3/07 and 3/09, it was due in part to the sluggish economy, AND due to the stepped-up enforcement near the end of the Bush administration. I sure do miss George.
It's so blatantly clear that one political party is more interested in padding it's voter base than it is in enforcing our federal immigration laws that are already on the books. In some adminstrative "both sides of the mouth" double-speak earlier this year, Obama said in his major immigration speech that halting all deportations "would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration (ya think?). And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally". Actions speak louder than words. Read the DHS amnesty memo. It sure doesn't back up that quote. Here's another quote for you; from Dave Gibson, Immigration Reform Examiner for examiner.com: "Unable to get an amnesty bill through Congress and facing ever plummeting poll numbers, Obama has simply decided to become our undocumented dictator and make up his own laws". America, wake up. Smell the burritos burning.
We can add another path to the chart I post the other day about how this administration circumvents Congress and just goes ahead and does what it wishes. Here's the full text of the Dept. of Homeland Security memo detailing how amnesty can be implemented by an executive order signed by Obama, in the event that Congress doesn't pass an amnesty bill into law. The memo is 11 pages long, full of legalese and internal abbreviations. I'll hit some of the highlights for you. There is a category designated as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which is granted without any background investigation. This doesn't apply only to Mexicans; during the earthquake in Haiti, after admitting in the press that there were already over 100,000 illegal Haitians in the country (begs the question, if the administration knew they were here, why were they still here?), the administration then granted TPS to tens of thousands more Haitians. One provision in the DHS amnesty-by-executive-order memo is to change the status of all those with TPS directly to Legal Permanent Residency. Still no going to the back of the line, still no background investigation. Another suggestion is to grant work visas to spouses of those who already have work visas, regardless of the spouses legal status. Yet another move would be Parole in Place (PIP) which would parole any arrested illegal immigrant back into the community they were living in illegally, instead of processing them for deportation. One more proposal is to use "deferred action"; i.e., take no action on any known illegal immigrants because they might one day be eligible for any amnesty law that Congress MIGHT pass. (Washington Times 9/21/10)
Perhaps the most insidious action is one that the administration has quietly been implementing for a couple of months now, according to examiner.com on 8/25/10. That's when ICE began dropping deportations cases in Houston, TX, numbering in the thousands. A Houston immigration attorney, Raed Gonzalez, was told by the DHS deputy chief counsel in Houston that the policy is expected to be implemented throughout the rest of the country soon. Remember a few weeks ago when ICE directors were given a "no confidence vote" signed by EVERY ICE agent in the country? The ICE union representative in Houston, Tre Rebsock says that this new order from the Obama administration is going to make ICE officers feel even more powerless.
As per Obama administration policies, Dept of Homeland Security is refusing to discuss it with Congress. (Remember the case of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers Party, where Congress subpoenaed officials from the DOJ and was ignored?) All 7 Republican members of the Senate committee that oversees immigration signed a letter to Janet Napolitano, the director of DHS, asking for clarification on the amnesty memo. That was more than 2 weeks ago, and she said the DHS would respond directly. However, as of 2 days ago, Senator Jon Kyl of AZ and Senator John Cornyn of TX say they have had no answer. Last night on Fox News, Senator Graham addressed the issue and reaffirmed that the DHS has not responded to Congress.
Yesterday, in a Congressional hearing, Senator McCain of AZ tried to question Janet Napolitano and the 2 of them got into a shouting match. But still no answer about what is going on with the administrations covert plans to take an end-run around Congress and implement amnesty by executive order. Napolitano still takes the stance that our southern border is "as safe as it's ever been"; Obama has sent 1,200 boots-on-the-desk National Guard troops. President George W. Bush, when called up to assist with border enforcement, sent 5,000 National Guard troops. A study by the Pew Hispanic Center found that although the number of illegal immigrants dropped by about a million between 3/07 and 3/09, it was due in part to the sluggish economy, AND due to the stepped-up enforcement near the end of the Bush administration. I sure do miss George.
It's so blatantly clear that one political party is more interested in padding it's voter base than it is in enforcing our federal immigration laws that are already on the books. In some adminstrative "both sides of the mouth" double-speak earlier this year, Obama said in his major immigration speech that halting all deportations "would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration (ya think?). And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally". Actions speak louder than words. Read the DHS amnesty memo. It sure doesn't back up that quote. Here's another quote for you; from Dave Gibson, Immigration Reform Examiner for examiner.com: "Unable to get an amnesty bill through Congress and facing ever plummeting poll numbers, Obama has simply decided to become our undocumented dictator and make up his own laws". America, wake up. Smell the burritos burning.
 |
| Close The Back Door |
Rewriting history
Obama: 'Long Before America Was an Idea,' It Was Home to Mexicans The FOX Nation
Talk about rewriting history. The Mexicans were here before America? And I always thought Mexicans were a hybrid brought about by the propogating between Spaniards and Indians indigenous to the southern North American continent. And as for "Europeans" taking the area of the United States away from the Indians; what about the area of Mexico being taken away from the Indians? Spaniards are, after all, Europeans; southern Europeans. America declared it's independence 34 years years before Mexico declared it's independence; and won it about 40 years before Mexico won theirs. So, to come right down to it, the United States of America came into being decades before the country of Mexico. Until that time, they were still citizens of Spain; so therefore, Americans existed before Mexicans existed. You have to understand that Obama was speaking (pandering) to an hispanic organization. He'll say whatever it takes, truth be damned.
By the way, this is also the speech where he was reading part of the Constitution from his teleprompter and couldn't get thru the part about men's rights being endowed "by their Creator". He got to that part of the quote, and his mouth puckered up like he was eating key lime pie with too much lime. It looks like he was thinking, "Allah, what do I do now?"; so he just skipped that part. Rewriting history.
Talk about rewriting history. The Mexicans were here before America? And I always thought Mexicans were a hybrid brought about by the propogating between Spaniards and Indians indigenous to the southern North American continent. And as for "Europeans" taking the area of the United States away from the Indians; what about the area of Mexico being taken away from the Indians? Spaniards are, after all, Europeans; southern Europeans. America declared it's independence 34 years years before Mexico declared it's independence; and won it about 40 years before Mexico won theirs. So, to come right down to it, the United States of America came into being decades before the country of Mexico. Until that time, they were still citizens of Spain; so therefore, Americans existed before Mexicans existed. You have to understand that Obama was speaking (pandering) to an hispanic organization. He'll say whatever it takes, truth be damned.
By the way, this is also the speech where he was reading part of the Constitution from his teleprompter and couldn't get thru the part about men's rights being endowed "by their Creator". He got to that part of the quote, and his mouth puckered up like he was eating key lime pie with too much lime. It looks like he was thinking, "Allah, what do I do now?"; so he just skipped that part. Rewriting history.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Money, Money, Money
According to the Washington Times, Larry Summers is resigning as the administrations' National Economic Council head. He will be the 3rd of Obama's original top 4 financial people to "bail out" (pun intended) in the last 8 weeks, leaving only Tax-cheat Timothy Geithner. Peter Orszag, the Office of Management and Budget director left in late July, and Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisors left a couple of weeks ago. Ironically, the liberal left is cheering the departure of Larry Summers; they felt he wasn't radical enough to be in this adminiistration. He tried to scale down the Wall Street take-over, tried to block "net neutrality" the internet take-over, and urged a pro-business position. The progressives thought he was under-mining them from the inside. He must have felt like a cold war American agent planted inside communist Russia. Speculation from Bloomberg is that Summers' replacement will be a corporate executive, not a political appointment. Let's face it, everybody Obama places in a position is a political appointment. Named as a possible successor is G.E. CEO Jeffrey Immelt; you know, he who is one of Obama's top contributors, who will benefit heavily from energy reform, and who got an exemption from the sanctions against Iran so G.E. is still doing business there. Myself, I wouldn't be surprised if Andy Stern isn't moved into Summers' vacated office. One of Mr. Summers duties is to oversee the $814 billion (that's what it came to, not the $787 billion we were told) economic stimulus bill, a lot of which is going to benefit the union (SEIU) that Andy Stern headed for many years before being appointed to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Speaking of that $814 billion Stimulus Bill, according to wikipedia, which has a breakdown of it, the amount designated for Infrastructure (highways, railways, and airports) is $105.3 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported on Fox News last night that of the amount in the Stimulus Bill allocated for Infrastructure, only about 1/3 of it has been spent at this point; and of the $8 bill from the Stimulus Bill Infrastructure allocation that was specified for the railway system, only 7% of that has been spent. Oh, but the administration has been quickly spending millions for the SIGNS touting what they are doing, if not doing much of the actual work. Yet, it was widely reported earlier this month (I got it from Washington Examiner 9/9/10) that Obama is asking for another Stimulus package of $50 million; to overhaul America's transportation networks, specifically highways and bridges, railway systems, and airport runways. Since so little of the original Stimulus has been used, why is he coming at us with his hand out again? Could it be that the 50% of the entire original Stimulus that hasn't been spent yet, that is planned for spending in 2011 and 2012, is being held back to be used as "entitlements" to garner votes for Obama's re-election in 2012? According to wikipedia, 45% of the entire original Stimulus Bill is set aside for federal social programs and federal spending programs. That makes a pretty hefty campaign chest, funded by us taxpayers.
Speaking of transportation; lets look back at the government take-over of Government Motors. Almost as if we were already a socialist country, the administration took over Government Motors; gave over 30% of it to the United Auto Workers union, sold a small portion to Canada and kept 61% for itself. It nationalized a company from the public sector, fired the man running it, put a government appointee in place, and screwed the preferred stock investors, giving them 5 cents on the $1 for their investments. Many of those investors were retired teachers, firefighters and police officers who saw their retirement investments evaporate. Last month, the government took the 1st step toward unloading it's 61% ownership of Government Motors; it applied for an IPO (Initial Public Offering). Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that the main potential buyer of that 61% of Government Motors is SAIC, the largest auto-maker in China. If that happens, we will have witnessed a major redistribution of wealth from America, where the average annual income is around $40,000, to China, where the average annual income is $3,000. Going full circle, the administration will have taken an American company out of the hands of our public sector, nationalized it (and you thought that only happened in socialist or communist countries like Venezuela or Cuba; look again, America) and seized majority ownership of it, then effectively transferred ownership of it to a communist foreign country.
Financial reform enacted under this administration now gives it the discretion to decide when any company is "too big to fail", and seize it. Even the left wing rag, the Huffington Post admits "Financial Reform doesn't end "too big to fail" 6/3/10. America, you'd better wake up. The theft and over-spending looks non-ending.
Speaking of that $814 billion Stimulus Bill, according to wikipedia, which has a breakdown of it, the amount designated for Infrastructure (highways, railways, and airports) is $105.3 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported on Fox News last night that of the amount in the Stimulus Bill allocated for Infrastructure, only about 1/3 of it has been spent at this point; and of the $8 bill from the Stimulus Bill Infrastructure allocation that was specified for the railway system, only 7% of that has been spent. Oh, but the administration has been quickly spending millions for the SIGNS touting what they are doing, if not doing much of the actual work. Yet, it was widely reported earlier this month (I got it from Washington Examiner 9/9/10) that Obama is asking for another Stimulus package of $50 million; to overhaul America's transportation networks, specifically highways and bridges, railway systems, and airport runways. Since so little of the original Stimulus has been used, why is he coming at us with his hand out again? Could it be that the 50% of the entire original Stimulus that hasn't been spent yet, that is planned for spending in 2011 and 2012, is being held back to be used as "entitlements" to garner votes for Obama's re-election in 2012? According to wikipedia, 45% of the entire original Stimulus Bill is set aside for federal social programs and federal spending programs. That makes a pretty hefty campaign chest, funded by us taxpayers.
Speaking of transportation; lets look back at the government take-over of Government Motors. Almost as if we were already a socialist country, the administration took over Government Motors; gave over 30% of it to the United Auto Workers union, sold a small portion to Canada and kept 61% for itself. It nationalized a company from the public sector, fired the man running it, put a government appointee in place, and screwed the preferred stock investors, giving them 5 cents on the $1 for their investments. Many of those investors were retired teachers, firefighters and police officers who saw their retirement investments evaporate. Last month, the government took the 1st step toward unloading it's 61% ownership of Government Motors; it applied for an IPO (Initial Public Offering). Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that the main potential buyer of that 61% of Government Motors is SAIC, the largest auto-maker in China. If that happens, we will have witnessed a major redistribution of wealth from America, where the average annual income is around $40,000, to China, where the average annual income is $3,000. Going full circle, the administration will have taken an American company out of the hands of our public sector, nationalized it (and you thought that only happened in socialist or communist countries like Venezuela or Cuba; look again, America) and seized majority ownership of it, then effectively transferred ownership of it to a communist foreign country.
Financial reform enacted under this administration now gives it the discretion to decide when any company is "too big to fail", and seize it. Even the left wing rag, the Huffington Post admits "Financial Reform doesn't end "too big to fail" 6/3/10. America, you'd better wake up. The theft and over-spending looks non-ending.
Christian church, Muslim speaker; does it count?
Yes Obama Went To Church Last Sunday BUT To Hear A MUSLM Speaker!
I recommend Theodores World as a wonderful place to learn the truth; it's a beacon of light in the darkness. Are we surprised that everything Obama does relates back to either his progressive socialist ideology or muslim sympathies? No, we're not. Every move circles back to one or the other; but in this case, thanks to the investigation skills of Wild Thing, we see this move circles back to both.
He went to a Christian church, yes: but to hear a muslim, pro-Palestinian speaker; in a church that's part of an organization affiliated with the largest and oldest community organization in the country. Founded by the way, by Saul Alinsky who dedicated his book, which is the "bible" of progressive socialists including Obama, to Lucifer.
Please read the article; it gives all the details and the sources of the information. Stuff that lame stream media didn't bother with. Not even Fox reported on this. Speculation has it that his church attendance was to counteract suspicions that he's really a muslim; this is not the way to do that. Somebody told me once they didn't care what happened once Obama was elected; their main concern was getting him elected.
PEOPLE BETTER START CARING.
I recommend Theodores World as a wonderful place to learn the truth; it's a beacon of light in the darkness. Are we surprised that everything Obama does relates back to either his progressive socialist ideology or muslim sympathies? No, we're not. Every move circles back to one or the other; but in this case, thanks to the investigation skills of Wild Thing, we see this move circles back to both.
He went to a Christian church, yes: but to hear a muslim, pro-Palestinian speaker; in a church that's part of an organization affiliated with the largest and oldest community organization in the country. Founded by the way, by Saul Alinsky who dedicated his book, which is the "bible" of progressive socialists including Obama, to Lucifer.
Please read the article; it gives all the details and the sources of the information. Stuff that lame stream media didn't bother with. Not even Fox reported on this. Speculation has it that his church attendance was to counteract suspicions that he's really a muslim; this is not the way to do that. Somebody told me once they didn't care what happened once Obama was elected; their main concern was getting him elected.
PEOPLE BETTER START CARING.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Gangsta Government Rap / Infidel
Last night I got this in an email from the "Minnesota Majority". I almost deleted it because I've never heard of the Minnesota Majority and had no idea how they got my email; although I sign every petition and send every email and fax I can, so it's not much of a surprise when I get unsolicited emails. However, I do have an open mind and always want to know how the other side thinks. It's good to know the motivation behind the actions of people you don't agree with. Anyway, I assumed this would be a paean of praise for our so-called "gangsta government"; I assumed wrong. I watched the video, expecting to hear justifications for what has happened in America the past 2 years; it was just the opposite. The video is rap; I don't usually care for rap, I'm old enough to not consider it music. This one is well done, and I could understand most of what Infidel was saying; however, they were nice enough to include the words on the website. So if the words don't scroll below the video, or you just want to read the words and not watch the video, go to the website here www/GangstaGovernment.org/
Minnesota Majority is a non-profit government watchdog organization. The website above is worth a look. Check out the tab "Family Portrait" for a picture of the godfather and his capo's. There is a petition, yes I signed it, demanding the government stop the out of control spending. There are free emails, yes I sent them, to your Congress critters and Obama, demanding they stop the actions that are destroying America. Under the tab "The Evidence" there is a list of articles chronicling the actions the administration has taken that are nothing short of thuggery. One article was from last week; I don't know if y'all noticed it in the news, so I'll mention it here. Remember the almost trillion dollar Stimulus/Spendulus Bill? Well, $111 million went to Los Angeles to "create" jobs. After sitting on the money and the statistics for a year, Los Angeles reported last week that the city and county had "created" 55 jobs with the $111 million. That's over $2 million per job. That's criminal. That's fraud and theft of our tax dollars. It would have helped the economy more if Los Angeles had held a raffle, picked 111 deserving Americans and given them each $1,000,000. Don't take my word for it. Check it out. Go to Gangsta Government and read the article for yourself.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Return of the Frank&Dodd Monster
First I want to point out that Congress passes the bills, makes the laws, and sets the budget for America. It takes a majority of votes to get anything done in Congress; thus if a President of one party has a Congressional majority of the opposing party, everything that is done or not done falls on the shoulders of the party that holds the Congressional majority. It boils down to whether or not the Congress will do what that President wants done; or if the Congress will not do what that President doesn't want done. During the 2nd term of President George Bush, a Republican, the Democratic party gained a majority in Congress. Therefore, the fault or blame for what did or didn't happen during that term of President Bush lies squarely with that Democratic Congress.
Now I have to sadly report that the 2 headed Frank&Dodd monster, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has reared it's ugly head once again. Barney Frank, as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd, as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were responsible for forcing mortgage lenders to issue subprime home loans to people with low incomes, people on welfare, people without provable income, people without identification or proof of citizenship. The video above, "Burning Down the House" came out during the 2008 campaign season; yet, it is still relevant today because it gives a factual history of the mortgage crisis in 10 short minutes. The housing crisis did not start during George Bush's Presidency; but during George Bush's Presidency the Republicans tried 17 - yes, 17 - times to get tighter regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only to be shot down every time but 1 by the Democratic majority. John McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005 that could have prevented most if not all of the mortgage meltdown. By the time the Democratic majority decided to listen to the Republicans, in 2007, there was $1 trillion in toxic subprime mortgages floating around. Still, the Democratic majority in Congress didn't act until 2008, by which time it was too late to prevent the crash and burn of the housing market. So after the Democratic majority Congress caused the mortgage train wreck, President Bush really had no choice but to sign the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout in the fall of 2008. (usnews.com)
Earlier this month, Fannie Mae (Barney Frank is still the House Financial Services Committee Chairman, and Chris Dodd is still the Senate Banking Committee Chairman) unveiled a new program called "Affordable Advantage". So far 4 states have jumped on the bandwagon; Massachusetts, Minnesota, Idaho, and Wisconsin. I'm sure more will follow. The programs allows people to get essentially no-money-down mortgages. It's supposed to require $1,000 down payments, but one couple in Wisconsin was able to game the system and just bought a $115,000 home for only 67 cents down. Sounds like a great program, doesn't it? Wrong. It will put people into homes where they don't have any immediate equity, like they would have if they had made a down payment. With the still-unstable housing market, if home prices fall any at all, those people will find themselves quickly in over their heads with upside-down mortgages; owing more than the home is worth, a "negative equity". And with the uncertainty of the economic picture and the jobs market, even an "affordable" mortgage can fast become unaffordable. If people with negative equity mortgages find themselves in an economic downturn and can't sell the house or refinance, then the outcome is foreclosure. What this program is probably going to lead to is a new wave of financially marginal people experiencing the joys of foreclosure. And a new group needing government bailout. Oh, Joy. Thank you, Frank&Dodd.
(theatlantic.com)
Congress Interruptus
Oops, he's done it again. Last Friday, Sept. 17, 2010, we were blessed with yet another end-run around Congress. This administration is still on it's mission to make not only our Constitution irrelevant, but our Congress impotent. This tactic has been used more times than I can count; the last time I had the stomach to look it up, there were 33 "special assistants" or "special advisors" - a.k.a. "czars". That was months ago, so I'm sure that number has greatly increased. In fact, as I was researching this, I came across an email I sent out 7/7/10, that Obama had just named a health care "czar", circumventing Congress. Yes, other administrations have had "czars". But not nearly as abundantly, and not in the same blatant manner of circumventing Senate confirmation. In previous administrations, "special assistants" and "special advisors" were just that - assistants and advisors. They did not have the same responsibilities as Cabinet Members, which require Senate confirmation. This administration sets up it's "czars" with the same responsibilities as some Cabinet Members, making those positions redundant. Why, you might ask, would there be "czars" with the same responsibilities as Cabinet Members; when the Cabinet Members are already in place and have been confirmed by the Senate? It's simple. Cabinet Members have to be confirmed, are responsible to, and have to answer to, Congress. This administrations "czars" answer only to and get direction only from Obama, don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, and are not allowed to answer to Congress.
The latest "czar" is Elizabeth Warren, who will create and dictate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. According to the Washington Post, it was her "brainchild". More "cronyism"; she's a friend of Obama from college, and is a progressive activist. She'll be working with tax cheat Timothy Geithner, but answering only to Obama. Since Geithner is only "interim" Treasury Secretary - which is how Senate confirmation was avoided - she may end up being named Treasury Secretary. I wonder how they will get around Senate confirmation on that one; if there's a way, they'll find it. Oh, by the way, did y'all know that Andy Stern, the former head of SEIU, is now on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform? The same Andy Stern who has said in video's that he agrees with Mao that power comes thru the end of a gun; and that if the power of persuasion doesn't work, he'll use the persuasion of power. Don't take my word for it; look it up for yourself, the video's are on youtube.
While I don't know a lot - yet - about Warren's background, I do know that a lot of the appointed, non-Senate-confirmed "czars" are self-proclaimed communists, socialists, Maoists and Marxists. That's how they describe themselves, look it up. And some are just plain weird and sick. Take for instance the science "czar" John Holdren; he advocates, in a book he wrote, mandatory abortions for unmarried women, putting sterilants in drinking water, and says that if babies are socialized and given proper nutrition they probably will become human beings. I'm of the opinion that babies are already human beings. Or regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein who is an associate and acolyte of a man (Peter Singer) who thinks it ought to be legal to kill babies up to 3 months of age. I researched that in August 2009, and could look back thru my files for the sources, but I'm not going to. I want people to start looking up these things for themselves. It's all out there, open your eyes and see. Use your ears; listen and hear.
I've always felt that, regardless of ethnic background, religious beliefs, economic class, Americans of all walks of life were basically decent people for the most part. I never thought to see, in my lifetime, if ever, the kinds of people that are now installed at the highest levels of government office. They are chipping away at the very foundation of our country and tearing the very fabric of America to shreds. And I see so many Americans all too willing to stand by complacently and complicitly, and let it happen. My patriot's heart cries for what's being done to my beloved America, and I understand the eagle's tears. Wake up, America!
 |
| I STOPPED COUNTING AT THIRTY-THREE |
 |
| HOW TO BUILD A GOVERNMENT WITHIN A GOVERNMENT |
While I don't know a lot - yet - about Warren's background, I do know that a lot of the appointed, non-Senate-confirmed "czars" are self-proclaimed communists, socialists, Maoists and Marxists. That's how they describe themselves, look it up. And some are just plain weird and sick. Take for instance the science "czar" John Holdren; he advocates, in a book he wrote, mandatory abortions for unmarried women, putting sterilants in drinking water, and says that if babies are socialized and given proper nutrition they probably will become human beings. I'm of the opinion that babies are already human beings. Or regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein who is an associate and acolyte of a man (Peter Singer) who thinks it ought to be legal to kill babies up to 3 months of age. I researched that in August 2009, and could look back thru my files for the sources, but I'm not going to. I want people to start looking up these things for themselves. It's all out there, open your eyes and see. Use your ears; listen and hear.
I've always felt that, regardless of ethnic background, religious beliefs, economic class, Americans of all walks of life were basically decent people for the most part. I never thought to see, in my lifetime, if ever, the kinds of people that are now installed at the highest levels of government office. They are chipping away at the very foundation of our country and tearing the very fabric of America to shreds. And I see so many Americans all too willing to stand by complacently and complicitly, and let it happen. My patriot's heart cries for what's being done to my beloved America, and I understand the eagle's tears. Wake up, America!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
"Liberal" flip-flop
Since I recognized 2 years or more ago what was coming down the pike and what was in store for America if progressive socialist left-wing liberal idealogues were able to gain control of our government, I have been doing what I could to keep my friends and family apprised of what has been transpiring. I did that thru emails that had articles, pictures, or videos; but sometimes I just had to get my own thoughts down and share them. That's what this will be; not a "rant" as some of my email missives have been in the past, but merely a reflection. A reflection and a question; "when did that happen?'. I compose as I type, so I hope this isn't too disjointed to follow.
I spent the first 28 years of my life in Texas, then the next 27 years in Southern California. Yep, that was sure a culture shock. Coming of age in the mid-60's, I saw a lot of changes; but from afar. The Viet Nam war protests were something that happened somewhere else. The sexual revolution was definitely something that happened somewhere else. If you were brave, or stupid, enough to have sex outside of marriage, you just hoped nobody found out. And if it resulted in pregnancy, then the consequences of your actions were your own responsibility. As for drugs, not even happening. I didn't even know what a marijuana joint looked like until I moved to California. Like teenagers of every generation, mine had it's slang, it's buzz words. Things that were good were described as "gear" "fab" and "tough". In my daughter's generation, things that were good were described as "dope". In both generations, we had words flip-flopped to mean good, when the true meaning of the words "tough" and "dope" are anything but good.
Now to the culture shock of moving from Texas, where as a teenager there were 2 kinds of people - cowboys and surfers, and "surfers sucked" (I wouldn't even own up to liking the Beach Boys music for fear of ostracization), to Southern California. It was 1977, and most of the hippies from the 60's had grown up, but not matured. Soon after moving to Oceanside, I found a job at the local K-Mart store and started evening classes in data entry. My typing was rudimentary; that's a whole different story, but can you imagine anybody failing high school typing - well, I did. I worked hard at my data entry classes, until I actually got a good Civil Service rating. Anyway, one day at work, when I had been in California a few months, I shared with some co-workers at lunchtime that I had tested at class the night before and had picked up some speed. I meant typing speed; but I quickly deduced from everybody's reaction, they all thought I meant "speed" drugs, and some wanted me to share. Oh boy, culture shock. It was a time in Southern California that a lot of people from all walks of life at least smoked weed. There was a lot of cocaine around, too. It wasn't uncommon for it to be passed around at parties, lined up on a mirror tile. Even a large number of professional people, who had good jobs and nice homes, had been part of the hippie generation of "sex, drugs, and rock & roll", and held to the mantra "if it feels good, do it". Whereas, I had had it drummed into me while growing up - if it feels good, it's probably a sin and you'd better not do it.
I look around at the "liberals" of today and I wonder when the definition of "liberal" became so convoluted. Today's "liberals" judge everybody that is not exactly like them, they vilify everybody that doesn't think exactly like them, they demonize everybody that doesn't act exactly like them. Today's "liberals" are some of the most closed-minded people you could ever imagine. Today's "liberals" want government control of every aspect of everybody's lives. They were behind the take-over of Government Motors, the take-over of the banks (TARP), the take-over of college loans, the take-over of our health care choices. They are behind the attempt to regulate the air we breathe, declaring that the CO2 that we breathe out, which is to green plants what oxygen is to us, is a "pollutant". They are behind the attempt to even regulate what we can eat, New York has already outlawed salt in restaurants. They want government to decide just about everything for us, and punish those that don't comply. And they are willing to give up their autonomy in exchange for government support - i.e. "entitlements" for just about everything you can think of.
So, I have to wonder; just when did being "liberal" go from being independent and doing your own thing and expecting others to take care of their own life decisions and doing their own thing: to being "liberal" and wanting the government to be a "nanny state" which controls every move it's people make, from the cradle to the grave. I guess it happened while I was living my life and doing my own thing. I've woken up the last 2 years, my eyes are open now. America, wake up before it's too late; open your eyes! Don't lose your individualism, don't give up that drive to be your own person, live your own dream. Don't buy into the "nanny-state" lie of living on Easy Street where Uncle Sugar will take care of you from cradle to grave. The hand that holds the purse strings rocks the cradle and digs the grave.
I spent the first 28 years of my life in Texas, then the next 27 years in Southern California. Yep, that was sure a culture shock. Coming of age in the mid-60's, I saw a lot of changes; but from afar. The Viet Nam war protests were something that happened somewhere else. The sexual revolution was definitely something that happened somewhere else. If you were brave, or stupid, enough to have sex outside of marriage, you just hoped nobody found out. And if it resulted in pregnancy, then the consequences of your actions were your own responsibility. As for drugs, not even happening. I didn't even know what a marijuana joint looked like until I moved to California. Like teenagers of every generation, mine had it's slang, it's buzz words. Things that were good were described as "gear" "fab" and "tough". In my daughter's generation, things that were good were described as "dope". In both generations, we had words flip-flopped to mean good, when the true meaning of the words "tough" and "dope" are anything but good.
Now to the culture shock of moving from Texas, where as a teenager there were 2 kinds of people - cowboys and surfers, and "surfers sucked" (I wouldn't even own up to liking the Beach Boys music for fear of ostracization), to Southern California. It was 1977, and most of the hippies from the 60's had grown up, but not matured. Soon after moving to Oceanside, I found a job at the local K-Mart store and started evening classes in data entry. My typing was rudimentary; that's a whole different story, but can you imagine anybody failing high school typing - well, I did. I worked hard at my data entry classes, until I actually got a good Civil Service rating. Anyway, one day at work, when I had been in California a few months, I shared with some co-workers at lunchtime that I had tested at class the night before and had picked up some speed. I meant typing speed; but I quickly deduced from everybody's reaction, they all thought I meant "speed" drugs, and some wanted me to share. Oh boy, culture shock. It was a time in Southern California that a lot of people from all walks of life at least smoked weed. There was a lot of cocaine around, too. It wasn't uncommon for it to be passed around at parties, lined up on a mirror tile. Even a large number of professional people, who had good jobs and nice homes, had been part of the hippie generation of "sex, drugs, and rock & roll", and held to the mantra "if it feels good, do it". Whereas, I had had it drummed into me while growing up - if it feels good, it's probably a sin and you'd better not do it.
These people I encounted in Southern California, between 1977 and up into the 90's, were "liberals". They lived a "liberal" lifestyle. They didn't get their nose out of joint about what anybody else was doing. That was "their thing". Getting high was alright, it was cool to "party hearty", casual sex and illegitimate children - no problem. What somebody else was doing was their own business, you didn't sweat it, you certainly didn't judge it. People were very "liberal" about accepting every other lifestyle and life choice. To be "liberal" was to be open-minded and non-judgemental. The last thing these "liberals" wanted was any kind of government bureaucratic oversight or control over their freedoms. They wanted to be left alone to do their own thing.
I look around at the "liberals" of today and I wonder when the definition of "liberal" became so convoluted. Today's "liberals" judge everybody that is not exactly like them, they vilify everybody that doesn't think exactly like them, they demonize everybody that doesn't act exactly like them. Today's "liberals" are some of the most closed-minded people you could ever imagine. Today's "liberals" want government control of every aspect of everybody's lives. They were behind the take-over of Government Motors, the take-over of the banks (TARP), the take-over of college loans, the take-over of our health care choices. They are behind the attempt to regulate the air we breathe, declaring that the CO2 that we breathe out, which is to green plants what oxygen is to us, is a "pollutant". They are behind the attempt to even regulate what we can eat, New York has already outlawed salt in restaurants. They want government to decide just about everything for us, and punish those that don't comply. And they are willing to give up their autonomy in exchange for government support - i.e. "entitlements" for just about everything you can think of.
So, I have to wonder; just when did being "liberal" go from being independent and doing your own thing and expecting others to take care of their own life decisions and doing their own thing: to being "liberal" and wanting the government to be a "nanny state" which controls every move it's people make, from the cradle to the grave. I guess it happened while I was living my life and doing my own thing. I've woken up the last 2 years, my eyes are open now. America, wake up before it's too late; open your eyes! Don't lose your individualism, don't give up that drive to be your own person, live your own dream. Don't buy into the "nanny-state" lie of living on Easy Street where Uncle Sugar will take care of you from cradle to grave. The hand that holds the purse strings rocks the cradle and digs the grave.
 |
| Nanny McState - Not a Pretty Picture |
Friday, September 17, 2010
Today's "Days"
TODAY HAS TWO VERY AUSPICIOUS DESIGNATIONS:
TODAY IS CONSTITUTION DAY
STAND FAST AGAINST THOSE WHO TRY TO PERVERT WHAT IT MEANS
TODAY IS POW-MIA DAY. REMEMBER THOSE WHO NEVER MADE IT HOME
"FREEDOM IS A FRAGILE THING AND IS NEVER MORE THAN ONE GENERATION AWAY FROM EXTINCTION. IT IS NOT OURS BY INHERITANCE, IT MUST BE FOUGHT FOR AND DEFENDED CONSTANTLY BY EACH GENERATION, FOR IT ONLY COMES ONCE TO A PEOPLE. THOSE WHO HAVE KNOWN FREEDOM AND THEN LOST IT HAVE NEVER KNOWN IT AGAIN."
RONALD W. REAGAN, 33rd PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TODAY IS CONSTITUTION DAY
STAND FAST AGAINST THOSE WHO TRY TO PERVERT WHAT IT MEANS
TODAY IS POW-MIA DAY. REMEMBER THOSE WHO NEVER MADE IT HOME
"FREEDOM IS A FRAGILE THING AND IS NEVER MORE THAN ONE GENERATION AWAY FROM EXTINCTION. IT IS NOT OURS BY INHERITANCE, IT MUST BE FOUGHT FOR AND DEFENDED CONSTANTLY BY EACH GENERATION, FOR IT ONLY COMES ONCE TO A PEOPLE. THOSE WHO HAVE KNOWN FREEDOM AND THEN LOST IT HAVE NEVER KNOWN IT AGAIN."
RONALD W. REAGAN, 33rd PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
God save the children
Pamela Geller has a wonderful website, Atlas Shrugs (http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/), that shines the light of truth on the mosqueing of America, creeping sharia, and the spreading of the tentacles of Islam thru every aspect of American life. The 9-11 Remembrance and Stop the Ground Zero Mosque Rally was either minimized or ignored by the media; yet, the crowd was massive, as you can see by the pictures Ms. Geller has posted. Go there for the truth. There's an article on Atlas Shrugs "Public Schools Proselytizing for Islam: School Trip to "Moderate" Mosque: Inside Video Captures Non-Muslim Kids Bowing, Praying to Allah", that all parents and grandparents need to read. Can you imagine the uproar if a public school had taken kids on a field trip to a Christian church and had them participate in an altar call? Christian children aren't allowed to pray to their God, or carry a Bible in public schools; yet some public schools are setting aside rooms and giving extra break time to muslim students to pray several times a day to Allah. Indoctrination of our children under the guise of cultural diversity is just plain wrong. It is the right of parents to guide their childrens' religious development; not the government, in the form of public school officials.
As a grandparent of elementary school age children, I've been concerned about how young children are being indoctrinated in several areas, that take the rights away from the parents regarding how THEY want to guide the development of their own children. I've been aware that with left-wing liberal professors in most colleges these days, college students are being indoctrinated with the idealogies of those teachers. My daughter is taking accelerated classes at a university. The first class was an orientation; yet the teacher had questions on an exam asking what has Obama done good for America. To pass the exam, the students had to name some things Obama has done "good for America"; whether that's what the student believed or not. What, I ask, does that have to do with a class addressing the subject of curriculum orientation? Not a thing. It has to do with the teachers political ideology. It has no place in a classroom. And now this kind of indoctrination has creeped into the public schools. Is there anybody who hasn't seen one of the many videos going around the internet of kids as young as kindergarten age being brainwashed into singing the praises of Obama? They are there to get an education, not a political indoctrination. I know children need heroes to look up to, but to Deify a mere mortal human being? I don't think so. It is the right of parents to guide their childrens' political growth; not that of the government, in the form of public school officials.
Another area of concern regarding public schools overstepping their role, is in sex education and in trying to mold a young persons' sexual orientation. Here's some background on the "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings from Examiner.com: he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and says he was inspired by the late Harry Hay, a self-proclaimed Marxist who was a leading member of NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association. Hay felt that a relationship with an older man was one of the best things that could happen to a young boy. Kevin Jennings wrote a book titled "Queering Elementary Education"; he also has a book list for teachers to choose from that includes pornography and one book (out of many) that recommends being a gay prostitute as a way to bolster self-esteem in a teenager. I've read excerpts (there is a list on line if you want to look it up) from several of the recommended books, and they are not what should be taught in public schools; we send our kids to public schools for an education, not an indoctrination. Jennings organized an event in Boston in 2005 that has become known as "fistgate" because gay sexual activities were actually demonstrated. A booklet was also handed out to high-schoolers with a list of gay bars in Boston. Teenagers should be discouraged from going to bars, period; much less directed to gay bars. It's the right of parents to guide their childrens' sexual education and attitudes; not the government, in the form of public school officials.
There's a situation developing in Helena, Montana, that has caught national attention. My skepticism is alive and well, and very healthy. I have to wonder if this is a "test case" and Helena was picked because it might have been obscure enough for this plan to gain a foothold and start roots that could then be implemented in other schools across the country. From CNN.com, here's the 4 stages of the curriculum: kindergartners and 1st graders would be shown pictures of male and female genitalia and taught the proper verbage for them and taught that people can love others of the same gender. Fifth graders would be taught sexual positions and that intercourse involves oral and anal penetration. Middle school discussions would have the topics of pregnancy and alcohol. High schoolers would be taught the "legal implications" of some decisions. First of all, can you imagine the confusion of kindergartners and 1st graders, who are struggling to learn reading and arithmatic, if they are suddenly shown graphic pictures of body parts and taught words that are beyond their realm of experience? Too much, too soon. And isn't that how pediphiles operate; they "soften up" their victims by showing them sexually explicit pictures and videos? What might those innocent young children be subjected to under the guise of "sex education"? Kevin Jennings wrote a forward to a book in which he states that the sexual innocence of young children is a "veneer" created by their parents. Veneer, my behind. Children of that age ARE sincerely innocent. Let's not take that away from them. As for teaching 5th graders about the various aspects of sexual activity; again it's not the teachers responsibility to do that. The government is usurping the rights and responsibilities of the parents. Don't let them do it.
Do you believe in coincidence? I started fomenting this subject last night. This morning when I woke up at 4:00 AM, I was already composing it in my mind. On Fox News Network this morning, there was an interview with Bruce Messinger, the superintendent of schools for Helena, Montana. So much for Helena not gaining national attention. There have, so far, been more than 7,000 parents come forward and protest the proposed sex education curriculum. According to Mr. Messinger, they have decided to forgo the "graphics", but still intend to implement the curriculum in Helena public schools. He refuses to disclose who wrote the sex education curriculum; just to say that it included parents, educators, and experts. The CNN article mentions "national guidelines". What "national guidelines" exactly? The news coverage on the Helena sex education curriculum gives the impression that it is a unique and first of it's kind approach to sex education in our public schools. So just where do those "national guidelines" come from? The so-called "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings, perhaps?
This is not a discussion of whether homosexuality is right or wrong; it is a discussion of what young kids should be told, at what age they should be told it, and by whom it should be told. It is a discussion of children being indoctrinated into a religion that may conflict with their parents beliefs. It is a discussion of children being indoctrinated into a political ideology that may clash with their parents beliefs. Children are being steered into going to people other than their parents for information that should be the domain of parents to impart. Parents, ask yourselves, are you willing to abdicate your rights and responsibilities of guiding your own childrens' development, growth, attitudes and ideology in the areas of religious beliefs, political beliefs, and sexual beliefs? If you don't step forward and re-claim those rights, the federal government in the form of public school officials, is rapidly taking them away from you. Stand up for your rights. Stand up for your children. America's children.
As a grandparent of elementary school age children, I've been concerned about how young children are being indoctrinated in several areas, that take the rights away from the parents regarding how THEY want to guide the development of their own children. I've been aware that with left-wing liberal professors in most colleges these days, college students are being indoctrinated with the idealogies of those teachers. My daughter is taking accelerated classes at a university. The first class was an orientation; yet the teacher had questions on an exam asking what has Obama done good for America. To pass the exam, the students had to name some things Obama has done "good for America"; whether that's what the student believed or not. What, I ask, does that have to do with a class addressing the subject of curriculum orientation? Not a thing. It has to do with the teachers political ideology. It has no place in a classroom. And now this kind of indoctrination has creeped into the public schools. Is there anybody who hasn't seen one of the many videos going around the internet of kids as young as kindergarten age being brainwashed into singing the praises of Obama? They are there to get an education, not a political indoctrination. I know children need heroes to look up to, but to Deify a mere mortal human being? I don't think so. It is the right of parents to guide their childrens' political growth; not that of the government, in the form of public school officials.
Another area of concern regarding public schools overstepping their role, is in sex education and in trying to mold a young persons' sexual orientation. Here's some background on the "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings from Examiner.com: he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and says he was inspired by the late Harry Hay, a self-proclaimed Marxist who was a leading member of NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association. Hay felt that a relationship with an older man was one of the best things that could happen to a young boy. Kevin Jennings wrote a book titled "Queering Elementary Education"; he also has a book list for teachers to choose from that includes pornography and one book (out of many) that recommends being a gay prostitute as a way to bolster self-esteem in a teenager. I've read excerpts (there is a list on line if you want to look it up) from several of the recommended books, and they are not what should be taught in public schools; we send our kids to public schools for an education, not an indoctrination. Jennings organized an event in Boston in 2005 that has become known as "fistgate" because gay sexual activities were actually demonstrated. A booklet was also handed out to high-schoolers with a list of gay bars in Boston. Teenagers should be discouraged from going to bars, period; much less directed to gay bars. It's the right of parents to guide their childrens' sexual education and attitudes; not the government, in the form of public school officials.
There's a situation developing in Helena, Montana, that has caught national attention. My skepticism is alive and well, and very healthy. I have to wonder if this is a "test case" and Helena was picked because it might have been obscure enough for this plan to gain a foothold and start roots that could then be implemented in other schools across the country. From CNN.com, here's the 4 stages of the curriculum: kindergartners and 1st graders would be shown pictures of male and female genitalia and taught the proper verbage for them and taught that people can love others of the same gender. Fifth graders would be taught sexual positions and that intercourse involves oral and anal penetration. Middle school discussions would have the topics of pregnancy and alcohol. High schoolers would be taught the "legal implications" of some decisions. First of all, can you imagine the confusion of kindergartners and 1st graders, who are struggling to learn reading and arithmatic, if they are suddenly shown graphic pictures of body parts and taught words that are beyond their realm of experience? Too much, too soon. And isn't that how pediphiles operate; they "soften up" their victims by showing them sexually explicit pictures and videos? What might those innocent young children be subjected to under the guise of "sex education"? Kevin Jennings wrote a forward to a book in which he states that the sexual innocence of young children is a "veneer" created by their parents. Veneer, my behind. Children of that age ARE sincerely innocent. Let's not take that away from them. As for teaching 5th graders about the various aspects of sexual activity; again it's not the teachers responsibility to do that. The government is usurping the rights and responsibilities of the parents. Don't let them do it.
Do you believe in coincidence? I started fomenting this subject last night. This morning when I woke up at 4:00 AM, I was already composing it in my mind. On Fox News Network this morning, there was an interview with Bruce Messinger, the superintendent of schools for Helena, Montana. So much for Helena not gaining national attention. There have, so far, been more than 7,000 parents come forward and protest the proposed sex education curriculum. According to Mr. Messinger, they have decided to forgo the "graphics", but still intend to implement the curriculum in Helena public schools. He refuses to disclose who wrote the sex education curriculum; just to say that it included parents, educators, and experts. The CNN article mentions "national guidelines". What "national guidelines" exactly? The news coverage on the Helena sex education curriculum gives the impression that it is a unique and first of it's kind approach to sex education in our public schools. So just where do those "national guidelines" come from? The so-called "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings, perhaps?
This is not a discussion of whether homosexuality is right or wrong; it is a discussion of what young kids should be told, at what age they should be told it, and by whom it should be told. It is a discussion of children being indoctrinated into a religion that may conflict with their parents beliefs. It is a discussion of children being indoctrinated into a political ideology that may clash with their parents beliefs. Children are being steered into going to people other than their parents for information that should be the domain of parents to impart. Parents, ask yourselves, are you willing to abdicate your rights and responsibilities of guiding your own childrens' development, growth, attitudes and ideology in the areas of religious beliefs, political beliefs, and sexual beliefs? If you don't step forward and re-claim those rights, the federal government in the form of public school officials, is rapidly taking them away from you. Stand up for your rights. Stand up for your children. America's children.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Dream on, DREAM Act
The DREAM Act - Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act - is a nightmare of an attempt by the Democrats at a back-door run at amnesty. Even the ultra-left-wing publication, the Huffington Post, says it's a last shot towards appeasing latinos before the November election. In case you haven't heard of it, the Democrats have used one of their favorite tactics: burying proposed legislation inside bills that have absolutely no relation to what they are trying to slip past the American voters. Case in point: the Health Choices Commission (aka Death Panel) was set up inside the Stimulus Bill, and is headed by Tom Daschel. Once the Stimulus Bill passed, the Commission came into being and started setting up offices across the country. The "official" title is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, it was funded with $1.1 billion thru the Stimulus Bill, it's stated purpose is "to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make", and it's end result is "to slow costly medical advancement and consumption". (American Thinker 8/15/09) Another case in point is the student loan takeover which was hidden within obamacare. (Washington Examiner 3/19/10) College funding has now been nationalized (much like Government Motors), and the only place to go to for a student loan for college is to Uncle Sugar. You can bet Uncle will want to have a say in what students study and where they attend. There are other examples of "hide the act" but people need to start looking into things for themselves. I can tell you, trying to discover exactly what the Democrats in Congress are up to behind their smoke and mirrors is like playing "Finding Nemo". The DREAM Act has been snuck into the Defense Authorization Bill. How dirty is that? (Wikipedia)
The DREAM Act is supposed to creat a "path to citizenship" (there is already a "path to citizenship" - it starts at the Embassy in their home country) for illegal (there's that word again - ILLEGAL) immigrants between the ages of 12 and 35 (35?!!!) who came here before the age of 16 and have been here for at least 5 years. They have to have graduated from our high schools, be of "good moral character", attend college for 2 years (they don't even have to finish), or go into our military for at least 2 years. Where do I even begin? Okay. Start with the military service. The United States has long allowed immigrants to serve in our military, but they were here LEGALLY. I am not comfortable allowing people who are here illegally to enter our military service. They need to be checked out and approved for legal entry into the United States, first. Now, on to the student aspect of it. There are an estimated 65,000 illegal immigrant students who graduate from our high schools every year. That's paid for out of our tax dollars. America has a high drop-out rate among it's own minority citizens. We have a country that is almost bankrupt, and we need to use more discretion on how our tax dollars are spent. The money spent on educating people who are in this country illegally would best be spent finding a way to encourage our own young at-risk students to stay in high school, graduate and go to college and fulfill their own dreams. We have so many that are falling thru the cracks because so much attention is going to illegal immigrants instead of to the young Americans who need that attention. Logically, after bearing the expense of putting illegal immigrants thru our high schools, next comes college. Once the DREAM Act halfway provides legitimacy (Senator Hutchison tried to get it changed to temporary student visa and renewable work permit but the Democrats shot that down in favor of permanent residency), the illegal immigrants will have residency status for the purpose of higher education benefits. I.E., they could then hold out their hands to Uncle Sugar for college funding. And since banks and financial institutions can no longer offer student loans, and the only place to get a college loan is thru Uncle Sugar, it will all be paid for thru our tax dollars.
How, you might ask, is the DREAM Act a back-door approach to amnesty? Follow along with me; between the student and military aspects the DREAM Act is estimated to affect 2,000,000 (2 million) illegal immigrants. After 6 years they can become citizens. Thru "sponsorship" they can then sponsor for citizenship the parents that brought them here illegally in the first place. Thus, back-door amnesty. Don't fall for it. Dirty Harry Reid is going to try to push it thru next week. Call or write your Congress critters and insist they vote against it. You can go to http://www.numbersusa.com/ and send free faxes to your House and Senate members.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
ZERO the ground Zero mosque
Okay, boys and girls. I started digging into the story behind the Ground Zero mosque and there's a lot of material out there. I know not everybody is as much a detail freak as I am (anal retentive, much?), so I won't include everything I found, just the highlights (or lowlights, however you look at it) which are enough that people should be asking themselves would they consider buying a used car from these people, or even trust them to walk your dog.
First a little history lesson. Muslims have a centuries-old tradition of putting mosques at the sites of their conquests or victories. (Symbols and their meaning, http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/ 8/20/10). The Twin Towers were the symbol of U.S. global economic dominance and to the muslim world the destruction of them meant muslim dominance over the U.S. Remember the muslims dancing in the streets all around the world when the Towers came down? The Temple in Jerusalem symbolizes the Jewish nation. The muslims built a mosque on top of the Temple Mount to symbolize their superiority over Israel. The muslims built a mosque over the Church in Cordoba, Italy and converted the Hegia Sophia Church in Constantinople to a mosque. They have done the same to hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines. This is a 1400 year old tradition they are still following. They plan to call the mosque at Ground Zero "Cordoba House" in honor of the mosque at Cordoba, Spain because to them it represents the same thing, muslim conquest over infidels.
The "developer" of the Ground Zero mosque is Egyptian Sharif el-Gamal. According to a story in today's Yahoo news, he is being evicted from his office building for failing to pay back rent. He was also served an eviction last year, but reached a settlement with the property owners that time. He doesn't even own all the property where the mosque is proposed; part of it is still owned by Con Edison and el-Gamal is leasing it with the option to buy. CBS News New York reported 8-30-10 on el Gamal's background. He's got a checkered past, going all the way back to 1990 and including arrests and guilty pleas to disorderly conduct, DUI, and petty larceny on 6 different occasions. His 7th and latest brush with the law came in 2005 when he assaulted a man while working as a waiter. In the arrest documents he said "his face could have run into my hand". His victim suffered a broken nose and cheekbone; a claim was filed against el Gamal in 2008 for $15,000 and he had trouble coming up with it until it ran into interest charges. El Gamal currently owes over $227,000 in unpaid property taxes which is accruing daily interest. Ask yourself, as I have, how could a man who was working as a waiter in 2005 and couldn't pay a $15,000 claim to his assault victim in 2008 suddenly be able to purchase the site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque in 2009 for $4.5 million, CASH. (note: the New York Observer puts the purchase amount at $4.85 million)
The person behind the mosque developer Sharif el Gamal is Kuwait born muslim cleric Imam Feisal Rauf. Shortly after 9-11-01, Rauf said in an interview with the television program "60 Minutes" that the U.S. was "an accessory to the crime" implying that the 19 terrorists were acting in self defense for the muslim world. In 2005 Rauf told a large muslim audience in Australia that the United States "had more muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on it's hands of innocent non-muslims". Rauf is petitioning our government to become "Sharia compliant" and place a sharia system within our judicial system. We all know about the horrors of sharia law, so I won't go into that here. Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization targeting Israel, as a terror organization. More about that later. Rauf refuses to say where the $100 million budget to build his mosque is going to come from. Now, Rauf has said (Yahoo news 9-13-10) that he doesn't see Ground Zero as a sacred memorial sight and that saying it is hallowed ground is a "misconception". Rauf said moving the mosque would incite islamic extremists to attack the United States (ABC "This Week" 9-12-10)
The roots of the Ground Zero mosque plot go back to 2003; first proposed by 2 Iranian brothers, Amir and Hossein Mahallati. Amir was involved with Rauf in an obscure nonprofit entity, while Hossein is the former director of the Alavi Foundation set up by the Shah of Iran, which is now under sanction by the U.S. for transferring funds to the Iranian national financial institution. Partnering with el Gamal in developing the mosque is Nour Moussa, nephew of Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League and the 1st major Arab leader to go to Gaza and support Hamas. Remember, Imam Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas as being a terrorist organization. Rauf is a prominent figure and supporter of a group that sponsors and funds the IHH warship convoy (aka "flotilla") attempting to evade Israel and smuggle arms to Gaza. Rauf's uncle-in-law is Dr. Farooq Khan, former leader of a Westbury Mosque on Long Island, a center for muslim radicals and thru it's website links people to Islamic Circle of North America, which is a front here in America for a Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami. (The previous from http://www.israelmilitary.net/) The last associate of Rauf's I'm going to mention (this time, at least) is Faiz Khan. Faiz Khan was Rauf's partner in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims. Khan is also on the board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth. Yep, he's a "truther" who believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that muslims have been made the scapegoats (New York Post). He said the only role that "militant Islamic networks" played was a partial role as "patsy and scapegoat". Kind of echoes what Imam Rauf has said, doesn't it? The last associate of developer el Gamal that I want to mention is one of his investors, Hisham Elzanaty, who expresses sympathy for Palestinians and has in the past supported a "charity" shut down by the U.S. for it's links to Hamas (The Jerusalem Post).
The Twin Towers are no longer there, in the background of many pictures taken of the Statue of Liberty. Do we really want them replaced by a monstrous 15 story mosque with a dome and minaret; in every picture taken at this angle of the Statue of Liberty? For those who don't know what a minaret is; it's the tall spire on top of mosques, generally taller that the supporting structure it's built on. The muslims consider it "the sword of Islam". Remember the old axiom "We are known by the company we keep"? This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I've given enough information that everybody should be asking themselves some questions and not just blindly following the pied piper to the altar of "political correctness". Are we really supposed to believe the propaganda that these are just a bunch of "moderate" muslims? Their associations don't say that; and their associations speak volumns, and at a very loud volume. Have ears to hear. Please.
First a little history lesson. Muslims have a centuries-old tradition of putting mosques at the sites of their conquests or victories. (Symbols and their meaning, http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/ 8/20/10). The Twin Towers were the symbol of U.S. global economic dominance and to the muslim world the destruction of them meant muslim dominance over the U.S. Remember the muslims dancing in the streets all around the world when the Towers came down? The Temple in Jerusalem symbolizes the Jewish nation. The muslims built a mosque on top of the Temple Mount to symbolize their superiority over Israel. The muslims built a mosque over the Church in Cordoba, Italy and converted the Hegia Sophia Church in Constantinople to a mosque. They have done the same to hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines. This is a 1400 year old tradition they are still following. They plan to call the mosque at Ground Zero "Cordoba House" in honor of the mosque at Cordoba, Spain because to them it represents the same thing, muslim conquest over infidels.
The "developer" of the Ground Zero mosque is Egyptian Sharif el-Gamal. According to a story in today's Yahoo news, he is being evicted from his office building for failing to pay back rent. He was also served an eviction last year, but reached a settlement with the property owners that time. He doesn't even own all the property where the mosque is proposed; part of it is still owned by Con Edison and el-Gamal is leasing it with the option to buy. CBS News New York reported 8-30-10 on el Gamal's background. He's got a checkered past, going all the way back to 1990 and including arrests and guilty pleas to disorderly conduct, DUI, and petty larceny on 6 different occasions. His 7th and latest brush with the law came in 2005 when he assaulted a man while working as a waiter. In the arrest documents he said "his face could have run into my hand". His victim suffered a broken nose and cheekbone; a claim was filed against el Gamal in 2008 for $15,000 and he had trouble coming up with it until it ran into interest charges. El Gamal currently owes over $227,000 in unpaid property taxes which is accruing daily interest. Ask yourself, as I have, how could a man who was working as a waiter in 2005 and couldn't pay a $15,000 claim to his assault victim in 2008 suddenly be able to purchase the site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque in 2009 for $4.5 million, CASH. (note: the New York Observer puts the purchase amount at $4.85 million)
The person behind the mosque developer Sharif el Gamal is Kuwait born muslim cleric Imam Feisal Rauf. Shortly after 9-11-01, Rauf said in an interview with the television program "60 Minutes" that the U.S. was "an accessory to the crime" implying that the 19 terrorists were acting in self defense for the muslim world. In 2005 Rauf told a large muslim audience in Australia that the United States "had more muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on it's hands of innocent non-muslims". Rauf is petitioning our government to become "Sharia compliant" and place a sharia system within our judicial system. We all know about the horrors of sharia law, so I won't go into that here. Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization targeting Israel, as a terror organization. More about that later. Rauf refuses to say where the $100 million budget to build his mosque is going to come from. Now, Rauf has said (Yahoo news 9-13-10) that he doesn't see Ground Zero as a sacred memorial sight and that saying it is hallowed ground is a "misconception". Rauf said moving the mosque would incite islamic extremists to attack the United States (ABC "This Week" 9-12-10)
The roots of the Ground Zero mosque plot go back to 2003; first proposed by 2 Iranian brothers, Amir and Hossein Mahallati. Amir was involved with Rauf in an obscure nonprofit entity, while Hossein is the former director of the Alavi Foundation set up by the Shah of Iran, which is now under sanction by the U.S. for transferring funds to the Iranian national financial institution. Partnering with el Gamal in developing the mosque is Nour Moussa, nephew of Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League and the 1st major Arab leader to go to Gaza and support Hamas. Remember, Imam Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas as being a terrorist organization. Rauf is a prominent figure and supporter of a group that sponsors and funds the IHH warship convoy (aka "flotilla") attempting to evade Israel and smuggle arms to Gaza. Rauf's uncle-in-law is Dr. Farooq Khan, former leader of a Westbury Mosque on Long Island, a center for muslim radicals and thru it's website links people to Islamic Circle of North America, which is a front here in America for a Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami. (The previous from http://www.israelmilitary.net/) The last associate of Rauf's I'm going to mention (this time, at least) is Faiz Khan. Faiz Khan was Rauf's partner in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims. Khan is also on the board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth. Yep, he's a "truther" who believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that muslims have been made the scapegoats (New York Post). He said the only role that "militant Islamic networks" played was a partial role as "patsy and scapegoat". Kind of echoes what Imam Rauf has said, doesn't it? The last associate of developer el Gamal that I want to mention is one of his investors, Hisham Elzanaty, who expresses sympathy for Palestinians and has in the past supported a "charity" shut down by the U.S. for it's links to Hamas (The Jerusalem Post).
The Twin Towers are no longer there, in the background of many pictures taken of the Statue of Liberty. Do we really want them replaced by a monstrous 15 story mosque with a dome and minaret; in every picture taken at this angle of the Statue of Liberty? For those who don't know what a minaret is; it's the tall spire on top of mosques, generally taller that the supporting structure it's built on. The muslims consider it "the sword of Islam". Remember the old axiom "We are known by the company we keep"? This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I've given enough information that everybody should be asking themselves some questions and not just blindly following the pied piper to the altar of "political correctness". Are we really supposed to believe the propaganda that these are just a bunch of "moderate" muslims? Their associations don't say that; and their associations speak volumns, and at a very loud volume. Have ears to hear. Please.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Immigration of the ILLEGAL persuasion
In my introductory post, I failed to mention that I am pro-legal immigration, anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Pro-secured borders, anti-open borders. Pro-border enforcement, anti-border retreat. Pro-deportation, anti-amnesty. I have friends and family members who immigrated to America legally, became Americans, and have contributed to our society. What I have a really big problem with is the people who show America such disrespect as to sneak across our borders illegally (which very act is against our laws and makes them criminals), overburden our education (which has degraded the quality of education, http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/), and medical systems (to the point of some hospitals closing their emergency rooms), and fraudulently take services that are paid for out of our tax dollars. Why are these people still in our country?
Here's how Mexico treats people who enter their country illegally; compare their laws and actions to those of the United States. This is from the Florida Times Union on April 29,2010: The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics" (can you say "racial profiling"?) It bars outsiders who do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy" (they don't want poor outsiders). It bars people who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security" (kind of like the illegals who protest America in it's very streets, or the Mexican president castigating America to our own Congress?). People seeking Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam, and prove they can provide their own health care. Document fraud, alien marriage fraud, and evading deportation are subject to imprisonment. Illegal entry into Mexico is a felony subject to 2 years imprisonment, re-entry after deportation carries a 10 year prison sentence. By national law, law enforcement at all levels MUST cooperate to enforce immigration laws, illegal alien arrests and deportations. The military is required to assist law enforcement, and native Mexicans can make citizens arrests of illegal aliens. The National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all foreign nationals and people who do not possess proper documents are assumed to be illegal aliens and subject to arrest. Mexico even outlaws pro-illegal alien SPEECH. What a hypocrit Calderon is.
While Mexico refuses admitance of people with mental disorders, the University of California-Davis School of Medicine did a study in 2007 (http://www.cnsnews.com/) that showed that immigrants with a pre-existing psychiatric disorder were 3 times more likely to migrate to the U.S. than those who didn't. The findings contradict the "healthy migrant" hypothesis; prior to emigration, immigrants had higher rather than lower risk for psychiatric disorder. The study found that having such a disorder was actually a predictor of migration to the U.S., and that people without legal status are much less likely to seek treatment. It's such a serious matter that our National Institutes of Health is conducting their own $450,000 (our tax dollars) study to further investigate the relationship between emigration from Mexico and psychiatric disorders. Why are these people still in our country?
While illegal immigrants with mental disorders hesitate to seek help, those with other illnesses sure don't.
Federal laws require hospitals to give emergency treatment to patients regardless of citizenship. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal (http://www.lvrj.com/), University Medical Center will operate at a more than $70 million deficit for 2010. It currently has 243 illegal aliens that come to the emergency room for dialysis, at the rate of about 8 a day, at a cost of $28 million a year. That's on top of the other wide range of ailments that illegals present themselves to the emergency room for. The Federal government requires the treatment of illegal immigrants, but it doesn't cover the entire cost (our tax dollars), leaving a burden on the states and cities. The University of Texas at El Paso did a study last year (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/) that found that treating illegal immigrants in Cochise County border hospitals accounted for nearly 25% of the uncompensated costs; and that 25 % of the county's overall health care budget went to treat illegal immigrants. These are only 2 examples, but you can extrapolate them to the thousands of cities across the country that are having the same problems and see how monumental the issue is. Why are these people still in our country?
While the unfair cost to American citizens and legal residents of the 20 million illegal immigrants in America taking advantage of our educational systems, medical care systems, and social services is no small issue, to me the greatest concern is the crimes some of them commit. Which they wouldn't be able to commit if they weren't here illegally (which, by the way, is a crime unto itself). The stories are frequent and myriad. One is from last year in Houston, TX. I don't have a reference for it, but it was in the papers and on the television news; I imagine the Houston Chronicle has the story in it's archives. A cop was shot in the face while serving a drug trafficing warrant at a house where a known illegal immigrant was living. The illegal immigrant had been deported and came back 4 times; and was on a "voluntary deportation" at the time. Give me a break. Get real. If an illegal immigrant criminal had been caught and deported and came back 4 times, why would anybody believe that he was going to "voluntary deport" himself? Here are some reports on illegal immigrant crime statistics: From http://www.libertypundits.net/ a report of INS participation in Antigang Task Forces in Los Angeles, detailing a file review of 124 arrests. Of them, 106 were in the U.S. illegally, 64 belonged to a gang, with 21 having prior association with a gang. Of the 106 illegal immigrants, 103 already had a criminal record, 85 had at least 1 prior felony conviction, and 49 had more than one prior felony conviction, 69 had at least 1 misdemeanor conviction. Why are these people still in our country?
That article referenced another study reported on by Jim Khouri on http://www.renewamerica.com/ in 2006 (I'm trying to keep to a chronological order to show progression). Jim Khouri was the vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, he reported on a study by the Government Accounting Office on the criminal history of Illegal immigrants in federal and state prisons and local jails. The study took a sample of 55,322 illegal immigrants (the GAO referrred to them as illegal aliens, my how things have become so politically correct in 4 years) in the prison population. Those 55,332 illegal immigrants had been arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging 8 arrests each. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest; 21,000 had between 2 & 5 arrests; 18,000 had between 6 & 10 arrests; and 15,000 had 11 or more arrests. Each arrest may include multiple offenses; there were a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses. Almost all were arrested for more than 1 offense; more than half had between 2 & 10 offenses. About 45% were drug or immigration offenses, 15% were property-related offenses, and 12% were violent offenses. 12% of 700,000 offenses computes to 84,000 murders, assaults, or rapes. The remainder of the offenses were traffic, fraud, weapons violations and obstruction of justice. 80% of the 459,614 arrests occurred in 3 states; 58% in California, 14% in Texas, and 8% in Arizona. Why are these people still in our country?
Let's look at California. There was a report published in the Los Angeles Times, I don't have the date, but I received it in July, 2007; so it is probably still in their archives. At that time, L.A. County had a population of 10.2 million people. 40% of all workers were working for cash and not paying taxes because they were predominantly illegal immigrants. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal immigrants. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles were illegal immigrants. More than 2/3 of the births in Los Angeles County were to illegal immigrants, paid for by us taxpayers. 25% of all California inmates were Mexican Nationals, here illegally. Over 300,000 illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County were living in garages. The FBI reported that half of all gang members in Los Angeles were most likely illegal immigrants from Mexico. Nearly 60% of HUD property occupants were illegal immigrants. Los Angeles had 21 Spanish speaking radio stations. Of the 10.2 million people in Los Angeles County then, 5.1 million spoke English, 3.9 million spoke spanish. Less than 2% of illegal immigrants were field workers, but 29% of illegal immigrants were on welfare. There are Americans doing without, why are these people still in our country?
Now, let's look at Arizona. Arizona has been in the news a lot in the past few months. I can't, for the life of me, understand why any American would side with people who are in this country ILLEGALLY against their fellow Americans. And I sure can't wrap my mind around the current regime suing one of it's states for trying to enforce a law that is almost word for word identical to the one that is already in the Federal Statutes. What part of ILLEGAL don't people understand? This is from a report by the Maricopa County Attorney General Andrew Thomas in October 2008 (www.mcaodocuments.com/press20081002_awhitepaper.pdf):
In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for 10% of sex crimes convictions, 11% of murder convictions, 13% of stolen car convictions, 13% of aggravated assault convictions, 17% of violent crime convictions, 19% of property crime convictions, 20% of felony DUI convictions, 21% of armed crime convictions, 34% of making, selling or transporting drugs convictions, 36% of kidnapping convictions, 44% of forgery convictions, 50% of "chop shop" convictions, 85% of false ID convictions, and 96% of smuggling convictions. I daresay things have gotten much worse in the past 3 years; Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the United States, 2nd in the world only to Mexico City. Why are these people still in our country?
To illustrate how the costs of American tax-payers having to support the ever-increasing influx of illegal immigrants coming across our southern border, let's compare a report from February 2009 with a report from July 2010. Jim Kouri wrote on Feb. 24,2009 on Mens News Daily (http://www.mensnewsdaily/) "The Big Lie: Illegal Immigration Benefits Americans" (he was still at that time vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police), that upwards of 27% of the U.S. prison and jail population at that time was illegal immigrants; that of illegal immigrants who were working, a large number were paid cash and didn't pay taxes; that the low level of taxes paid by immigrants caused a budget deficit because they are low-skilled, earn lower wages, have a higher rate of consumption of government services and have a higher fertility rate. The National Research Council estimated the net fiscal cost of immigration of being up to $22 billion per year. Now flash forward to July 6, 2010 and the release of a study done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (http://www.fairus.org/) which shows that the cost to federal and local tax-payers for illegal immigration is $113 billion per year. Out of that, the federal government does manage to collect somehow, $13 billion in taxes from illegal immigrants. The federal governments spends $29 billion on the support and care of illegal immigrants, while the states and cities carry the burden of $84.2 billion per year on illegal immigrants. With so many Americans in need these days, why are these people still in our country?
It's been said that deportation is not feasible. I ask, why not? It's been done before. President Hoover did it. During the Great Depression, he ordered the deportation of all illegal immigrants to make jobs available to American citizens that needed jobs. President Truman did it. He deported over 2,000,000 illegal immigrants after World War II to open up jobs for returning veterans. President Eisenhower did it. He deported 13,000,000 Mexican nationals (it took 2 years) so that WWII and Korean veterans could have jobs. With 20 million illegal immigrants in America, and 15 million Americans desperately needing jobs to support their own families, who by the way are legal citizens, I have to ask again - why are these people still in our country?
Here's how Mexico treats people who enter their country illegally; compare their laws and actions to those of the United States. This is from the Florida Times Union on April 29,2010: The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics" (can you say "racial profiling"?) It bars outsiders who do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy" (they don't want poor outsiders). It bars people who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security" (kind of like the illegals who protest America in it's very streets, or the Mexican president castigating America to our own Congress?). People seeking Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam, and prove they can provide their own health care. Document fraud, alien marriage fraud, and evading deportation are subject to imprisonment. Illegal entry into Mexico is a felony subject to 2 years imprisonment, re-entry after deportation carries a 10 year prison sentence. By national law, law enforcement at all levels MUST cooperate to enforce immigration laws, illegal alien arrests and deportations. The military is required to assist law enforcement, and native Mexicans can make citizens arrests of illegal aliens. The National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all foreign nationals and people who do not possess proper documents are assumed to be illegal aliens and subject to arrest. Mexico even outlaws pro-illegal alien SPEECH. What a hypocrit Calderon is.
While Mexico refuses admitance of people with mental disorders, the University of California-Davis School of Medicine did a study in 2007 (http://www.cnsnews.com/) that showed that immigrants with a pre-existing psychiatric disorder were 3 times more likely to migrate to the U.S. than those who didn't. The findings contradict the "healthy migrant" hypothesis; prior to emigration, immigrants had higher rather than lower risk for psychiatric disorder. The study found that having such a disorder was actually a predictor of migration to the U.S., and that people without legal status are much less likely to seek treatment. It's such a serious matter that our National Institutes of Health is conducting their own $450,000 (our tax dollars) study to further investigate the relationship between emigration from Mexico and psychiatric disorders. Why are these people still in our country?
While illegal immigrants with mental disorders hesitate to seek help, those with other illnesses sure don't.
Federal laws require hospitals to give emergency treatment to patients regardless of citizenship. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal (http://www.lvrj.com/), University Medical Center will operate at a more than $70 million deficit for 2010. It currently has 243 illegal aliens that come to the emergency room for dialysis, at the rate of about 8 a day, at a cost of $28 million a year. That's on top of the other wide range of ailments that illegals present themselves to the emergency room for. The Federal government requires the treatment of illegal immigrants, but it doesn't cover the entire cost (our tax dollars), leaving a burden on the states and cities. The University of Texas at El Paso did a study last year (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/) that found that treating illegal immigrants in Cochise County border hospitals accounted for nearly 25% of the uncompensated costs; and that 25 % of the county's overall health care budget went to treat illegal immigrants. These are only 2 examples, but you can extrapolate them to the thousands of cities across the country that are having the same problems and see how monumental the issue is. Why are these people still in our country?
While the unfair cost to American citizens and legal residents of the 20 million illegal immigrants in America taking advantage of our educational systems, medical care systems, and social services is no small issue, to me the greatest concern is the crimes some of them commit. Which they wouldn't be able to commit if they weren't here illegally (which, by the way, is a crime unto itself). The stories are frequent and myriad. One is from last year in Houston, TX. I don't have a reference for it, but it was in the papers and on the television news; I imagine the Houston Chronicle has the story in it's archives. A cop was shot in the face while serving a drug trafficing warrant at a house where a known illegal immigrant was living. The illegal immigrant had been deported and came back 4 times; and was on a "voluntary deportation" at the time. Give me a break. Get real. If an illegal immigrant criminal had been caught and deported and came back 4 times, why would anybody believe that he was going to "voluntary deport" himself? Here are some reports on illegal immigrant crime statistics: From http://www.libertypundits.net/ a report of INS participation in Antigang Task Forces in Los Angeles, detailing a file review of 124 arrests. Of them, 106 were in the U.S. illegally, 64 belonged to a gang, with 21 having prior association with a gang. Of the 106 illegal immigrants, 103 already had a criminal record, 85 had at least 1 prior felony conviction, and 49 had more than one prior felony conviction, 69 had at least 1 misdemeanor conviction. Why are these people still in our country?
That article referenced another study reported on by Jim Khouri on http://www.renewamerica.com/ in 2006 (I'm trying to keep to a chronological order to show progression). Jim Khouri was the vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, he reported on a study by the Government Accounting Office on the criminal history of Illegal immigrants in federal and state prisons and local jails. The study took a sample of 55,322 illegal immigrants (the GAO referrred to them as illegal aliens, my how things have become so politically correct in 4 years) in the prison population. Those 55,332 illegal immigrants had been arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging 8 arrests each. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest; 21,000 had between 2 & 5 arrests; 18,000 had between 6 & 10 arrests; and 15,000 had 11 or more arrests. Each arrest may include multiple offenses; there were a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses. Almost all were arrested for more than 1 offense; more than half had between 2 & 10 offenses. About 45% were drug or immigration offenses, 15% were property-related offenses, and 12% were violent offenses. 12% of 700,000 offenses computes to 84,000 murders, assaults, or rapes. The remainder of the offenses were traffic, fraud, weapons violations and obstruction of justice. 80% of the 459,614 arrests occurred in 3 states; 58% in California, 14% in Texas, and 8% in Arizona. Why are these people still in our country?
Let's look at California. There was a report published in the Los Angeles Times, I don't have the date, but I received it in July, 2007; so it is probably still in their archives. At that time, L.A. County had a population of 10.2 million people. 40% of all workers were working for cash and not paying taxes because they were predominantly illegal immigrants. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal immigrants. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles were illegal immigrants. More than 2/3 of the births in Los Angeles County were to illegal immigrants, paid for by us taxpayers. 25% of all California inmates were Mexican Nationals, here illegally. Over 300,000 illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County were living in garages. The FBI reported that half of all gang members in Los Angeles were most likely illegal immigrants from Mexico. Nearly 60% of HUD property occupants were illegal immigrants. Los Angeles had 21 Spanish speaking radio stations. Of the 10.2 million people in Los Angeles County then, 5.1 million spoke English, 3.9 million spoke spanish. Less than 2% of illegal immigrants were field workers, but 29% of illegal immigrants were on welfare. There are Americans doing without, why are these people still in our country?
Now, let's look at Arizona. Arizona has been in the news a lot in the past few months. I can't, for the life of me, understand why any American would side with people who are in this country ILLEGALLY against their fellow Americans. And I sure can't wrap my mind around the current regime suing one of it's states for trying to enforce a law that is almost word for word identical to the one that is already in the Federal Statutes. What part of ILLEGAL don't people understand? This is from a report by the Maricopa County Attorney General Andrew Thomas in October 2008 (www.mcaodocuments.com/press20081002_awhitepaper.pdf):
In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for 10% of sex crimes convictions, 11% of murder convictions, 13% of stolen car convictions, 13% of aggravated assault convictions, 17% of violent crime convictions, 19% of property crime convictions, 20% of felony DUI convictions, 21% of armed crime convictions, 34% of making, selling or transporting drugs convictions, 36% of kidnapping convictions, 44% of forgery convictions, 50% of "chop shop" convictions, 85% of false ID convictions, and 96% of smuggling convictions. I daresay things have gotten much worse in the past 3 years; Phoenix is now the kidnapping capital of the United States, 2nd in the world only to Mexico City. Why are these people still in our country?
To illustrate how the costs of American tax-payers having to support the ever-increasing influx of illegal immigrants coming across our southern border, let's compare a report from February 2009 with a report from July 2010. Jim Kouri wrote on Feb. 24,2009 on Mens News Daily (http://www.mensnewsdaily/) "The Big Lie: Illegal Immigration Benefits Americans" (he was still at that time vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police), that upwards of 27% of the U.S. prison and jail population at that time was illegal immigrants; that of illegal immigrants who were working, a large number were paid cash and didn't pay taxes; that the low level of taxes paid by immigrants caused a budget deficit because they are low-skilled, earn lower wages, have a higher rate of consumption of government services and have a higher fertility rate. The National Research Council estimated the net fiscal cost of immigration of being up to $22 billion per year. Now flash forward to July 6, 2010 and the release of a study done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (http://www.fairus.org/) which shows that the cost to federal and local tax-payers for illegal immigration is $113 billion per year. Out of that, the federal government does manage to collect somehow, $13 billion in taxes from illegal immigrants. The federal governments spends $29 billion on the support and care of illegal immigrants, while the states and cities carry the burden of $84.2 billion per year on illegal immigrants. With so many Americans in need these days, why are these people still in our country?
It's been said that deportation is not feasible. I ask, why not? It's been done before. President Hoover did it. During the Great Depression, he ordered the deportation of all illegal immigrants to make jobs available to American citizens that needed jobs. President Truman did it. He deported over 2,000,000 illegal immigrants after World War II to open up jobs for returning veterans. President Eisenhower did it. He deported 13,000,000 Mexican nationals (it took 2 years) so that WWII and Korean veterans could have jobs. With 20 million illegal immigrants in America, and 15 million Americans desperately needing jobs to support their own families, who by the way are legal citizens, I have to ask again - why are these people still in our country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)