Saturday, October 23, 2010
Never Say, Never in America
Time after time over the past 2 years, I've found myself prefacing sentences with "I never thought I would see the day in America that . . . " followed by something the current regime has done or is planning to do, that goes against the very grain of what America is. Let me give you some examples. I never thought I would see the day in America that we would have self-described communists, socialists, marxists and maoists in high positions in the American government; not only that, given wide-ranging powers and massive amounts of our tax-payer dollars to further their communist, socialist, marxist or maoist agendas. I never thought I would see the day in America that "devout muslims" would be in powerful positions in our Department of Homeland Security. One is even an assistant director. I never thought I would see the day in America that the president has a burka wearing muslim woman as a top advisor whose responsibility is to tell the president what it is the muslims want. I never thought I would see the day in America that the flag of Communist China would be flown at our Capitol beside Old Glory. I never thought I would see the day in America that the administration would allow the Empire State Building to light up red for Communist China, but not allow it to light up with a color to honor Mother Theresa. I never thought I would see the day in America that the American president would refuse to attend the National Day of Prayer, yet allow muslims to have an entire day of prayer on the Capitol grounds. There are many more "never in America" moments I have had, but I won't go into all of them. I'm not going to list references for what I've just stated. Those of you who have been on the receiving end of my email "rants" over the last 2 years have already seen the sources. Those of you who haven't, if you doubt anything I say is true, check it out for yourself. America, educate yourself. America is being "fundamentally transformed" right before our eyes, into something quickly become unrecognizable. Hence, the song in this video "That Ain't My America" (by Lynyrd Skynyrd). The video was done for this blog post by my great Texas Conservative nephew, Bobby Faubus (BF25251001 at YouTube). Thanks, Bobby. I love it.
Actually, the song was mentioned in an article I found on the English language version of the Russian newspaper, Pravda; along with a couple of other "protest" songs. I thought it fit the theme of my thoughts since all the radical things have been done to my America by the current regime; so that I am frequently saying to myself "That Ain't My America". The article I'm referencing now is American Military Officers Against Obama written by Mark S. McGrew. He asked that a link be furnished if the article is republished. I'm not going to republish, merely summarize it; but here is the link if anybody wants to read anything else by McGrew: http://www.english.pravda.ru/ and his blog is MarkSMcGrew.blogspot.com. For over 2 years, Americans have been hiding their heads in the sand over the most fundamental issue facing us; whether or not Obama is legally qualified to be president of the United States. There is a growing wave of acknowledgement that he is most likely not eliglble to hold the highest office in America. Prior to the election of 2008, there were maybe up to 2% of Americans that had their doubts; that is now up to more than 65%. One contingent of that 65% is American military officers.
I've been around military for most of my life; since I was 17 and married a G.I. and went to live at Fort Hood TX for a dozen years, then moved to California and lived next to Camp Pendleton for the next 27 years. One thing I didn't know before reading McGrew's article in Pravda, is that there are 2 separate and distinct oaths that our military men and women take upon enlistment; one for the lower ranks or "enlisted"; one for officers.
The oath of enlistment for the lower ranks:
"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The oath of enlistment for Officers:
"I, ________, having been appointed an officer in the (appropriate branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (rank-Major, Colonel, etc) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Note the difference: officers do not swear to obey the orders of the President of the United States. I have to wonder if that is meant to give the officers freedom of allegiance to the President, in the event that the President is the domestic enemy they have to protect the United States from. I have done innumerable hours of research, and try to keep my finger on the pulse of America. I can tell you that since Obama was elected, the cost of firearms has increased almost ten-fold. Whereas 19 moths ago, one could purchase a handgun for personal protection in the range of $40 to $60; now those same pistols would sell for $400 or more. America is arming itself. And since the current regime hasn't been successful in curtailing the ownership of firearms, they have gone after the ammunitions makers. Whereas scrap ammo from our various military branches used to be sold to munitions manufacturers to recycle into bullets for personal weapons, the current regime is now selling it to China at a much lower price. In the state of California, you can't buy bullets for your guns without registering and having your identification put on record. There is a large, and growing orgainization of current and former military members and law enforcement personnel called Oath Keepers. One of the oaths they take is that they will never bear arms against their fellow Americans at the behest of Obama. There is a number of retired military officers, and active duty officers willing to resign their commissions, at the ready to lead the next revolution in the event that martial law is declared and the current regime tries to impose socialism on America by force.
In American Military Officers Against Obama there is a list of 26 retired and active duty officers who have either filed legal actions against Obama regarding his eligibility to be president, or they have publicly supported or testified for those who do have the legal actions pending. The one most recently in the news is Lt Col Terrence Lakin, an Army physician who is at this moment undergoing a court martial rather than obey orders under Obama to deploy to Afghanistan. Lakin has been denied "discovery"'; has been told by a military judge that he can't see or present evidence about Obama because "It may embarrass the President". In another action, Commander Charles Kerchner has filed a lawsuit against Congress for violating the Constitution in certifying the Electoral College votes in Obama's favor. Of the couple of hundred lawsuits questioning Obama's eligibility, none have been allowed to proceed to the actual presentation of evidence. All the complainants are told they don't have "standing". Since when does any American not have "standing" to know that the person presiding over the country is actually a citizen of the country? We, each and every one of us, all have that "standing". But the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, are treating the matter like a hot potato. There are some cases that have made it as far as the Supreme Court and have stalled. When Justice Clarence Thomas was asked about the issue of Obama's eligibility, he is on record as saying "We're evading that one". EVADING? The Supreme Court should be leading the charge! Recently Obama made the very conniving move of nominating Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. As Solicitor General, she defended Obama in some of the eligibility suits; now she on the Court that may end up deciding the issue. Sure, she will recuse herself, but what's to keep her from influencing the other Justices by giving them "background" on the issue?
We see military coups and revolutions overthrowing governments all across the globe. I never thought I would see the day in America that that would be what we might be facing. I'm somewhat apprehensive coming up to the elections on November 2; Obama is a power monger. He's wants even more power and may not be willing to give up that which he has already grabbed. Like McGrew points out, Obama and his supporters have absolutely no concept of what 100 million (or more) angry Americans are capable of inflicting on them. While he is not advocating physically overthrowing the current regime, since we do have a system in place for "peaceful revolution" (voting), he does point out that it is one option and may be the final option. America is wounded and suffering, what he calls the Obama Flu Virus; when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. I've been concerned for a while about a new revolution, of more of an uprising than just organized peaceful protests; given the evidence that America has, and still is, arming itself and that there is a somewhat structured group of military leaders in place. I hope it doesn't come to that. I really do. Because that ain't my America. But if it has to, it's comforting to know that it won't be a ragtag bunch of patriots like George Washington won the first revolution with. Patriots, just the same, but they won't be unstructured, undisciplined, untrained and unprepared this time. They will be the best of America's finest.
While I'm always hopeful and optimistic that the coming election will put in place the people who will be able to stop and reverse the cancer of Obama's socialism that is spreading thru every aspect of American life, it's still comforting to know that our American military men and women are not just blindly following his lead. They are using good judgement and discernment. They are putting their training in observation and analyzing situations to good use. One thing we will never see in America is our military turning against us and obeying the orders of a puppet goverment (I believe Soros is Obama's puppet-master). And we can be sure that if Obama were to use his "civilian police force" (SEIU purple people beaters and black panthers?), they wouldn't get very far in the face of the greatest military force in the history of the world. So rest assured, America, that if the line is ever drawn in the sand, our marvelous military men and women will still be on the side of America. Against a domestic enemy that is becoming more and more apparent and obvious. Just be aware that the period following the upcoming election might be a crucial time. It might be the time when the current regime makes a move to protect it's power base and grab even more power. Have eyes to see and ears to hear. America, be vigilant, be prepared, be safe.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
"It's The Economy, Stupid!"
"When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them." Bill Clinton in a 1991 interview with Joe Klein of the Sunday Times, speaking of Republicans.
"Part of the reason . . . . facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." Barack Hussein Obama speaking at a North Carolina fundraiser 10-18-10
"It's the economy, stupid!" James Carville, while campaigning for Bill Clinton in 1992
Yesterday was a momentous day. Did anybody feel the ground shake? It should have been quaking to beat the band. Yesterday, America's national debt went over $13 trillion. In fact, it hit an all time record high of $13.665 trillion. Please, don't anybody tell Obama what comes after a trillion, he may aim for that next. Obama like to "blame Bush" and claims he "inherited" all this national debt. Not so. During President Bush's 2 terms, 8 years, he increased the national debt by $4.9 trillion. In just 19 months in office, Obama has increased the national debt by $2.526 trillion, and is projected to double that to $5.9 trillion by the end of his term. In his 4 years in office, he will have more than doubled the amount of national debt President Bush accrued in his entire 8 years in office. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the national debt projections for Obama's agenda will reach nearly $16.5 trillion by 2012. CNS News reported on 9/8/10 that in the previous 3 months, May thru August of this year, Obama accumulated $464 billion in deficits, more than President Bush had for the entire fiscal year 2008 of $458 billion. We've accrued about a $2 trillion increase in deficit in the past 19 months, and there's no end in sight. We can't keep spending so much more than we have.
Here's a comparison of spending habits between the 2 parties, from Hotair yesterday:
Republican majority 12 years prior to Bush added $4.034 trillion or $336.17 billion a year
Republican majority 1st part Bush's 2 terms added $3.201 trillion or $533.56 billion a year
Democrat majority spanning Bush & Obama added $4.603 trillion or $1.48 trillion a year
I discovered something very interesting from Bloomberg Businessweek 2/1/10; Obama's budgets for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 exclude the $6.3 trillion in liabilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, although they have been taken over by the administration and their debts are the governments debts. So his national debt is realistically larger than what we're being told. Also, along those same lines; the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orzag, would not let President Bush exclude those debts from his budget when the government rescued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008. At that time, Orzag said that the federal control over them is so strong "we are incorporating them into the federal budget". So, therefore, President Bush's final fiscal year budget realistically would have shown a lower national debt had he been allowed by the CBO to exclude the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debts, the way it has the Obama regime. Kind of duplicitous, but that's what we've come to expect from our government, especially under the Democrats.
When I was looking for Obama's quote from a couple of days ago, about how American's don't let facts get in their way when they are scared, I saw article after article from the last 2 years where he has described Americans over and over as being scared. It actually started before the election. While it's true that sometiimes when people are suddenly scared, some might panic. However, America has had to deal with Obama long enough that any initial panic has worn off and while we might be scared, we are thinking in a scientific, factual manner. And one thing I think is a fact is that we are sick and tired of his arrogance and condescension toward us, as if we can't quite think as reasonably as he does. Give me a break. Most Americans are quite able to think things thru, weigh the facts, use sound reasoning and come to a scientifically logical conclusion. That's what Obama's scared of. If anybody's running scared, it's gotta be him. And if there is anybody still left out there who doesn't think Obama is deliberately taking America down the road to national bankruptcy, here's a fact for them: in the 1st 19 months of his term, between 1/20/09 and 8/20/10, Obama increased America's national debt by MORE THAN the cumulative total of all the presidents from George Washington thru Ronald Reagan. At the end of fiscal year 1989, President Reagan's last year in office (but 8 months after he left the White House) the entire national debt from Day One until then was $2.1907 trillion. Compare that to the $2.526 trillion Obama has piled on top of us since his inauguration.
Tell me we were worse off before Obama took power. Tell me that Obama has turned things around and made things all better. YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE! He just admitted lying to the entire country for 2 years, starting in December 2008, that there were "shovel ready" jobs: and he used that lie to ram down our throats a trillion dollar "stimulus" bill. Now he's admitted, without qualms, there's no such thing as "shovel ready" jobs. It was a ruse. The "stimulus" bill did nothing to help, because it wasn't designed to help. It did what it was designed to do; pay back and pay off his cronies and supporters while throwing America into deeper debt and deficit, so Obama could increase taxes to pay for it (tax the rich) and put more people into government entitlements.
"Spread the wealth around" and "level the playing field". America, wake up!
"Part of the reason . . . . facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard wired not to always think clearly when we're scared." Barack Hussein Obama speaking at a North Carolina fundraiser 10-18-10
"It's the economy, stupid!" James Carville, while campaigning for Bill Clinton in 1992
 |
| WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT ANOTHER SECOND |
Here's a comparison of spending habits between the 2 parties, from Hotair yesterday:
Republican majority 12 years prior to Bush added $4.034 trillion or $336.17 billion a year
Republican majority 1st part Bush's 2 terms added $3.201 trillion or $533.56 billion a year
Democrat majority spanning Bush & Obama added $4.603 trillion or $1.48 trillion a year
I discovered something very interesting from Bloomberg Businessweek 2/1/10; Obama's budgets for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 exclude the $6.3 trillion in liabilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, although they have been taken over by the administration and their debts are the governments debts. So his national debt is realistically larger than what we're being told. Also, along those same lines; the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orzag, would not let President Bush exclude those debts from his budget when the government rescued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008. At that time, Orzag said that the federal control over them is so strong "we are incorporating them into the federal budget". So, therefore, President Bush's final fiscal year budget realistically would have shown a lower national debt had he been allowed by the CBO to exclude the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debts, the way it has the Obama regime. Kind of duplicitous, but that's what we've come to expect from our government, especially under the Democrats.
When I was looking for Obama's quote from a couple of days ago, about how American's don't let facts get in their way when they are scared, I saw article after article from the last 2 years where he has described Americans over and over as being scared. It actually started before the election. While it's true that sometiimes when people are suddenly scared, some might panic. However, America has had to deal with Obama long enough that any initial panic has worn off and while we might be scared, we are thinking in a scientific, factual manner. And one thing I think is a fact is that we are sick and tired of his arrogance and condescension toward us, as if we can't quite think as reasonably as he does. Give me a break. Most Americans are quite able to think things thru, weigh the facts, use sound reasoning and come to a scientifically logical conclusion. That's what Obama's scared of. If anybody's running scared, it's gotta be him. And if there is anybody still left out there who doesn't think Obama is deliberately taking America down the road to national bankruptcy, here's a fact for them: in the 1st 19 months of his term, between 1/20/09 and 8/20/10, Obama increased America's national debt by MORE THAN the cumulative total of all the presidents from George Washington thru Ronald Reagan. At the end of fiscal year 1989, President Reagan's last year in office (but 8 months after he left the White House) the entire national debt from Day One until then was $2.1907 trillion. Compare that to the $2.526 trillion Obama has piled on top of us since his inauguration.
Tell me we were worse off before Obama took power. Tell me that Obama has turned things around and made things all better. YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE! He just admitted lying to the entire country for 2 years, starting in December 2008, that there were "shovel ready" jobs: and he used that lie to ram down our throats a trillion dollar "stimulus" bill. Now he's admitted, without qualms, there's no such thing as "shovel ready" jobs. It was a ruse. The "stimulus" bill did nothing to help, because it wasn't designed to help. It did what it was designed to do; pay back and pay off his cronies and supporters while throwing America into deeper debt and deficit, so Obama could increase taxes to pay for it (tax the rich) and put more people into government entitlements.
"Spread the wealth around" and "level the playing field". America, wake up!
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Audacity of Illegality
I get frequent newsletter updates on the illegal immigration fight from NumbersUSA, a pro-legal anti-illegal immigration organization. In their latest newsletter, they report that in addition to trying to get a shamnesty bill passed thru Congress, the open-border advocates are now turning their attention to local communities and state law enforcement agencies to try to get them to look the other way when they encounter somebody that's in America illegally.
The latest state to have a lawsuit filed against it by illegal immigrant proponents is Georgia. What exactly did the state of Georgia do, you might ask? The Georgia Board of Regents passed a measure requiring state colleges and universities to deny admission to illegal aliens, as long as the particular campus has denied admission within the last 2 years to U.S. citizens or legal residents. It's pretty much a cinch, since not every one that applies to a college gets accepted. I mean, how dare the American citizens in the state of Georgia want to insure they are providing college educations for American citizens and legal residents first? Also, the Georgia State House of Representatives has asked for the entire state to be included in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Secure Communities program. In 2006, Cobb County became the 1st county in Georgia involved in the 287(g) program and since then 3 more counties and the Georgia Department of Public Safety have signed 287(g) agreements. This program automatically checks fingerprints taken during jail bookings with the federal database. When the fingerprints match known illegal immigrants, ICE is automatically notified and can take deportation action. Since 2006, this method has identified more than 180,000 illegal immigrants for deportation across America; and 14,692 illegal immigrants in Georgia have been deported. And how dare the state of Georgia want to have the entire state participate in a federal program, that's already a law, which has shown to be successful in identifying and deporting people who are in this country illegally? Really, how dare they?
So now, attorneys are representing 3 illegal immigrants in suing Georgia; trying to stop it from utilizing a federal immigration enforcement tool. Sound familiar, Arizona? These attorneys, and those in the Arizona case, should be disbarred and they should have their American citizenship stripped. If they want to live in a Mexican country so badly, let them go to Mexico and see how they would fare there. The Georgia "three" are trying to make it a class action lawsuit by defining as co-complainants "all hispanic persons who have been or will be restrained and interrogated withing the State of Georgia" by local authorities enforcing federal immigration law under an agreement with ICE. One of the attorney's laments that the law tears families apart. Like I've said before, I don't want families torn apart; they can take their families with them when they go back to Mexico or wherever. The attorney also said that while these people are in the U.S. illegally, they aren't criminals. What part of illegal can't the attorneys understand? Most children in elementary school can tell them "illegal" means against the law, therefore, a crime. Let's look at the stellar background of the 3 main complainants: one is a Mexican citizen who didn't leave when her visa expired and was arrested after causing a car wreck while driving without a license (last I heard that was a crime); one is in the country illegally and in jail for shoplifting (last I heard that was a crime, too); and one alledgedly had a work permit but was arrested for forgery when he used fake immigration documents to get a driver's license (also, last I heard that was a crime, too). But, according to their attorneys, they are not criminals. Is there any other country on the face of the planet that would allow people who are there illegally to have access to it's court system to sue it? What a bunch of chumps we are for allowing this to happen. There's an election coming up. You can tell who the pro-amnesty candidates are - they are the candidates not talking about it. Vote them out.
Meanwhile, on the Arizona front, things are getting worse and Obama is out campaigning instead of protecting the American citizens he's sworn to protect. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona was on the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox News last week and stated that there are now 21 countries on the lawsuit against Arizona; the U.S., Mexico, and 19 other foreign countries. She didn't list them. It was also confirmed in a short article in the Phoenix Examiner, but again the additional countries weren't mentioned. I listed 10 of the foreign countries when I wrote about this before. I haven't been able to find a listing of the new ones. I guess somebody doesn't like what I'm writing, because for several days now when I try to search for information, my searches get "redirected" to websites that have no resemblence to what I type in. I've done scans, and don't have a virus, so it must be a hacker. I hope they get tired soon, because I'm not giving up. Two days ago, Fox News ran an article warning that Mexican assassins were headed into Arizona to locate and kill bandits who were stealing their drug loads. The rival drug cartels got together in Mexico and decided to send a group of hired assassins called the Sicario's into Arizona to protect their smuggling routes and kill anybody attempting to steal the drugs. There are 15 members to this band of killers, and the area they are headed to is the Vekol Valley, on Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, and north toward Phoenix. What did our illustrous Department of Homeland Security under Obama's stooge Janet Nappy do? They put up more warning signs. Just like they did a few months ago when Mexican gangs had taken over part of a desert wildlife preserve on the border that is a "highway" for smugglers of drugs, guns, and humans, warning people to stay out of the area. This is just outrageous. Why should America cede any part of it's land to some lawless Mexicans? I guess that last word answers that question. They, thugs that they are, are Mexicans; and our current regime wants an open border for migration - not immigration - no matter who crosses it and no matter how many Americans are killed in the meanwhile. I commented to somebody yesterday that it was his way or no way, any way he has to do it. What chumps we are for putting up with this disrespect to America!
Let me repeat some statistics from Los Angeles County, CA from the Liberty Pundits blog, citing an Antigang Task Force review of 124 arrests: of the 124, 106 were illegals, 85 had a current or prior gang affiliation, 103 of the 124 already had a criminal record and of those 85 had at least 1 prior felony conviction and 49 had multiple felony convictions. In the social services / entitlements realm, 2/3 of all babies born in Los Angeles County are born to illegal immigrants, paid for by our tax dollars thru Medicaid; 29% of illegal immigrants living there are on welfare, and almost 60% of people living in HUD subsidized housing are illegal immigrants. Why do I mention all this again when I've written about it before? Simple: Los Angeles County, CA Board of Supervisors voted to extend countywide it's 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Amid protests from illegal immigrants and their advocates, I might add. Look for Los Angeles County to be soon hit with a lawsuit from illegal immigrants and their shyster lawyers. I still say those lawyers should be disbarred and stripped of their American citizenship. Nobody that is not an American should have access to our courts.
The latest state to have a lawsuit filed against it by illegal immigrant proponents is Georgia. What exactly did the state of Georgia do, you might ask? The Georgia Board of Regents passed a measure requiring state colleges and universities to deny admission to illegal aliens, as long as the particular campus has denied admission within the last 2 years to U.S. citizens or legal residents. It's pretty much a cinch, since not every one that applies to a college gets accepted. I mean, how dare the American citizens in the state of Georgia want to insure they are providing college educations for American citizens and legal residents first? Also, the Georgia State House of Representatives has asked for the entire state to be included in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Secure Communities program. In 2006, Cobb County became the 1st county in Georgia involved in the 287(g) program and since then 3 more counties and the Georgia Department of Public Safety have signed 287(g) agreements. This program automatically checks fingerprints taken during jail bookings with the federal database. When the fingerprints match known illegal immigrants, ICE is automatically notified and can take deportation action. Since 2006, this method has identified more than 180,000 illegal immigrants for deportation across America; and 14,692 illegal immigrants in Georgia have been deported. And how dare the state of Georgia want to have the entire state participate in a federal program, that's already a law, which has shown to be successful in identifying and deporting people who are in this country illegally? Really, how dare they?
So now, attorneys are representing 3 illegal immigrants in suing Georgia; trying to stop it from utilizing a federal immigration enforcement tool. Sound familiar, Arizona? These attorneys, and those in the Arizona case, should be disbarred and they should have their American citizenship stripped. If they want to live in a Mexican country so badly, let them go to Mexico and see how they would fare there. The Georgia "three" are trying to make it a class action lawsuit by defining as co-complainants "all hispanic persons who have been or will be restrained and interrogated withing the State of Georgia" by local authorities enforcing federal immigration law under an agreement with ICE. One of the attorney's laments that the law tears families apart. Like I've said before, I don't want families torn apart; they can take their families with them when they go back to Mexico or wherever. The attorney also said that while these people are in the U.S. illegally, they aren't criminals. What part of illegal can't the attorneys understand? Most children in elementary school can tell them "illegal" means against the law, therefore, a crime. Let's look at the stellar background of the 3 main complainants: one is a Mexican citizen who didn't leave when her visa expired and was arrested after causing a car wreck while driving without a license (last I heard that was a crime); one is in the country illegally and in jail for shoplifting (last I heard that was a crime, too); and one alledgedly had a work permit but was arrested for forgery when he used fake immigration documents to get a driver's license (also, last I heard that was a crime, too). But, according to their attorneys, they are not criminals. Is there any other country on the face of the planet that would allow people who are there illegally to have access to it's court system to sue it? What a bunch of chumps we are for allowing this to happen. There's an election coming up. You can tell who the pro-amnesty candidates are - they are the candidates not talking about it. Vote them out.
Meanwhile, on the Arizona front, things are getting worse and Obama is out campaigning instead of protecting the American citizens he's sworn to protect. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona was on the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox News last week and stated that there are now 21 countries on the lawsuit against Arizona; the U.S., Mexico, and 19 other foreign countries. She didn't list them. It was also confirmed in a short article in the Phoenix Examiner, but again the additional countries weren't mentioned. I listed 10 of the foreign countries when I wrote about this before. I haven't been able to find a listing of the new ones. I guess somebody doesn't like what I'm writing, because for several days now when I try to search for information, my searches get "redirected" to websites that have no resemblence to what I type in. I've done scans, and don't have a virus, so it must be a hacker. I hope they get tired soon, because I'm not giving up. Two days ago, Fox News ran an article warning that Mexican assassins were headed into Arizona to locate and kill bandits who were stealing their drug loads. The rival drug cartels got together in Mexico and decided to send a group of hired assassins called the Sicario's into Arizona to protect their smuggling routes and kill anybody attempting to steal the drugs. There are 15 members to this band of killers, and the area they are headed to is the Vekol Valley, on Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, and north toward Phoenix. What did our illustrous Department of Homeland Security under Obama's stooge Janet Nappy do? They put up more warning signs. Just like they did a few months ago when Mexican gangs had taken over part of a desert wildlife preserve on the border that is a "highway" for smugglers of drugs, guns, and humans, warning people to stay out of the area. This is just outrageous. Why should America cede any part of it's land to some lawless Mexicans? I guess that last word answers that question. They, thugs that they are, are Mexicans; and our current regime wants an open border for migration - not immigration - no matter who crosses it and no matter how many Americans are killed in the meanwhile. I commented to somebody yesterday that it was his way or no way, any way he has to do it. What chumps we are for putting up with this disrespect to America!
Let me repeat some statistics from Los Angeles County, CA from the Liberty Pundits blog, citing an Antigang Task Force review of 124 arrests: of the 124, 106 were illegals, 85 had a current or prior gang affiliation, 103 of the 124 already had a criminal record and of those 85 had at least 1 prior felony conviction and 49 had multiple felony convictions. In the social services / entitlements realm, 2/3 of all babies born in Los Angeles County are born to illegal immigrants, paid for by our tax dollars thru Medicaid; 29% of illegal immigrants living there are on welfare, and almost 60% of people living in HUD subsidized housing are illegal immigrants. Why do I mention all this again when I've written about it before? Simple: Los Angeles County, CA Board of Supervisors voted to extend countywide it's 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Amid protests from illegal immigrants and their advocates, I might add. Look for Los Angeles County to be soon hit with a lawsuit from illegal immigrants and their shyster lawyers. I still say those lawyers should be disbarred and stripped of their American citizenship. Nobody that is not an American should have access to our courts.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Shoveling Scheisse
On December 7, 2008 president-elect Obama sat for an interview with Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press". He made the assertation that when he had met with the (state) governors, all of them have projects that are "shovel ready". And so, a talking point was created, and Obama referred to "shovel ready" jobs every time he could. USA Today, in an article about that interview, said that Obama's plan included spending on what he called "shovel ready" projects. In December 2008 as Obama announced who would make up his energy and environment teams, he said they had "shovel ready" projects all across the country and the MINUTE he could get the funds to the state level, jobs were going to be created. Also that month, when he announced his Secretary of Education, he said his economic team was shaping a bold agenda to create 2.5 million new jobs with "shovel ready" projects.
In January, 2009 Steny Hoyer, the Senate Majority Leader took up the mantle of "shovel ready" jobs by saying that projects that are felt to be "shovel ready" . . . is the objective of the administration and ourselves.
On January 25, 2009 The Economic Populist reported "now Congress is trying to ascertain which jobs would be ready to go, "shovel ready".
In February, 2009 Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior proclaimed that with wise investments in "shovel ready" conservation projects people could be put back to work IMMEDIATELY.
On February 9, 2009 National Public Radio said that as Obama urged Congress to pass the $800-billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls "shovel ready"; but there is no fornal definition for "shovel ready" and the Federal Highway Administration doesn't use the phrase.
In March, 2009 at the Progressive Governance Conference in Chile, Joe Biden announced that the Recovery Act provided a jolt to the economy by implementing "shovel ready" projects.
On March 3, 2009 United Press International (UPI), in an article declaring "shovel ready" jobs already on the move, quoted Obama as saying that the stimulus provided money that every state could start using IMMEDIATELY to put people back to work. Obama asserted that just 14 days after signing the stimulus bill, shovels were already hitting the ground.
In June, 2009 Joe Biden, speaking in California, said the administration wants to get "shovel ready" projects out the door as quickly as it could.
On September 9, 2009 Florida Today ran an article asking Where Are the "Shovel Ready" Jobs?
On October 14, 2009 The Journal of Commerce has Obama saying "shovel ready" may not provide the quick boost for jobs . . . The term "shovel ready" doesn't always live up to it's billing. (The first shadowy form of the handwriting on the wall.)
On October 27, 2009 the website American.com reported that many "shovel ready" jobs are still tied up in administrative red tape.
By July 9, 2010 with job loses multiplying and the unemployment rate skyrocketing, Politifi quoted Obama as saying he learned one of the biggest lies in government is the idea of "shovel ready" projects. (The handwriting on the wall is becoming clearer, and it's a lie Obama put into motion.)
On August 19, 2010 The Daily Caller told us most of our money has gone to unions and government employees (no scheisse!) instead of to "shovel ready" jobs.
On September 9, 2010 The Washington Examiner reported that Obama has asked Congress for another $50,000,000 for an Infrastructure Stimulus to overhaul America's transportation networks, with "shovel ready" projects.
On September 23, 2010 the Los Angeles Daily News surmised that "shovel ready" apparently meant that work starts up to a year after the money is approved. About that time, the story hit the news that Los Angeles City and County had spent their $111,000,000 in stimulus funds to create 55 jobs.
On October 11, 2010 Congress.org tells Obama we are still waiting on the "shovel ready" jobs from your first stimulus. (Background: wikipedia breakdown of the original stimulus bill shows $105.3 billion was designated for infrastructure "shovel ready" projects)
On October 13, 2010 the New York Times was told by Obama there's no such thing as "shovel ready" projects, in effect saying the stimulus failed and there are no jobs waiting to be filled. (Now we can clearly see the handwriting on the wall, and it's not a pretty sight.)
America has been led down the path to the manure pile at the end of the garden. I heard somebody the other night use the nickname "Obamable Snowman" explaining he used that term because Obama is so good at snowing people (America, in this case). Apparently, Obama started one big snow job when he first used the term "shovel ready" and, while alluding to it a couple of times in the ensuing months, he finally admitted to the country yesterday that there is NO SUCH THING AS "SHOVEL READY" PROJECTS. Which is a fact that a lot of us who have watched from afar, the tragedy that is transforming America into a caricature of what it used to be, have already recognized. We've been had by a first rate con artist. By the way, "scheisse" is not another word for "snow". This mess is the worst the American economy has ever been in. But I can see November from my house and there's an avalance coming. America, use your vote and start digging.
In January, 2009 Steny Hoyer, the Senate Majority Leader took up the mantle of "shovel ready" jobs by saying that projects that are felt to be "shovel ready" . . . is the objective of the administration and ourselves.
On January 25, 2009 The Economic Populist reported "now Congress is trying to ascertain which jobs would be ready to go, "shovel ready".
In February, 2009 Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior proclaimed that with wise investments in "shovel ready" conservation projects people could be put back to work IMMEDIATELY.
On February 9, 2009 National Public Radio said that as Obama urged Congress to pass the $800-billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls "shovel ready"; but there is no fornal definition for "shovel ready" and the Federal Highway Administration doesn't use the phrase.
In March, 2009 at the Progressive Governance Conference in Chile, Joe Biden announced that the Recovery Act provided a jolt to the economy by implementing "shovel ready" projects.
On March 3, 2009 United Press International (UPI), in an article declaring "shovel ready" jobs already on the move, quoted Obama as saying that the stimulus provided money that every state could start using IMMEDIATELY to put people back to work. Obama asserted that just 14 days after signing the stimulus bill, shovels were already hitting the ground.
In June, 2009 Joe Biden, speaking in California, said the administration wants to get "shovel ready" projects out the door as quickly as it could.
On September 9, 2009 Florida Today ran an article asking Where Are the "Shovel Ready" Jobs?
On October 14, 2009 The Journal of Commerce has Obama saying "shovel ready" may not provide the quick boost for jobs . . . The term "shovel ready" doesn't always live up to it's billing. (The first shadowy form of the handwriting on the wall.)
On October 27, 2009 the website American.com reported that many "shovel ready" jobs are still tied up in administrative red tape.
By July 9, 2010 with job loses multiplying and the unemployment rate skyrocketing, Politifi quoted Obama as saying he learned one of the biggest lies in government is the idea of "shovel ready" projects. (The handwriting on the wall is becoming clearer, and it's a lie Obama put into motion.)
On August 19, 2010 The Daily Caller told us most of our money has gone to unions and government employees (no scheisse!) instead of to "shovel ready" jobs.
On September 9, 2010 The Washington Examiner reported that Obama has asked Congress for another $50,000,000 for an Infrastructure Stimulus to overhaul America's transportation networks, with "shovel ready" projects.
On September 23, 2010 the Los Angeles Daily News surmised that "shovel ready" apparently meant that work starts up to a year after the money is approved. About that time, the story hit the news that Los Angeles City and County had spent their $111,000,000 in stimulus funds to create 55 jobs.
On October 11, 2010 Congress.org tells Obama we are still waiting on the "shovel ready" jobs from your first stimulus. (Background: wikipedia breakdown of the original stimulus bill shows $105.3 billion was designated for infrastructure "shovel ready" projects)
On October 13, 2010 the New York Times was told by Obama there's no such thing as "shovel ready" projects, in effect saying the stimulus failed and there are no jobs waiting to be filled. (Now we can clearly see the handwriting on the wall, and it's not a pretty sight.)
America has been led down the path to the manure pile at the end of the garden. I heard somebody the other night use the nickname "Obamable Snowman" explaining he used that term because Obama is so good at snowing people (America, in this case). Apparently, Obama started one big snow job when he first used the term "shovel ready" and, while alluding to it a couple of times in the ensuing months, he finally admitted to the country yesterday that there is NO SUCH THING AS "SHOVEL READY" PROJECTS. Which is a fact that a lot of us who have watched from afar, the tragedy that is transforming America into a caricature of what it used to be, have already recognized. We've been had by a first rate con artist. By the way, "scheisse" is not another word for "snow". This mess is the worst the American economy has ever been in. But I can see November from my house and there's an avalance coming. America, use your vote and start digging.
 |
| One shovel, One vote |
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Crony Terrorism
We all know what "crony capitalism" is; a kind of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" way of doing business. Awarding loans, contracts and jobs to family and friends who do you favors, or give you discounts or kickbacks. We all know Obama practices "crony politics"; awarding his supporters and "friends of Barack" with positions within his administration whether or not they are qualified or ethical, giving federal funded "kickbacks" to those who were major contributors to his campaign. The most recent and the largest I can think of is the $2 billion he gave George Soros's Brazilian oil producing company Petrobras to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Soros being probably the largest contributor to Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. Now I see a form of "crony terrorism" evolving. I consider anybody who funds terrorism, either directly into the coffers of a terror organization or thru funds to a secondary organization who then transfers those funds to a terror organization, to be a terrorist. I consider anybody who aides and abets terrorism thru any action or by any means such as association with, writing in support of, or giving moral support, to be a terrorist. Therefore, "crony terrorism".
Recently I wrote about the F.B.I. raids on the homes of Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network (By The Company We Keep), suspected of filtering funds to FARC (the military wing of the Colombia Communist Party) and Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization. Obama, as director of the Woods Fund, gave AAAN a total of $75,000 in 2002/2003. AAAN has also received almost $500,000 in federal grants thru the years. By chance, I discovered that the targets of the F.B.I. raids that day were more widespread than just Abudayyeh or AAAN. Somebody emailed me photos of people protesting in Chicago during a recent visit by Obama. I wanted to verify that those picture were actually connected to Obama's trip and not from some earlier protest march and re-labeled. There was a website name imprinted on the pictures, Foundingbloggers, so I went to it to look for the pictures. My attention was immediately caught by some current posts regarding the F.B.I. raids in Chicago looking for links to terrorist organizations. I'll have to go back later to look for the Chicago - Obama protest pictures; I still want to verify them before I forward them. However, here's the gist of the full scope of the F.B.I. terrorism raids, plus some information I found at a couple of other websites, New Zeal (short for Zealand) Blog and World Net Daily.. The old media (mainstream media) pretty much ignored this, but the new media (bloggers) is all over it. In fact, most of the mainstream media coverage is on the 2 days of protests following the raids, along with socialist, marxist, and terrorist websites such as CAIR and Intifada-Palestine.
Among the approximately half dozen or so people, (who are all associated with one or more of the Colombia Action Network, Students for a Democratic Society communist group or Freedom Road Socialist Organization), targeted by the F.B.I. raids on 9/27/10 in Chicago, was a man by the name of Thomas Burke. The search warrant subpoena showed that the F.B.I. was looking for records of any payments from Burke to Hatem Abudayyeh of the AAAN, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLO), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) or Hezbollah, a muslim terrorist group based in Lebanon.. Burke is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, whose website was originally registered in his name. He is a member of the Colombia Action Network, is a Colombia solidarity activist, and has traveled in Colombia. He is also a member of the executive board of SEIU local 73 in Chicago. After the raid, Burke claimed that the government was trying to intimidate the movement against U.S. occupations and those who oppose support for repressive regimes, and to pave the way for more U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and Latin America. Somehow, I can't see Obama approving an F.B.I. action against people merely wanting to halt our "occupation" of the Middle East and Latin America. Those are Obama's goals also. So, therefore, I believe there probably is covert financial aid to the above mentioned terrorist organizations. What's interesting is the SEIU component.
Also raided by the F.B.I. in Chicago was the home of husband and wife, Joseph Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner. They, too, are suspected of providing financial aid to Hatem Abudayyeh, AAAN, FARC, and Hezbollah. It's not clear if they are members of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but since that group was the focus of the F.B.I. investigation, and every other person who had their home raided that day is a member, it's a good hunch that they are. Iosbaker and Weiner are both members of SEIU, and Iosbaker is Chief Steward and a member of the executive board of SEIU local 73 in Chicago. The day after the F.B.I. raids, APNews reported that former SEIU president and friend of Barack, Andy Stern was under F.B.I. investigation for paying a "consultant" $75,000 a year out of union funds for doing nothing, in violation of federal labor laws; and when he wrote a book in 2006, union funds paid for all the fact-checking for it and promoting it and required union members to buy it, but Stern pocketed all the proceeds. Also being investigated is the $44 million that Stern and SEIU put into the 2008 election. Stern is the most frequent visitor to the White House since Obama was inaugurated, and is now on Obama's financial reform commission. After George Soros, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was the largest contributor to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign chest. Wouldn't it be something if SEIU funds went not only to helping buy the presidency for Obama, but also went to supporting terrorism?
There's another thing, other than SEIU, that Obama has in common with terror-funding suspects Joseph Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner. Back in the 90's, Iosbaker and Weiner were leaders in the socialist New Party in Chicago; Iosbaker was a Precinct Captain and Weiner was a Precinct Worker. The New Party was founded by leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America and members of Committees of Correspondence, an arm of the Communist Party USA. The aim of the New Party was to move the Democratic Party toward a socialist agenda,. Among their goals were a universal "social wage" to include health care and "the democratization (nationalization?) of the banking and financial system", and community controlled financial institutions (whatever that means). The New Party was heavily involved with SEIU; SEIU organizors (and ACORN activists) were given a monthly recruitment quota to bring in new members for the New Party. When he ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama asked for and got the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America and attended several of their events and meetings. At the time, but later outlawed by the Supreme Court, was a concept know as "electoral fusion", whereby a candidate could run under more than one party banner. So while he ran for the Illinois State Senate as a Democrat, Obama also joined the New Party and ran as their candidate. The New Party, in conjunction with SEIU and ACORN, worked to get Obama elected as State Senator. The spring 1996 edition of the New Party newsletter lauded it's member Barack Obama for winning the State Senate primary race. And the summer 1996 edition of New Ground, the newsletter of the Democratic Socialists of America reported that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting where he thanked the group for it's support and encouraged other New Party members to join his task forces on voter education and registration.
After the recent F.B.I. raid, Ms. Weiner/Iosbaker said the investigation is an attempt to intimidate her and her husband from doing their labor cause and anti-war activism. Somehow, I can't see Obama approving the "harrassment" of labor and anti-war activists. After all, those are his causes, also. The New Party is now defunct, but Obama ran his first campaign for political office as a member of that socialist organization, which used SEIU to help get him elected as Illinois State Senator.; and was endorsed by another socialist organization. SEIU was later instrumental in pushing Obama into the White House. Now, two officials of both the New Party and SEIU are under investigation, and suspected of transferring funds to terrorist organizations. I don't know how long or how deeply the F.B.I. has been investigating these possible terror funding activities, or how "transparent" is the money trail, but what comes to mind is "where there's smoke, there's fire". It's looking highly possible, if not probable, that members of the group SEIU that greatly funded Obama's presidential run and got him elected, have also been covertly providing material support for terrorist organizations.. Crony politics may be in bed with crony terrorism. America, wake up and smell the SEIU burning.
Recently I wrote about the F.B.I. raids on the homes of Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network (By The Company We Keep), suspected of filtering funds to FARC (the military wing of the Colombia Communist Party) and Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization. Obama, as director of the Woods Fund, gave AAAN a total of $75,000 in 2002/2003. AAAN has also received almost $500,000 in federal grants thru the years. By chance, I discovered that the targets of the F.B.I. raids that day were more widespread than just Abudayyeh or AAAN. Somebody emailed me photos of people protesting in Chicago during a recent visit by Obama. I wanted to verify that those picture were actually connected to Obama's trip and not from some earlier protest march and re-labeled. There was a website name imprinted on the pictures, Foundingbloggers, so I went to it to look for the pictures. My attention was immediately caught by some current posts regarding the F.B.I. raids in Chicago looking for links to terrorist organizations. I'll have to go back later to look for the Chicago - Obama protest pictures; I still want to verify them before I forward them. However, here's the gist of the full scope of the F.B.I. terrorism raids, plus some information I found at a couple of other websites, New Zeal (short for Zealand) Blog and World Net Daily.. The old media (mainstream media) pretty much ignored this, but the new media (bloggers) is all over it. In fact, most of the mainstream media coverage is on the 2 days of protests following the raids, along with socialist, marxist, and terrorist websites such as CAIR and Intifada-Palestine.
Among the approximately half dozen or so people, (who are all associated with one or more of the Colombia Action Network, Students for a Democratic Society communist group or Freedom Road Socialist Organization), targeted by the F.B.I. raids on 9/27/10 in Chicago, was a man by the name of Thomas Burke. The search warrant subpoena showed that the F.B.I. was looking for records of any payments from Burke to Hatem Abudayyeh of the AAAN, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLO), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) or Hezbollah, a muslim terrorist group based in Lebanon.. Burke is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, whose website was originally registered in his name. He is a member of the Colombia Action Network, is a Colombia solidarity activist, and has traveled in Colombia. He is also a member of the executive board of SEIU local 73 in Chicago. After the raid, Burke claimed that the government was trying to intimidate the movement against U.S. occupations and those who oppose support for repressive regimes, and to pave the way for more U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and Latin America. Somehow, I can't see Obama approving an F.B.I. action against people merely wanting to halt our "occupation" of the Middle East and Latin America. Those are Obama's goals also. So, therefore, I believe there probably is covert financial aid to the above mentioned terrorist organizations. What's interesting is the SEIU component.
Also raided by the F.B.I. in Chicago was the home of husband and wife, Joseph Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner. They, too, are suspected of providing financial aid to Hatem Abudayyeh, AAAN, FARC, and Hezbollah. It's not clear if they are members of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but since that group was the focus of the F.B.I. investigation, and every other person who had their home raided that day is a member, it's a good hunch that they are. Iosbaker and Weiner are both members of SEIU, and Iosbaker is Chief Steward and a member of the executive board of SEIU local 73 in Chicago. The day after the F.B.I. raids, APNews reported that former SEIU president and friend of Barack, Andy Stern was under F.B.I. investigation for paying a "consultant" $75,000 a year out of union funds for doing nothing, in violation of federal labor laws; and when he wrote a book in 2006, union funds paid for all the fact-checking for it and promoting it and required union members to buy it, but Stern pocketed all the proceeds. Also being investigated is the $44 million that Stern and SEIU put into the 2008 election. Stern is the most frequent visitor to the White House since Obama was inaugurated, and is now on Obama's financial reform commission. After George Soros, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was the largest contributor to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign chest. Wouldn't it be something if SEIU funds went not only to helping buy the presidency for Obama, but also went to supporting terrorism?
There's another thing, other than SEIU, that Obama has in common with terror-funding suspects Joseph Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner. Back in the 90's, Iosbaker and Weiner were leaders in the socialist New Party in Chicago; Iosbaker was a Precinct Captain and Weiner was a Precinct Worker. The New Party was founded by leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America and members of Committees of Correspondence, an arm of the Communist Party USA. The aim of the New Party was to move the Democratic Party toward a socialist agenda,. Among their goals were a universal "social wage" to include health care and "the democratization (nationalization?) of the banking and financial system", and community controlled financial institutions (whatever that means). The New Party was heavily involved with SEIU; SEIU organizors (and ACORN activists) were given a monthly recruitment quota to bring in new members for the New Party. When he ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Obama asked for and got the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America and attended several of their events and meetings. At the time, but later outlawed by the Supreme Court, was a concept know as "electoral fusion", whereby a candidate could run under more than one party banner. So while he ran for the Illinois State Senate as a Democrat, Obama also joined the New Party and ran as their candidate. The New Party, in conjunction with SEIU and ACORN, worked to get Obama elected as State Senator. The spring 1996 edition of the New Party newsletter lauded it's member Barack Obama for winning the State Senate primary race. And the summer 1996 edition of New Ground, the newsletter of the Democratic Socialists of America reported that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting where he thanked the group for it's support and encouraged other New Party members to join his task forces on voter education and registration.
After the recent F.B.I. raid, Ms. Weiner/Iosbaker said the investigation is an attempt to intimidate her and her husband from doing their labor cause and anti-war activism. Somehow, I can't see Obama approving the "harrassment" of labor and anti-war activists. After all, those are his causes, also. The New Party is now defunct, but Obama ran his first campaign for political office as a member of that socialist organization, which used SEIU to help get him elected as Illinois State Senator.; and was endorsed by another socialist organization. SEIU was later instrumental in pushing Obama into the White House. Now, two officials of both the New Party and SEIU are under investigation, and suspected of transferring funds to terrorist organizations. I don't know how long or how deeply the F.B.I. has been investigating these possible terror funding activities, or how "transparent" is the money trail, but what comes to mind is "where there's smoke, there's fire". It's looking highly possible, if not probable, that members of the group SEIU that greatly funded Obama's presidential run and got him elected, have also been covertly providing material support for terrorist organizations.. Crony politics may be in bed with crony terrorism. America, wake up and smell the SEIU burning.
 |
| New Party Spring 1996 Newsletter |
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Selling of America, 1 - 2 - 3
The weekend has come and gone. I've sat here most of the day, mired in apathy. Scanning the news items on Free Republic. The news hasn't been very encouraging the past couple of days. Typical stuff you expect to hear from the Obama administration: he said if Republicans were elected in any great number next month, it will be hand to hand combat in DC. He seems to think he's only the president of the Democrats or his special interest cronies. He found a loophole today to send some more aid to the Palestinian Authority, which will probably de-rail the peace talks; isn't that what he wants anyway? His aide Axelrod says they don't need to pass any more legislation, they are just going to concentrate on implementing what they already have. Which means stricter EPA regulations to make up for not getting cap and tax passed. One Democrat candidate, Adler, admitted to planting a fake Tea Party candidate, trying to siphon votes away from his Republican opponent. Obama went on television and re-stated his case for the $50,000,000 ($50 million) he asked Congress for last month for "infrastructure stimulus", when according to wikipedia the original Stimulus Act has $105.3 billion designated for "infrastructure" and most of that hasn't been spent yet. You know, the kind of crap you expect from the administration and the Democrats these days.
A couple of articles did, though, catch my eye; and when combined with something else I read last month in Bloomberg, it made something click. It made me go, hmmmmm. Last month Bloomberg reported that the administration had applied for an I.P.O. (initial public offering) to convert their 61% share in Government Motors into stock, in order to sell it off. The one and only buyer so far seems to be the Chinese government owned auto maker, S.A.I.C. I looked around on line to refresh my memory and see if there was anything new on that front. Nope, Obama is still looking to sell Government Motors to China; expecting to close the deal immediately after the November 2 elections. Today I saw 2 other articles about sales of American enterprises and property to foreign countries. This seems to be a pattern of Obama's that's gaining momentum, and not making very much news. However, being a bleeding-heart red-white-and-blue American patriot, it causes me some concern.
The 1st article I saw today is about the sale of a Wyoming uranium mine to Russia. Of all countries in the world, why Russia? And again, like in the case of China's government-owned S.A.I.C. auto maker; the company looking to buy Uranium One USA located in Powder River Basin, WY is a Russian government subsidiary. We are getting a little too cozy with Russia for my comfort. Obama has scrapped our space shuttle program; now our astronauts have to fly on Russian space shuttles to get to the "international" space station that is mostly an American-built gift to the world. Big Mistake, Obama. My stomach was in knots the other day when our guys took the first trip to the space shuttle under Obama's new plan. I just pray to God they all get home safely from this trip and future ones. Then from Voice of America on 8/20/10 comes the news that Russia is going to supply Iran with nuclear fuel. Followed by the 1st story about the uranium mine sale to Russia in The Trib, which calls itself Wyoming's online news service, on 9/25/10, seeking to assure people that no Wyoming uranium will go to Russia and Iran. Then on 9/28/10 Alaribiya reported that Russia condemned the U.S. sanction against Iran. Given that attitude on Russia's part, how can anybody say they won't be taking the uranium from America and transporting it to Iran; for use in nuclear fuel to attack Israel and us? The deal is put together by Obama and Hillary Clinton. Have they lost their respective minds? This is not a small investment; Russia will have 51%, controlling interest in Uranium One USA. Thank God for the Republicans. Four of them are asking Treasury Secretary Geithner to block the sale. I know there's little chance of that, since Geithner is one of Obama's long time cronies. However, things will change if the Republicans win a House majority next month. Those 4 Republicans are Rep. Ros-Lehtinen of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Bachus of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. King of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee. Right now they are the ranking minority members of those committees, but with a Republican majority in the House, they will become Chairmen of those committees and will have oversight of the sale. Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center points out that Russia has plenty of it's own uranium, asks why it would want to buy more, and says this could be Russia's opening move to get into the U.S. nuclear power market. This is something we need to keep our eyes on after the election.
The other article that caught my eye today concerns the American production of the other 2 forms of energy; oil and gas. To be precise, natural gas; but to me this news falls in line with some things Obama has done in the oil industry area lately. Y'all know that after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama stopped all oil drilling in America. It's a move to further de-stabilize the American economy and put us into a third world status to, in his words, "level the playing field". He's not against oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; he's just against America drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. After bring American oil production to a stand-still, Obama then, according to the Cypress Times on 8/8/10, gave George Soros's Brazilian oil company Petrobras $2 billion American tax payers money to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. So much for concern about the environment; Petrobras will be drilling even deeper that America ever did. Some of you might not know who George Soros is; he's one of the top 2 or 3 richest men on earth. He doesn't need our money. He's a long-time crony of Obama and one of his deep-pocket financial supporters. He also is an American-hating socialist who wants global governance and a one world currency. A very evil man, who turned his own friends and family in to Hitler, in exchange for favors and wealth. And then on 10/7/10, the Cypress Times reported that Obama gave Mexico another $1 billion of our money to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That's in addition to the $500,000,000 ($500 million) that Obama has already given Mexico to build a Government Motors plant down there. Taking auto industry and oil industry jobs away from Americans and giving them to Mexico. What's the matter, Obama? Isn't it enough that we have up to 20 million illegal alien Mexicans up here taking jobs in this country away from Americans? Today's Washington Times (which is also where I got the article about the sale of the Wyoming uranium mine to Russia) reports that the China National Offshore Oil Corp. is going to pay $2.2 billion for interest in a South Texas oil and natural gas shale project, plus billions more over the next few years. It's the Chesapeake Energy / Eagle Ford shale play that covers 600,000 acres right here in Texas. China aims to secure sources of energy for it's growing economy; but Chesapeake Energy says almost certainly the resources will be sold here in the U.S. and proceeds sent to China. Is that any better; either the oil and natural gas will go to China, or the money from it will? And that stands to be a goodly amount since CNOOC plans to eventually have 5,000 or more wells, all told. Something else the Obama administration is doing, or has a hand in, either by instigation or by approval; that we need to keep an eye on. Is it any wonder that a person can get mired down in apathy? Our wealth, our land, our sovereignty, our very country, is being sold out from under us. America, open your eyes!
A couple of articles did, though, catch my eye; and when combined with something else I read last month in Bloomberg, it made something click. It made me go, hmmmmm. Last month Bloomberg reported that the administration had applied for an I.P.O. (initial public offering) to convert their 61% share in Government Motors into stock, in order to sell it off. The one and only buyer so far seems to be the Chinese government owned auto maker, S.A.I.C. I looked around on line to refresh my memory and see if there was anything new on that front. Nope, Obama is still looking to sell Government Motors to China; expecting to close the deal immediately after the November 2 elections. Today I saw 2 other articles about sales of American enterprises and property to foreign countries. This seems to be a pattern of Obama's that's gaining momentum, and not making very much news. However, being a bleeding-heart red-white-and-blue American patriot, it causes me some concern.
The 1st article I saw today is about the sale of a Wyoming uranium mine to Russia. Of all countries in the world, why Russia? And again, like in the case of China's government-owned S.A.I.C. auto maker; the company looking to buy Uranium One USA located in Powder River Basin, WY is a Russian government subsidiary. We are getting a little too cozy with Russia for my comfort. Obama has scrapped our space shuttle program; now our astronauts have to fly on Russian space shuttles to get to the "international" space station that is mostly an American-built gift to the world. Big Mistake, Obama. My stomach was in knots the other day when our guys took the first trip to the space shuttle under Obama's new plan. I just pray to God they all get home safely from this trip and future ones. Then from Voice of America on 8/20/10 comes the news that Russia is going to supply Iran with nuclear fuel. Followed by the 1st story about the uranium mine sale to Russia in The Trib, which calls itself Wyoming's online news service, on 9/25/10, seeking to assure people that no Wyoming uranium will go to Russia and Iran. Then on 9/28/10 Alaribiya reported that Russia condemned the U.S. sanction against Iran. Given that attitude on Russia's part, how can anybody say they won't be taking the uranium from America and transporting it to Iran; for use in nuclear fuel to attack Israel and us? The deal is put together by Obama and Hillary Clinton. Have they lost their respective minds? This is not a small investment; Russia will have 51%, controlling interest in Uranium One USA. Thank God for the Republicans. Four of them are asking Treasury Secretary Geithner to block the sale. I know there's little chance of that, since Geithner is one of Obama's long time cronies. However, things will change if the Republicans win a House majority next month. Those 4 Republicans are Rep. Ros-Lehtinen of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Bachus of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. King of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee. Right now they are the ranking minority members of those committees, but with a Republican majority in the House, they will become Chairmen of those committees and will have oversight of the sale. Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center points out that Russia has plenty of it's own uranium, asks why it would want to buy more, and says this could be Russia's opening move to get into the U.S. nuclear power market. This is something we need to keep our eyes on after the election.
The other article that caught my eye today concerns the American production of the other 2 forms of energy; oil and gas. To be precise, natural gas; but to me this news falls in line with some things Obama has done in the oil industry area lately. Y'all know that after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama stopped all oil drilling in America. It's a move to further de-stabilize the American economy and put us into a third world status to, in his words, "level the playing field". He's not against oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; he's just against America drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. After bring American oil production to a stand-still, Obama then, according to the Cypress Times on 8/8/10, gave George Soros's Brazilian oil company Petrobras $2 billion American tax payers money to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. So much for concern about the environment; Petrobras will be drilling even deeper that America ever did. Some of you might not know who George Soros is; he's one of the top 2 or 3 richest men on earth. He doesn't need our money. He's a long-time crony of Obama and one of his deep-pocket financial supporters. He also is an American-hating socialist who wants global governance and a one world currency. A very evil man, who turned his own friends and family in to Hitler, in exchange for favors and wealth. And then on 10/7/10, the Cypress Times reported that Obama gave Mexico another $1 billion of our money to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That's in addition to the $500,000,000 ($500 million) that Obama has already given Mexico to build a Government Motors plant down there. Taking auto industry and oil industry jobs away from Americans and giving them to Mexico. What's the matter, Obama? Isn't it enough that we have up to 20 million illegal alien Mexicans up here taking jobs in this country away from Americans? Today's Washington Times (which is also where I got the article about the sale of the Wyoming uranium mine to Russia) reports that the China National Offshore Oil Corp. is going to pay $2.2 billion for interest in a South Texas oil and natural gas shale project, plus billions more over the next few years. It's the Chesapeake Energy / Eagle Ford shale play that covers 600,000 acres right here in Texas. China aims to secure sources of energy for it's growing economy; but Chesapeake Energy says almost certainly the resources will be sold here in the U.S. and proceeds sent to China. Is that any better; either the oil and natural gas will go to China, or the money from it will? And that stands to be a goodly amount since CNOOC plans to eventually have 5,000 or more wells, all told. Something else the Obama administration is doing, or has a hand in, either by instigation or by approval; that we need to keep an eye on. Is it any wonder that a person can get mired down in apathy? Our wealth, our land, our sovereignty, our very country, is being sold out from under us. America, open your eyes!
Friday, October 8, 2010
Paychecks Versus Food Stamps
"The lessons of history . . . show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual an moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit". President Franklin Roosevelt, 1935
I tried to think up a catchy title for this post, but decided to stick with the one that came with the video from youtube. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrinch and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have been involved the last couple of days in what one pundit calls a "food fight". Three days ago, Newt pointed out that the Republican party is the party of paychecks and the Democrat Party is the party of food stamps. Which is fundamentally correct; food stamps were a creation of the Democrats and every increase in them has been implemented by the Democrats. Democrats revile business and commerce as being evil and victimizing society. Republicans respect the fact that the top 10% of earners in America, individual and corporate, provide 75% of tax revenue going into the government coffers; to support all those who live on "entitlements". I need to digress; I'm offended by those Democrats, like Juan Williams a couple of nights ago, who always trot out the suggestion that old people give up Social Security and Medicare when the issue of paring down entitlements comes up. Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits are just that; benefits of paying into the system over the years thru payroll tax deduction or self-employment taxes. Entitlements are what is given to non-producers by taking money (taxes) away from the producers in society.
Right now, corporations are in a state of uncertainty because Congress took off to go campaign instead of dealing with the question of extending the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats want to only extend them to people earning less than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples; and allow tax rates over those amounts to revert to rates up to 55%. Unfortunately, that will throw many small businesses into a much higher tax bracket than they now have, forcing many of them out of business; and it will prevent larger businesses from being able to afford to expand and hire more people. Here are some statistics on small businesses, from the Small Business Administration website: they are 99.7 of ALL employers, they employ 50% of all private sector workers, they pay 44% of the total U.S. private sector wages, they generate 65% of new jobs (in 2008 the Huffington Post put that at 98%, don't know where they got their figure), account for more than 50% of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and made up 97.5% of all exporters and produced 31% of export value in Fiscal Year 2008. Could it be that pro-business Republicans are onto something? Why would the Democrats want to penalize small businesses by throwing them into a higher tax bracket come January 2011, and forcing a lot of them to close their doors; instead of extending the Bush tax cuts that will allow them to grow and create more jobs resulting in more paychecks. So, basically, yes the Republican Party IS the party of paychecks; and the Democrat Party IS the party of food stamps.
Back when Pelosi was pushing the Stimulus Bill, the Economic Recovery Plan, she claimed it would be the most effect move in stimulating the economy (CNN Money 1/15/09); she called it "the biggest bang for the buck". Now in answer to Newt's paychecks versus food stamps observation, she is saying the same thing about food stamps; they are a sure-fire way to stimulate the economy (CNN 10/6/10) and said "It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck". Her reasoning is that for every $1.00 spent in food stamps, $1.79 goes into producing the food and getting it to the consumer. Hmmmm. $1.79 invested to bring in $1.00 spent. Sounds like a deficit to me. We are at an all time record in food stamps recipients. The number of Americans on food stamps reached 41.8 million in July; the White House estimates it will soon reach 43 million. One in seven people in America. Look around yourself; one out of every seven people you see is probably getting food stamps. This year the administration spent $60 billion in food stamp entitlements. How did we get to this point?
In this morning's Townhall, Pat Buchanan tells us how. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Food Stamp Act into law in 1964, nobody was starving in America; it was just a Democrat Party hand-out. It was originally funded with $75,000,000 ($75 million) going to 350,000 people in only 40 counties and 3 cities. Then it became a monster that there is no stopping. By the time President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, 3,000,000 (3 million) people were getting food stamps, at a cost to the tax-payers of $270,000,000 ($270 million) per year. Then CBS, that paragon of mainstream media, ran a feature showing what it claimed was a starving infant in "rich" America; in reality it was a premature baby that wasn't strong enough to survive. All the liberals got up in arms, and by the time Nixon left office in 1974, there were 16,000,000 (16 million) people on the food stamp dole, costing tax-payers $4 billion (don't know how many zero's) annually. Last year, FY 2009, the cost to us tax-payers had increased in 35 years by 1,400%, to a staggering $56 billion. Of, by, and thru, the Democrat Party. That's how we got to this point.
President Roosevelt feared that dependence on "relief" would lead to spiritual and moral disintegration which would be destructive to the fiber of America. In the 46 years since the Democrats instituted their "Great Society", society has fallen apart. The "red blood cell" of American culture, the nuclear family is an endangered species. Did y'all know that 40% of all children in America are now born to single mothers. Breaking it down further into ethnic groups, it's a rate of 51% for hispanics and 71% for blacks. And the rest of us are supporting those children of all those men who just walk away. It's become easier for the mothers to turn to Uncle Sugar, than to put the burden where it rightfully belongs; on the shoulders of the men who fathered those children. Since we live what we know, those children that grow up under a "nanny state" for the most part, are highly likely to continue to nurse on the government teat. The Democrats grand idea called the "Great Society" has created a segment of society where several generations base their livelihood on being totally taken care of, all their needs met from cradle to grave, by those of us who have spent our lives working and paying taxes; or by those that create businesses, small or large, that provide jobs for others, paying more than their share in corporate taxes. So, yes, it does boil down to a very simple choice. The integrity and self-respect of earning your own paycheck, or the disdain and cynicism of continuing to expect others to pick up your tab. The Republican Party of paychecks, or the Democrat Party of food stamps. America, the choice is yours.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The $162,000,000 Question
This video shows Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the 3rd ranking Democrat in the Senate, about a year ago addressing the Senate, and voicing his opinion about the American people. A point of view that seems to be common thru-out the Democrat members of Congress. The snippet is 16 seconds long, but if you can't play the video, here is what Senator Schumer said about you, the American people:
"And let me say this, to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes "porky" amendments - the American people really don't care". Pork? What pork, Chuck? Pelosi promised "no pork in the stimulus package". And when Obama signed it into law he said "It has no earmarks". (city data)
The Spendulus, pardon me, Stimulus Bill ended up costing us tax payers around $820 billion, rather than the $787 billion it was originally estimated at. But then, when you're gouging other people, in this case US, whats a few billion dollars when you're talking close to a trillion dollars anyway. After all, it's not your money you're spending, so why worry about such a niggling little, tiny amount. Right, Chuck? So you don't think the American people cared when you and the Democrats (I can say that because they passed it without a single Republican vote, since they have a majority and can pass just about anything they want to without a single vote from the "party of no") spent $300,000 for a GPS equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings in Washington State, or gave $30,000,000, (yes 30 million dollars) for spring training baseball complexes for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies. What about those of us who aren't sports fans, don't we get a say? And what about the wealthy team owners building their own training complexes? Ever think about that, Chuck? And when you gave Microsoft $11,000,000 ($11 million) to build a bridge between 2 of it's building in Redmond WA, that are separated by a highway, did you think Bill Gates might not have enough money to pay for it himself; or maybe it was the governments fault for having a highway between his 2 building sites? Which came first, the highway or the buildings?
I'm sure those 10 drivers a day on that bridge in Iowa County WI sure appreciated that $430,000 of our money you sent them to have the bridge repaired. And those 20 passengers a day that fly in and out of John Murtha Airport in Johnstown PA really needed that $800,000 "backup" runway. You never know when 2 of the 4 flights a day might try to land at the same time; and gosh, nobody would want them to take turns. I always thought peoples sex lives were their own business, but maybe there was an extremely good reason that the administration had to spen $219,000 to study the sex lives of freshmen (18 year old) women at Syracuse University. Why did you choose Syracuse University as opposed to, say, University of California at Berkeley? That would probably have been more interesting for the dirty old men who really needed to know. And did the Forest Service really need $2,300,000 ($2.3 million) to raise bugs? It looks like all they would need to do is go into the forest and gather some. And I know every American was happy to help those turtles get to the other side of the road in Lake Jackson FL, they really needed that $3,400,000 ($3.4 million) 13-foot tunnel under U.S. 27. And somebody might have surely drowned in that DRY lakebed at Guymon OK if you hadn't put up that $1,150,000 ($1.15 million) guardrail. No, the American people really didn't care about that one.
Here's a few more pork-barrel projects we sure don't care about: $9,380,000 ($9.38 million) to renovate a 100 year old train depot in Lancaster County PA that hasn't been used for 30 years, $2,500,000 ($2.5 million) in stimulus checks sent to the deceased (I'm sure those dead Americans really needed the funds), $6,000,000 ($6 million) for a snow-making machine in Duluth-freezin-MN, $173,834 to weatherize 8 pickup trucks in Madison County IL (how much does antifreeze cost up there, we could send them some from TX, I'd paid the shipping), $20,000 to freeze fish sperm in South Dakota (I'll donate a freezer), $1,500,000 ($1.5 million) for a fence on a bridge in Akron OH to keep people from jumping off it (after they found out about the spending we're not supposed to care about probably), $1,000,000 ($1 million) to study "green" housing for 300 people in Chicago, $356,000 for Indiana University to study whether children notice when somebody has a foreign accent, $148,438 for Washington State University to study the use of marijuana instead of morphine (not California, Chuck?), $462,000 to buy 22 concrete toilets for a National Forest in MO, $3,100,000 ($3.1 million) to turn a barge into a museum to float the Erie Canal in New York, $1,300,000 ($1.3 million) for government art in Maine which includes $30,000 for basketweavers (send them to the local mental hospital, they've got plenty of basketweavers) $20,000 for storytelling and $12,500 for a music festival, and $1,000,000 ($1 million) to replace 100 old bike lockers and build a 250-bike garage in Portland OR.
We've been assured that all the transactions, and how the administration spends every dollar of the money stolen from us tax payers thru the Stimulus Bill, would be "transparently" posted on the Recovery website.
Except that the administration isn't enforcing it's own reporting requirements. There are 352 recipients of stimulus funds that have failed to report in to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) according to the Washington Examiner yesterday. THERE IS $162,000,000 ($162 MILLION) OF OUR MONEY MISSING, AND UNACCOUNTED FOR! And Chuck Schumer says the American people don't care!
The administration knows who's responsible for the missing money, but they're not saying. However, USA Today newspaper did their own analysis and reports that $103,000,000 ($103 million) went to 100 recipients under the Dept of Agriculture; and that's where part of the missing money went. What the heck are they doing with it that they can't account for it, growing marijuana? The Associated Press characterized the White House stimulus report from a few days ago as saying "remarkably little of the money has gone out fraudulently". I guess when you compare $162,000,000 to almost a trillion dollars, that could be seen as being "remarkably little". I'm one of the "American people", and I sure as heck care. I care that so much of our stolen money, stolen thru Obama's Spendulus Bill, was squandered in such a cavalier manner. And I really, really care that any of it, even such a little, tiny amount as $162,000,000 has gone missing. Show me the money. I'll be watching. And I can see November from my house.
By The Company We Keep
"So maye much be spyed also, by the company and pastyme that a body useth. For a man is for the moost parte condicioned even lyke unto them that he kepeth company wythe all."
1541 M. Coverdale tr. H. Bullinger's Christian State of Matrimony
This is the earliest version of the adage "We are known by the company we keep" that I could find. I don't know if it's the original, but 1541 is pretty far back. Actually this version says a lot more than the condensed version it's been whittled down to. We can see much about a body by their associations and actions; and it's true that we are conditioned to be like all those we "keep company with".
When it came to light that Obama's pastor in Chicago was America-hating Reverend Jeremiah "God &@#^ America" Wright, Obama said that although he sat in a pew in Wright's church for 20 years, was married by Wright, and his daughters were baptized by Wright, he never heard any of the hate-filled vitriolic rhetoric that was customarily spewed by Wright. When it came to light that Obama associated closely with William Ayers, the "unrepentent terrorist" (Ayers says he wished he'd done more bombings and described himself as "guilty as hell, free as a bird") who helped found the Weather Underground and was wanted by the F.B.I. for his involvement in several bombings in the United States, and went into hiding for 20 years, Obama said he was just somebody who lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago. In truth, Obama and Ayers served on the board of the Woods Fund together in Chicago and may have known each other prior to that during their college days in New York. Obama and Ayers were guests in each others homes, yet Obama described him as an acquaintance and a "respected scholar". Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in his home when Obama first went into politics and ran for the Illinois State Senate.
When Obama was asked about his relationship with Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi, Obama said during a campaign stop in Florida (American Thinker 5/23/08) that he knew Khalidi because he was a teacher at the University of Chicago and their kids went to the same school. He said to "pluck out one person he knew that he'd had a conversation with was a problematic stand to take". Another professor who knew Obama for a dozen years said Obama and Khalidi were friends, they lived in faculty residences, they dined out together a number of times, and the Obama's babysat for the Khalidi's. Khalidi, a former PLO operative, started the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). In 2001, Obama gave AAAN $40,000 thru the Woods Fund. In 2003, the Woods Fund gave AAAN another $35,000. In 2003 Khalidi stepped aside as director of AAAN and Obama was an honored guest at his farewell dinner, caught on video giving a toast and praising Khalidi. Yet Obama described him as an acquaintance and a "respected scholar". Khalidi hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he made a failed bid in 2000 for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
When Rashid Khalidi passed on the directorship of AAAN in 2003, the man who took over was Hatem Abudayyeh, who had been with the group since 1999. A couple of weeks ago, the F.B.I. raided the homes of Abudayyeh in Minneapolis and Chicago, looking for funding links between him and Hamas and FARC, the military wing of the Columbian Communist Party (Big Government 9/30/10). Here's some background on Abudayyeh from Debbie Schlussel's blog: He's Palestinian; his parents started the first muslim-dominated community center in Chicago (kind of like the planned Ground Zero community center) and are very supportive of Islamic terrorist groups. Abudayyeh has protested many times against Israel, and filmed a documentary in the West Bank denouncing America. And the anti-Israel pro-muslim activity is a family affair. His mother-in-law uses a name that translates to "mother of the jihad fighter" because one of her sons "martyred" himself while in prison for terrorist acts against Israel and the other son is a leader in the Palestinian youth terrorist movement. Debbie Schlussel, working with the F.B.I., assisted in an investigation that proved that Abudayyeh and AAAN were using tax-payer funds to bring muslim women to America so they could have babies (paid for by us) and get birthright citizenship. She called his agency, pretended to be a pregnant illegal alien muslim woman, and was assured they could arrange free medical care and a phony Social Security card. And the activity isn't restricted just to pregnant muslim women; they help all sorts of muslims infiltrate the U.S. illegally. Any terrorists, I wonder?
When asked about his association with Abudayyeh, and he's bound to be, I wonder if Obama will say he's just an acquaintance. To what extent they are involved with each other, I don't know; at the moment it's just speculation. But Abudayyeh has been involved with AAAN since 1999, Obama was a director of the Woods Fund from 1994 thru 2001, during which time Obama was an "associate" of Rashid Khalidi and thru the Woods Fund, gave AAAN $75,000. Obama was an honored guest at the banquet in 2003 where Khalidi passed the baton of AAAN leadership over to Abudayyeh. So, it's safe to say they've at least met. Now the F.B.I. is looking for a funding link between Abudayyeh and AAAN, and Hamas, and FARC. During the time Abudayyeh has been with AAAN, it has received almost a half million in our tax payers dollars ($457,000), part of it while Abudayyeh was under investigation by a federal grand jury. Abudayyeh's explanation is that it was intended for an after-school program for high-risk students to study English as a second language. Yeah, right. It should be interesting what the F.B.I. raid discovers, if we're ever allowed to know; if it's not covered up. Abudayyeh still has links to our government; he was at a briefing at the White House for Arab leaders just this past April. Links to the White House, links to Hamas, links to FARC. Hmmmmm.
1541 M. Coverdale tr. H. Bullinger's Christian State of Matrimony
This is the earliest version of the adage "We are known by the company we keep" that I could find. I don't know if it's the original, but 1541 is pretty far back. Actually this version says a lot more than the condensed version it's been whittled down to. We can see much about a body by their associations and actions; and it's true that we are conditioned to be like all those we "keep company with".
When it came to light that Obama's pastor in Chicago was America-hating Reverend Jeremiah "God &@#^ America" Wright, Obama said that although he sat in a pew in Wright's church for 20 years, was married by Wright, and his daughters were baptized by Wright, he never heard any of the hate-filled vitriolic rhetoric that was customarily spewed by Wright. When it came to light that Obama associated closely with William Ayers, the "unrepentent terrorist" (Ayers says he wished he'd done more bombings and described himself as "guilty as hell, free as a bird") who helped found the Weather Underground and was wanted by the F.B.I. for his involvement in several bombings in the United States, and went into hiding for 20 years, Obama said he was just somebody who lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago. In truth, Obama and Ayers served on the board of the Woods Fund together in Chicago and may have known each other prior to that during their college days in New York. Obama and Ayers were guests in each others homes, yet Obama described him as an acquaintance and a "respected scholar". Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in his home when Obama first went into politics and ran for the Illinois State Senate.
When Obama was asked about his relationship with Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi, Obama said during a campaign stop in Florida (American Thinker 5/23/08) that he knew Khalidi because he was a teacher at the University of Chicago and their kids went to the same school. He said to "pluck out one person he knew that he'd had a conversation with was a problematic stand to take". Another professor who knew Obama for a dozen years said Obama and Khalidi were friends, they lived in faculty residences, they dined out together a number of times, and the Obama's babysat for the Khalidi's. Khalidi, a former PLO operative, started the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). In 2001, Obama gave AAAN $40,000 thru the Woods Fund. In 2003, the Woods Fund gave AAAN another $35,000. In 2003 Khalidi stepped aside as director of AAAN and Obama was an honored guest at his farewell dinner, caught on video giving a toast and praising Khalidi. Yet Obama described him as an acquaintance and a "respected scholar". Khalidi hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he made a failed bid in 2000 for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
When Rashid Khalidi passed on the directorship of AAAN in 2003, the man who took over was Hatem Abudayyeh, who had been with the group since 1999. A couple of weeks ago, the F.B.I. raided the homes of Abudayyeh in Minneapolis and Chicago, looking for funding links between him and Hamas and FARC, the military wing of the Columbian Communist Party (Big Government 9/30/10). Here's some background on Abudayyeh from Debbie Schlussel's blog: He's Palestinian; his parents started the first muslim-dominated community center in Chicago (kind of like the planned Ground Zero community center) and are very supportive of Islamic terrorist groups. Abudayyeh has protested many times against Israel, and filmed a documentary in the West Bank denouncing America. And the anti-Israel pro-muslim activity is a family affair. His mother-in-law uses a name that translates to "mother of the jihad fighter" because one of her sons "martyred" himself while in prison for terrorist acts against Israel and the other son is a leader in the Palestinian youth terrorist movement. Debbie Schlussel, working with the F.B.I., assisted in an investigation that proved that Abudayyeh and AAAN were using tax-payer funds to bring muslim women to America so they could have babies (paid for by us) and get birthright citizenship. She called his agency, pretended to be a pregnant illegal alien muslim woman, and was assured they could arrange free medical care and a phony Social Security card. And the activity isn't restricted just to pregnant muslim women; they help all sorts of muslims infiltrate the U.S. illegally. Any terrorists, I wonder?
When asked about his association with Abudayyeh, and he's bound to be, I wonder if Obama will say he's just an acquaintance. To what extent they are involved with each other, I don't know; at the moment it's just speculation. But Abudayyeh has been involved with AAAN since 1999, Obama was a director of the Woods Fund from 1994 thru 2001, during which time Obama was an "associate" of Rashid Khalidi and thru the Woods Fund, gave AAAN $75,000. Obama was an honored guest at the banquet in 2003 where Khalidi passed the baton of AAAN leadership over to Abudayyeh. So, it's safe to say they've at least met. Now the F.B.I. is looking for a funding link between Abudayyeh and AAAN, and Hamas, and FARC. During the time Abudayyeh has been with AAAN, it has received almost a half million in our tax payers dollars ($457,000), part of it while Abudayyeh was under investigation by a federal grand jury. Abudayyeh's explanation is that it was intended for an after-school program for high-risk students to study English as a second language. Yeah, right. It should be interesting what the F.B.I. raid discovers, if we're ever allowed to know; if it's not covered up. Abudayyeh still has links to our government; he was at a briefing at the White House for Arab leaders just this past April. Links to the White House, links to Hamas, links to FARC. Hmmmmm.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
International Injustice
I'm sitting here trying to think of a start to this post. I compose as I type (which is why some of my posts might not seem completely cohesive). Through the past 19 months I have gone from stunned disbelief at what the current regime was attempting and getting away with, to anxiety when the destructive (toward my beloved America) actions continued, to feeling like I was up to my neck in scalding water and couldn't get out, finally to resignation that as I"m nearing retirement age I'm having to basically start all over, and now to sometimes feeling like I'm mired in apathy. Is it never going to end? Can we survive 2 more years? Can we win enough seats in Congress next month to stem some of the damage that this regime is hell bent on wreaking on America and it's citizens?
The word that has come to mind so much the last year and a half is "Why?". The subject today, students, is The United States of America versus The State of Arizona. Why on earth is the federal government suing one of it's states? I mean, we've heard before of individuals and groups suing the government. But for our county's leaders to turn against one of it's states is just beyond comprehension. Yet, not only are they doing it; they are allowing other countries to join in. Kind of like, pile on Arizona. I knew, and I've mentioned before, that Mexico was a co-complainant. Now today I read on Politico that there are actually 10 other countries besides Mexico that the federal government has allowed to join with it in suing the State of Arizona. Total of 11; count 'em - Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and Chile'. Illegals from all those countries have to pass thru Mexico to get to the U.S., and now Mexico is building a wall along it's southern border; yet the U.S. is castigated for wanting to enforce it's border with Mexico.
The Obama administration has allowed 11 foreign countries to join it in suing the State of Arizona. WILL IT NEVER END?. My God, what is he doing to our country? This is like an international gang-rape. With what is supposed to pass as our government standing by and watching. How many other countries do they have standing in the wings that they are going to invite to pile on? Do you think any other country in the world would allow, much less encourage like this, the U.S. to come into it's courts and sue one of its provinces or whatever they call their areas? Hell no, they wouldn't. This should not be happening, and it wouldn't with any other leader in our top office. Or any other Attorney General heading up out Dept of Justice.
I'm with Jan Brewer, Arizona's brave governor. She said "As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law. What's even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American Sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border". Yes, it is incredibly offensive. And, yes, AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY BEGINS IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND AT OUR BORDER. It is not given to us by the U.N. and their kangaroo international court. No matter what Obama and Holder want or think. (By the way, I said the international court was in Brussels Belgium because I read that somewhere, this article says The Hague Netherlands and that's correct) Governor Brewer has petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to disallow these foreign governments from taking part in our legal procedings; the hearing is on November 1. So far 11 states (including Texas) and more than 80 members of Congress have filed Amicus Briefs (friend of the court) supporting Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona. If I could file one I would. But foreign countries have no business in our legal system!
There is concern among conservative legal scholars about giving foreign legal systems a voice in American jurisprudence; it looks like Obama and Holder are headed that way. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has been the leading proponent of using foreign laws and international laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Both of Obama's Supreme Court appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have said during Senate Confirmation hearings that the U.S. courts should look to and follow international laws when making judicial decisions. There is no doubt in my mind; that is the direction Obama and Holder are trying to push us in. It can only be that; with allowing foreign countries to join our Dept. of Justice in this suit against the State of Arizona, They are trying to make a "mini" international court within the borders of America. What a disgrace and a travesty of our justice system, that it has gotten this far.
It's kind of like; if Hussein can't go to the mountain, he'll bring the mountain to him. We know he intends to eventually, and knowing him sooner than later, start having Americans tried in the International Court. Why else would he amend Executive Order 12425, giving Interpol authority to arrest any American citizen for anything it deems a "crime" and transport them out of the country for appearance before the U.N. International Court? Another "by the way"; I found out EO 12425 originated with Reagan in 1983, but had stringent restrictions in place governing the actions of Interpol within the U.S. Obama amended it to remove all restrictions, and to seal all Interpol records. Just like he did with all his own records. Which means that no person in the U.S. is allowed to see any records of Interpols actions within the U.S. Just like with his own records. And if any American ends up in front of the International Court, we need to all scream our heads off. America is NOT signed up to join the International Court. Clinton tried; he signed the Treaty in January 2001, just before leaving office. BUT, Congress never ratified it. After George was sworn in, he pulled the U. S. out of the International Court Treaty. Not that Obama and Holder will ever let anything like Constitutional legalities stop them.
The word that has come to mind so much the last year and a half is "Why?". The subject today, students, is The United States of America versus The State of Arizona. Why on earth is the federal government suing one of it's states? I mean, we've heard before of individuals and groups suing the government. But for our county's leaders to turn against one of it's states is just beyond comprehension. Yet, not only are they doing it; they are allowing other countries to join in. Kind of like, pile on Arizona. I knew, and I've mentioned before, that Mexico was a co-complainant. Now today I read on Politico that there are actually 10 other countries besides Mexico that the federal government has allowed to join with it in suing the State of Arizona. Total of 11; count 'em - Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and Chile'. Illegals from all those countries have to pass thru Mexico to get to the U.S., and now Mexico is building a wall along it's southern border; yet the U.S. is castigated for wanting to enforce it's border with Mexico.
The Obama administration has allowed 11 foreign countries to join it in suing the State of Arizona. WILL IT NEVER END?. My God, what is he doing to our country? This is like an international gang-rape. With what is supposed to pass as our government standing by and watching. How many other countries do they have standing in the wings that they are going to invite to pile on? Do you think any other country in the world would allow, much less encourage like this, the U.S. to come into it's courts and sue one of its provinces or whatever they call their areas? Hell no, they wouldn't. This should not be happening, and it wouldn't with any other leader in our top office. Or any other Attorney General heading up out Dept of Justice.
I'm with Jan Brewer, Arizona's brave governor. She said "As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law. What's even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American Sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border". Yes, it is incredibly offensive. And, yes, AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY BEGINS IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND AT OUR BORDER. It is not given to us by the U.N. and their kangaroo international court. No matter what Obama and Holder want or think. (By the way, I said the international court was in Brussels Belgium because I read that somewhere, this article says The Hague Netherlands and that's correct) Governor Brewer has petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to disallow these foreign governments from taking part in our legal procedings; the hearing is on November 1. So far 11 states (including Texas) and more than 80 members of Congress have filed Amicus Briefs (friend of the court) supporting Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona. If I could file one I would. But foreign countries have no business in our legal system!
There is concern among conservative legal scholars about giving foreign legal systems a voice in American jurisprudence; it looks like Obama and Holder are headed that way. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has been the leading proponent of using foreign laws and international laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Both of Obama's Supreme Court appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have said during Senate Confirmation hearings that the U.S. courts should look to and follow international laws when making judicial decisions. There is no doubt in my mind; that is the direction Obama and Holder are trying to push us in. It can only be that; with allowing foreign countries to join our Dept. of Justice in this suit against the State of Arizona, They are trying to make a "mini" international court within the borders of America. What a disgrace and a travesty of our justice system, that it has gotten this far.
It's kind of like; if Hussein can't go to the mountain, he'll bring the mountain to him. We know he intends to eventually, and knowing him sooner than later, start having Americans tried in the International Court. Why else would he amend Executive Order 12425, giving Interpol authority to arrest any American citizen for anything it deems a "crime" and transport them out of the country for appearance before the U.N. International Court? Another "by the way"; I found out EO 12425 originated with Reagan in 1983, but had stringent restrictions in place governing the actions of Interpol within the U.S. Obama amended it to remove all restrictions, and to seal all Interpol records. Just like he did with all his own records. Which means that no person in the U.S. is allowed to see any records of Interpols actions within the U.S. Just like with his own records. And if any American ends up in front of the International Court, we need to all scream our heads off. America is NOT signed up to join the International Court. Clinton tried; he signed the Treaty in January 2001, just before leaving office. BUT, Congress never ratified it. After George was sworn in, he pulled the U. S. out of the International Court Treaty. Not that Obama and Holder will ever let anything like Constitutional legalities stop them.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Have a Few Billion Gumballs
This video is a recently updated version of the one that was done in 1995 by Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, to explain to his son's 7th grade class why mass immigration to the United States will do nothing to alleviate world poverty. It has current figures drawn from the research done by the World Bank. If you don't have audio, you can watch it anyway; it has the text showing at the bottom of the screen. The video is 6 minutes long, but moves along at a good clip so it seems shorter. Here are some of the figures from the World Bank research: The United States has taken in, yearly since 1990, 1 million legal immigrants. The poorest of the poor in the world subsist on less than $2 per day; numbering 3 billion people. Mexico is poor, but not that poor; add in the world population that is at or below the poverty level of Mexico and you have 5.6 billion people (3 billion of the poorest and 2.6 billion at Mexico's level). Our 1 million legal immigrants per year will never even make a dent in that 5.6 billion, which increases by 80 million every year due to the birth rate out-pacing the death rate. And increasing the number of legal immigrants per year into the U.S., even 5 fold, will not alleviate the rampant poverty in those underdeveloped countries. Why? Because the poorest of the poor will never be in a position to immigrate here. Most of our immigrants are from Mexico, because of it's proximity; and they don't always bother to come here legally. Most of the 20 million Mexicans who are here illegally are under-educated and under-skilled and contribute very little to our economy. Of the immigrants who do come here legally, from India, Latin American countries, and the nations of Africa, it is the best and the brightest, the highest educated and the most skillful of their populations. That's their hope of bettering their own countries; and those people are deserting them. We are taking away from those countries the very people who are capable of elevating the quality of life in their home countries; which is something we don't do by increasing our immigration quotas. That only makes matters worse for them.
Since I first became aware of the flux of illegal immigrants coming to the United States of America from Mexico, I have always wondered why they didn't stay there and fight to make their own country better. Just think where Mexico could be today if they had done that; stopped the drug cartels from taking over and killing 28,000 of their countrymen, rid the government of most of the corrupt politicians running Mexico, and helped stabilize Mexico's economy. I said to somebody recently that we need to find a way to help Mexico keep it's people there, with their own people and their own families and loved ones; and not have them leave all they know to come up here and be a burden on us. The reaction: "noooo, we can't do that; Mexico is a sovereign country". Well, what the heck is America, if not a sovereign country, the most generous in the world, which deserves to not have it's law broken by the very act of setting foot over our borders without authorization? I agree with Roy Beck of NumbersUSA; taking in more people is not the way to go. It will deplete our natural resources, our medical resources, our welfare system, and render us unable to help ourselves, much less any other country in need. We need to help the less fortunate countries THERE, where they stand; and enable their people to prosper in their home countries.
I also get email newsletters from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). Did y'all know that Senator Menendez (D-NJ) introduced an amnesty bill late last Wednesday night, just before Congress left town; and plans to try to push it thru a lame duck session when Congress resumes after the November election? Here's part of what's in the 874 page bill, S.3932: grant amnesty to illegals aliens currently living in the U.S. (estimated at 13 million, could be much more once they start coming out of the woodwork), and permit them to bring spouses, same-sex partners, children and any other relatives from any country. It provides amnesty to illegals who have violated laws or have been previously deported for any reason. I'm sure Mexico, which now seems to have a say in what America does since Calderon gets to address our Congress and is a co-complainant against the state of Arizona, will love that part since Mexico last week told the U.S. to "make other arrangements" for the violent criminal illegal aliens and don't send them back to Mexico. The amnesty bill will include the DREAM Act, that which was voted down in Congress last week; that would give legality to illegal students or military members up to age 35. It includes, also, AgJOBS which would legalize illegal aliens who HAVE (not who are) worked in the farming industry, and their families. Now, I'm not for splitting up families. When they leave, they can just take their families with them. The bill will pre-empt all state and local laws regarding immigrations, leaving them powerless to enforce any federal laws the Obama administration chooses not to enforce. It mandates FREE legal services to illegal alien detainees, to represent them in deportation or citizenship matters. U. S. citizens don't even get free legal representation, unless you've committed a crime and get a public defender. It gives illegal aliens the right to immediate free medical care; so much for the claim that obamacare won't cover illegal immigrants. And it would set up yet another governmental agency to determing the number of "guest" workers to admit each year; i.e. the number of American workers to displace each year.
We all know that the Obama administration picks and chooses which immigration laws it wants to enforce; by way of trying to pad the voter base of the Democrat Party with hispanics. One example everybody is aware of is that the Obama administration Dept. of Justice is suing the state of Arizona (still have trouble with our federal government siding with a segment of foreign nationals that are 100% criminals, breaking our immigration law by setting even 1 foot over our borders without authorization) for passing and attempting to enforce a state law that is verbatim of a federal law already on the statutes that the Obama administration chooses not to enforce. Also there is the issue of "sanctuary cities" (which people know about unless they have had their heads buried in the sand), which give sanctuary to illegal immigrants, in violation of federal immigration laws, which action the Obama administration chooses to ignore. Now we have the state of California getting into the act, and I wonder if the Obama administration will take a stand on this: after the U.S. Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act granting legality to illegal students and service members, California's State Assembly and Senate decided to pass their own DREAM Act. Hooray for the Governator. Schwarzenegger, the RINO, vetoed it; saying "given the precarious fiscal situation that the state faces, it would not be practical to adopt a new policy that could limit the financial aid available to students that are in California legally, in order to provide that benefit to those stuents who are not". That was one of my arguments in the post I wrote recently about the DREAM Act; we have so many deserving young Americans who are falling thru the cracks, and are worthy of ALL of our resources to give them the possiblity of a college education; trying to provide that for millions of people who don't even have the right to be in America will take away what we can do for our own young Americans.
And if you don't think that will happen, that trying to financially support millions of illegal immigrants won't hamper what we can do for, what we owe to, our own next generation of Americans, look at what was in the news yesterday; on Fox, of course, but also MSNBC, the Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, et al: $69 million of California's welfare payments have been spent out of state. The largest chunk of that, $11.8 million, was spent in Las Vegas; but other places the welfare debit cards were used included trips to Hawaii and cruises out of Miami. Considering that California's illegal immigrant population accounts for 90% of the state's growth annually (Snopes says thats incoming plus births to illegals) and that 29% of the illegal immigrants in California are on welfare (tried to verify an email I got in 2007 which cited the L.A. Times, Business Insider used the same figure 10/1/10) it's a safe hunch that a lot of that California welfare money was taken out of the state by illegal immigrants committing welfare fraud. If your house is already full, and you have your own family members to take care of, when somebody comes to you asking for help, and you know that if you give them access to your finances there won't be enough left for your own household; don't you do what you can, within the limits of your own financial resources, after your own family if provided for, to help those asking for assistance so that they can remain in their own homes? Knowing that if you take in everybody you see that needs a helping hand, you will deplete your resources to the point that you can help nobody; not your own nor those with their hands out. To paraphrase an old axiom: give a man a fish, feed him for a day and he's still dependent and comes right back needing more; teach a man to fish, feed him for life and he can feed others and teach others how to fish. America, focus on what the real need is.
Monday, October 4, 2010
An Acorn Grows in Houston, and Everywhere
"Unfortunately, it is my duty to share with you today that the integrity of the Voter Roll in Harris County, Texas appears to be under an ORGANIZED and SYSTEMIC attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes. Houston Votes is the voter registration machine of the Texans Together Education Fund. Houston Votes and Texans Together have effectively emerged as our areas' new ACORN organization"
Leo Vasquez, Harris County Voter Registrar, The Cypress Times, 8/24/10
Texas Insider, on 9/27/10 named one man, an SEIU employee, as having turned in 25,000 registrations, of which 23,207 have proven to be fake. He registered 1 woman 6 times in the same day, registered several voters with vacant lots as addresses, registered 40 voters at an 8 bed halfway house, registered non-citizens, and registered the same person 1,597 times with different signatures. And he was just the head of Houston Votes; and an SEIU employee to boot. Another Houston Votes recruiter is a woman who ran an Obama campaign office in Houston; you may have seen pictures of it during the campaign. I remember seeing the picture of her office with an Obama poster, an American flag and a poster of Che Guevara side by side. You might also remember last year, at a townhall meeting of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in Houston, a woman that claimed she was a doctor who supported obamacare. Turned out she wasn't really a doctor. Well, the woman who ran the Obama campaign office in Houston took the fake doctor to that townhall, and sat beside her while she spun her lies. She is also a long time activist for Organizing for America, which prior to the 2008 election was known as Organizing for Obama, his official campaign website. Coincidences? I think not. Here's another "coincidence": just days after the charges of fraud against Houston Votes was handed over to the Texas Secretary of State and the Harris County District Attorney's office, the Harris County Election Technology Center was burned to the ground, destroying 10,000 voting machines and causing $40 million in damages.
The Democrats, the Obama campaign, and their supporters SEIU and ACORN, ran the sleaziest, most fraudulent presidential race in history, in 2008. They wanted to insure that their "man" won, at any cost; even at the cost of their dignity and integrity. How disgusting. No, it's beyond disgusting. I can't think of a pejorative low enough to describe them. We all know about the voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN; that was a national story. Well, just think of all the smaller, local voter drives, like Houston Votes; whose Board of Directors and Advisory Board is filled with prominent Democrat offices holders, present and past. When I was looking thru the list of backers for last Saturdays left-wing liberal rally in DC, one group on the list was called DC Votes. I wonder how many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of local groups across the country, were involved in this rampant voter fraud. Voter Registrar Vasquez called it "organized and systemic". I wonder just how organized it really was. I wonder how deep and widespread are the roots of this new "ACORN". What if all the local Votes "chapters" were all under one umbrella, and all doing the same thing? It's entirely possible that the 2008 presidential election, instead of being based on a fair vote by the majority of the citizens, might turn out to have been a well-orchestrated, fraud-fueled bloodless coup.
Leo Vasquez, Harris County Voter Registrar, The Cypress Times, 8/24/10
Texas Insider, on 9/27/10 named one man, an SEIU employee, as having turned in 25,000 registrations, of which 23,207 have proven to be fake. He registered 1 woman 6 times in the same day, registered several voters with vacant lots as addresses, registered 40 voters at an 8 bed halfway house, registered non-citizens, and registered the same person 1,597 times with different signatures. And he was just the head of Houston Votes; and an SEIU employee to boot. Another Houston Votes recruiter is a woman who ran an Obama campaign office in Houston; you may have seen pictures of it during the campaign. I remember seeing the picture of her office with an Obama poster, an American flag and a poster of Che Guevara side by side. You might also remember last year, at a townhall meeting of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in Houston, a woman that claimed she was a doctor who supported obamacare. Turned out she wasn't really a doctor. Well, the woman who ran the Obama campaign office in Houston took the fake doctor to that townhall, and sat beside her while she spun her lies. She is also a long time activist for Organizing for America, which prior to the 2008 election was known as Organizing for Obama, his official campaign website. Coincidences? I think not. Here's another "coincidence": just days after the charges of fraud against Houston Votes was handed over to the Texas Secretary of State and the Harris County District Attorney's office, the Harris County Election Technology Center was burned to the ground, destroying 10,000 voting machines and causing $40 million in damages.
The Democrats, the Obama campaign, and their supporters SEIU and ACORN, ran the sleaziest, most fraudulent presidential race in history, in 2008. They wanted to insure that their "man" won, at any cost; even at the cost of their dignity and integrity. How disgusting. No, it's beyond disgusting. I can't think of a pejorative low enough to describe them. We all know about the voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN; that was a national story. Well, just think of all the smaller, local voter drives, like Houston Votes; whose Board of Directors and Advisory Board is filled with prominent Democrat offices holders, present and past. When I was looking thru the list of backers for last Saturdays left-wing liberal rally in DC, one group on the list was called DC Votes. I wonder how many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of local groups across the country, were involved in this rampant voter fraud. Voter Registrar Vasquez called it "organized and systemic". I wonder just how organized it really was. I wonder how deep and widespread are the roots of this new "ACORN". What if all the local Votes "chapters" were all under one umbrella, and all doing the same thing? It's entirely possible that the 2008 presidential election, instead of being based on a fair vote by the majority of the citizens, might turn out to have been a well-orchestrated, fraud-fueled bloodless coup.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Cookie Cutter Colleges
I hate to say, "I told you so". Not really. I kind of like pointing out when I predict something that then turns into reality. Remember when it was disclosed that Obama snuck the government takeover of college loans into the obamacare bill? Now, the only way for students to get a college loan is thru Uncle Sugar. I warned everybody, or at least those of you I used to send my email missives to before starting this blog; what the government pays for, eventually the government will want to control. He who pays the piper, calls the tunes. I pointed out that control of ALL college funding in American by the Obama administration would lead to the control of what the colleges could teach, where the student could attend, and what the student could study or major in. Well, the 1st part of that is coming to fruition. And I derive no pleasure from saying "I told you so". I'm really disturbed that it happened so quickly, but then look how much government take-over has been implemented in 19 short months.
If you don't know Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, let me tell you about him. There's not really a lot to tell. Most websites I looked at don't mention very much of a personal nature about him. He is from Chicago, home of thugocracy politics, a progressive liberal (naturally), friend and basketball-buddy of Obama (naturally). He was CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Chicago school district for 7 years. He is not an educator, he is an administrator. The leftwing liberal rag, that Obama likes to cite, the Huffington Post said on 6/7/10 that Duncan is "nothing but a corporate shill willing to bankrupt public education". Duncan is a "greenie"; he has a "green" agenda that he wants to implement to indoctrinate America's students with. And some of it is outright lies. There is an animated video being shown in elementary schools right now called "The Story of Stuff". You can probably see it on Youtube. I saw it, of course, on Fox News. It is telling our kids that it will soon take the area of 5 planets to hold what America uses and wastes; and that when America runs out of "stuff" it thinks the "stuff" of other countries belongs to America, so it just invades them and takes the "stuff" and destroys those countries. Duncan seems to still buy into the myth that is "anthropoligical (manmade) global warming"; he said on 9/23/10, reported in the Motor City Times and CNS News that we "must teach students about how the climate is changing". I guess he missed the news when it was reported that the U.N. scientists responsible for the man-made global warming hoax admitting to falsifying the data.
Let me digress a moment. Those of you who know me, know that during conversations, I sometimes get off point when I have something to say about another point that might come up in the course of a conversation. I want to talk a little about climate change. It's not manmade - it's GOD made. I am appalled at the arrogance of mere mortals that think they can control what is in God's domain. I just now got thru watching a special on the destruction of the Ancient Egyptian Civilization. I'm fascinated with things of the Biblical time. Anyway, this special just happened to be on, of all channels, the Green Channel. It turns out the extremely advanced ancient Egyptian civilization was destroyed by catastrophic climate change. And you know, the special did not once claim that it was man-made; that the ancient Egyptians did themselves in by their own bad habits. The Egyptians believed that their Pharoahs were living Gods, that could and would protect them from anything that might happen to them. Of course, the climate changed once again, and Egypt recovered, but just not in the same exact way it had once been. There was one big difference, though. Egyptians no longer believed that the Pharoahs were all-powerful living Gods; and the Pharoahs no longer ruled over Egypt. Let this be a lesson, America. Obama is not a living God, no matter how much, or how many, people worship him. He has feet of clay.
Now back to the subject at hand. Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, wants all schools that accept federal student aid, which since obamacare was passed is the only way to get student aid, to have a license from a state agency that lists "authorized" institutions. And who would authorize those institutions? Why, the Obama administration, of course. Any college that doesn't follow federal guidlines and get "authorized", won't be allowed to accept student funding. What are the federal guidelines? The rules were sent to Congress in August, and unless Congress, which isn't in DC at the moment, moves to block them by November 1, they will go into effect July 2011. I doubt the Washington Times article mentioned them all, but the Dept. of Education will contrive a federal (uniform) definition of what composes a "credit hour" and require 6,000 colleges to accept it's definition. It will require all state accrediting agencies to police procedures at colleges, to make sure all are complying to the new federal guidelines. Another rule will give Duncan the authority to eliminate "due process"; he will be authorized to bar any college from federal programs without notice, a hearing, or right to appeal. It will encourage special interest groups or "pressure groups" to get legal mandates requiring colleges to implement their curriculum, teaching methods, faculty qualifications, etc, or lose accredition. It will lead to more non-sensical courses like The Study of Zombies (University of Baltimre), Cyber Feminism (Cornell University) or Queer Musicology (UCLA). It will also lead to more professors who educate our students about nothing useful; like Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Phd. Yes, he's the one who is often a "guest" on O'Reilly on Fox News, after Fox News fired him. "Dr." Hill is a Professor of Education at Columbia University. What does he education young people about? Hip Hop Culture. That's really going to prepare them for the real world. What a waste of staffing funds, and a waste of college tuition. We're likely to see more of this assinine nonsense in the future.
Mr. Duncan is also going after for-profit colleges. He feels that schools that have profitted and prospered render a disservice to students and taxpayers. He wants all colleges under the control and direction of the federal government, and for-profit colleges still retain some measure of autonomy. He proposes a "gainful employment" rule that cuts off federal funding to for-profit colleges unless 45% of graduates can pay down their loan and that the payments are less than 8% of their annual income. Enrollment has tripled at for-profit colleges over the past decade, and Mr. Duncan wants to force them into the Uncle Sugar fold. Nevermind that they give America more successful graduates than other colleges; with a graduation rate of 65% compared to 44% for not-for-profit colleges. The for-profit colleges also give back to our tax coffers. They get federal student funds, but no state funding; yet they pay federal and state taxes. Just one example, from Forbes Magazine; the Apollo Group, parent of the University of Phoenix, paid $445 million in federal income taxes in 2009. Oh yes, I can see how that's a disservice to taxpayers. How dare they pay so much in taxes. It appears that for Mr. Duncan, and the entire administration, uniformity and government control is everything. America, get ready for Cookie Cutter Colleges, followed by students being told where they can attend and what they will study. America, wake up and smell the youthful brain cells burning.
If you don't know Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, let me tell you about him. There's not really a lot to tell. Most websites I looked at don't mention very much of a personal nature about him. He is from Chicago, home of thugocracy politics, a progressive liberal (naturally), friend and basketball-buddy of Obama (naturally). He was CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Chicago school district for 7 years. He is not an educator, he is an administrator. The leftwing liberal rag, that Obama likes to cite, the Huffington Post said on 6/7/10 that Duncan is "nothing but a corporate shill willing to bankrupt public education". Duncan is a "greenie"; he has a "green" agenda that he wants to implement to indoctrinate America's students with. And some of it is outright lies. There is an animated video being shown in elementary schools right now called "The Story of Stuff". You can probably see it on Youtube. I saw it, of course, on Fox News. It is telling our kids that it will soon take the area of 5 planets to hold what America uses and wastes; and that when America runs out of "stuff" it thinks the "stuff" of other countries belongs to America, so it just invades them and takes the "stuff" and destroys those countries. Duncan seems to still buy into the myth that is "anthropoligical (manmade) global warming"; he said on 9/23/10, reported in the Motor City Times and CNS News that we "must teach students about how the climate is changing". I guess he missed the news when it was reported that the U.N. scientists responsible for the man-made global warming hoax admitting to falsifying the data.
Let me digress a moment. Those of you who know me, know that during conversations, I sometimes get off point when I have something to say about another point that might come up in the course of a conversation. I want to talk a little about climate change. It's not manmade - it's GOD made. I am appalled at the arrogance of mere mortals that think they can control what is in God's domain. I just now got thru watching a special on the destruction of the Ancient Egyptian Civilization. I'm fascinated with things of the Biblical time. Anyway, this special just happened to be on, of all channels, the Green Channel. It turns out the extremely advanced ancient Egyptian civilization was destroyed by catastrophic climate change. And you know, the special did not once claim that it was man-made; that the ancient Egyptians did themselves in by their own bad habits. The Egyptians believed that their Pharoahs were living Gods, that could and would protect them from anything that might happen to them. Of course, the climate changed once again, and Egypt recovered, but just not in the same exact way it had once been. There was one big difference, though. Egyptians no longer believed that the Pharoahs were all-powerful living Gods; and the Pharoahs no longer ruled over Egypt. Let this be a lesson, America. Obama is not a living God, no matter how much, or how many, people worship him. He has feet of clay.
Now back to the subject at hand. Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, wants all schools that accept federal student aid, which since obamacare was passed is the only way to get student aid, to have a license from a state agency that lists "authorized" institutions. And who would authorize those institutions? Why, the Obama administration, of course. Any college that doesn't follow federal guidlines and get "authorized", won't be allowed to accept student funding. What are the federal guidelines? The rules were sent to Congress in August, and unless Congress, which isn't in DC at the moment, moves to block them by November 1, they will go into effect July 2011. I doubt the Washington Times article mentioned them all, but the Dept. of Education will contrive a federal (uniform) definition of what composes a "credit hour" and require 6,000 colleges to accept it's definition. It will require all state accrediting agencies to police procedures at colleges, to make sure all are complying to the new federal guidelines. Another rule will give Duncan the authority to eliminate "due process"; he will be authorized to bar any college from federal programs without notice, a hearing, or right to appeal. It will encourage special interest groups or "pressure groups" to get legal mandates requiring colleges to implement their curriculum, teaching methods, faculty qualifications, etc, or lose accredition. It will lead to more non-sensical courses like The Study of Zombies (University of Baltimre), Cyber Feminism (Cornell University) or Queer Musicology (UCLA). It will also lead to more professors who educate our students about nothing useful; like Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Phd. Yes, he's the one who is often a "guest" on O'Reilly on Fox News, after Fox News fired him. "Dr." Hill is a Professor of Education at Columbia University. What does he education young people about? Hip Hop Culture. That's really going to prepare them for the real world. What a waste of staffing funds, and a waste of college tuition. We're likely to see more of this assinine nonsense in the future.
Mr. Duncan is also going after for-profit colleges. He feels that schools that have profitted and prospered render a disservice to students and taxpayers. He wants all colleges under the control and direction of the federal government, and for-profit colleges still retain some measure of autonomy. He proposes a "gainful employment" rule that cuts off federal funding to for-profit colleges unless 45% of graduates can pay down their loan and that the payments are less than 8% of their annual income. Enrollment has tripled at for-profit colleges over the past decade, and Mr. Duncan wants to force them into the Uncle Sugar fold. Nevermind that they give America more successful graduates than other colleges; with a graduation rate of 65% compared to 44% for not-for-profit colleges. The for-profit colleges also give back to our tax coffers. They get federal student funds, but no state funding; yet they pay federal and state taxes. Just one example, from Forbes Magazine; the Apollo Group, parent of the University of Phoenix, paid $445 million in federal income taxes in 2009. Oh yes, I can see how that's a disservice to taxpayers. How dare they pay so much in taxes. It appears that for Mr. Duncan, and the entire administration, uniformity and government control is everything. America, get ready for Cookie Cutter Colleges, followed by students being told where they can attend and what they will study. America, wake up and smell the youthful brain cells burning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)