Friday, April 30, 2010

Afghanistan-Gov't Bull versus Major Hasan

April 28, 2010

How brilliantly and concretely this illustrates the asshattery and dhimmitude of our self imposed sharia enforcement. Do not insult Islam! Hence the twists, turns, delusions, denials, somersaults ..... in explaining the Afghan situation. It's the jihad, stupid.

'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan mess
By Mail Foreign Service
April 28, 2010

Its coloured charts, graphs and bullet-points are supposed to make the most incomprehensible data crystal clear.

But even the sharpest military minds in American were left baffled by this PowerPoint slide, a mind-boggling attempt to explain the situation in Afghanistan.

'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, remarked wryly when confronted by the sprawling spaghetti diagram in a briefing.

PowerPoint has become public enemy number one for many US officers who find themselves battling slide presentations rather than insurgents.

Some have gone as far as to declare all-out war on the software after the military command was over-run with mind-numbing 30-slide presentations.

Baffling: The PowerPoint slide shown to US commanders shows security, economic and political conditions in Afghanistan. The dark blue arrows represent Afghan National Security Forces with the enemy in red. Other arrows highlight corruption, tribal favouritism and drug trafficking. Its coloured charts, graphs and bullet-points are supposed to make the most incomprehensible data crystal clear.

But even the sharpest military minds in American were left baffled by this PowerPoint slide, a mind-boggling attempt to explain the situation in Afghanistan. 'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, remarked wryly when confronted by the sprawling spaghetti diagram in a briefing.

On the other hand

Here's Major Hasam's power point presentation.

Hasan's Presentation: The Only Power Point You Need to Understand Islamic Jihad

(the picture below is only the first page - click here to click on the presentation of all the slides)
This is a rotating presentation, showing one slide every 15 seconds

 Major Hasan was the jihadi who committed the biggest attack on a US military base on American soil in US history. Major Hasan created this powerpoint presentation and presented it on grand rounds to announce his intention.

In the greatest cover-up of an enemy attack on American soil, the Pentagon (in a manner mirroring the above Afghanistan power point presentation) never spoke of Islam or jihad in its investigation or series of recommendations.

Our government is failing us in the one thing, the only thing they are responsible for -- defense. All the other stuff they do is carpet baggery and enslavement through taxation and redistribution of wealth. The national defense is why we put up with this highway robbery.

It's a rotating gif -- watch the whole presentation. The page changes every 15 seconds. Send this to military brass. Obama doesn't need one. He knows it by heart. He studied it as a child.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Can you imagine what would happen if Fox News printed this picture, showing Malcolm X instead of Obama, touting wind energy in Iowa???

Arizona's First Big Catch

This cartoonist, Dave Granlund, makes fun of both parties, so you can find one that fits your taste!  Click on the Home button at the top, and you will see his cartoons as he adds them!

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Financial Regulation-Write Your Senators Here Today!

Despite the House's disappointing passage of a 1,300-page financial regulatory reform bill that includes the misnamed "Consumer Financial Protection Agency" (CFPA), we are encouraged that there is growing recognition that there is a better way to overhaul our outdated, financial regulatory system.
The Senate will soon consider this bill which will have drastic results, ranging from every corner of the economy and delaying Main Street recovery.

As proposed, virtually every business will be affected by the CFPA. If you allow customers to pay with credit, to use a lay-away program, or even to pay in more than one installment, your business would face significant new regulation. Even businesses that are indirectly related to consumer finance, such as sellers of gift cards, advertisers, accountants, homebuilders, utilities and Internet providers will be covered by this sweeping new law.

In addition, the bill would give the government authority to request and hold information about your bank accounts from financial institutions, including how much money is in each account.

This is a drastic affront on the privacy and security of your financial information.

Efforts to enhance consumer protection should focus on weeding out fraudulent actors and predatory products and ensuring consumers have access to clear and concise information about the terms and conditions of products, and the risks they pose. However, this bill actually weakens consumer protection by allowing government to dictate the financial products you can choose, adding new layers of government bureaucracy, imposing new costs on taxpayers, consumers and businesses, and threatening the privacy of personal financial information. This would be a recipe for disaster for our economy and consumers.

Tell Your Senators to oppose the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Click Here to Write your Senators.  This text is already at the website, and you may edit as you wish:

While I am disappointed by the House's passage of the flawed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) Act of 2009, I hope the Senate will advance more effective reforms that will protect investors and strengthen our capital markets without adding new layers of bureaucracy on top of the current system.

We need bipartisan financial regulatory reform legislation to help get our economy back on track, but as the bill currently stands in the Senate, the CFPA will have significant unintended consequences that will harm consumers, rather than protect them.

We already have six federal agencies charged with protecting consumers. Rather than address the failures in regulation that contributed to the current financial crisis, this will create a massive new government agency that will deprive consumers of what they want and need: affordability and choice.

First, the CFPA will reduce my access to credit, my choices among financial products and will result in higher prices for those that are offered. The bill gives the government broad discretion through vague standards to dictate the types of products I can choose from, replacing my own judgment for those of bureaucrats in Washington.

Second, the scope of the bill is broad and sweeping, encompassing nonfinancial businesses simply because of the way they bill their customers, or because they provide goods and services to companies that do engage in consumer finance. The legislation would give the new agency unprecedented authority over businesses across diverse industries that have little to do with consumer finance, and had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

Third, rather than establish a new national standard to simplify and bring uniformity to consumer protection laws, this legislation does exactly the opposite. It will create conflicts among state and federal law, thereby adding to the complexity and confusion for consumers. In addition, complying with an increasingly inconsistent and conflicting regulatory system will impose new costs on businesses, reducing their ability to lend and increasing the costs of products.

Instead, we should improve regulation from the ground-up, ensuring existing regulators have the tools they need to protect consumers. We need legislation that will weed out the bad actors that push predatory consumer products or fraudulently mislead consumers about the products they sell. And we need to simplify disclosures to provide consumers with the information they need in a clear and concise manner that will allow an informed and responsible financial decision.

We don't need another government bureaucracy aimed at deciding what is best for me or my family's financial decisions. And we don't need legislation that will further reduce access to credit when our communities can least afford it.

Please consider the unintended consequences on consumers and the economy. I urge you to support an alternative to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will protect consumers and our economic growth.

Please write them today!

Amended Motion for Reconsideration of SSAN Fraud

Amended motion for reconsideration

Posted on
April 27, 2010

.S. District Court

District of Columbia

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 4/27/2010 at 10:58 AM and filed on 4/27/2010

Case Name: TAITZ v. OBAMA

Case Number: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL


WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 04/14/2010

Document Number: 25

Docket Text:

Amended MOTION for Reconsideration by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # (1) Appendix Notice of motion for reconsideration)(TAITZ, ORLY)

1:10-cv-00151-RCL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Alan Burch
Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603


v. § Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
Barack Hussein Obama,










Plaintiff would like to start this motion for reconsideration with reference to your remark in your latest order regarding Plaintiff’s quixotic quest.

Yes, Taitz would agree that it is extremely difficult to be a person, an attorney, who brings forward evidence, showing that the sitting president of the United States is committing multiple felonies and needs to be criminally prosecuted, however if Your Honor will be so kind to review some historic events, Your Honor will see that some events considered quixotic at a time, were correct, just and successful in the long run.

When Susan B. Anthony undertook a cause of voting rights for women, many laughed and considered her quest to be quixotic, yet she succeeded and we see today a first female Speaker of the House, female Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and female senators and congresswomen as a direct result of her quixotic quest.

When a young woman by name Golda Meir set on her quest to build a Jewish state after six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, many considered her actions quixotic, yet she succeeded and became the mother of the state of Israel.

When Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan set on the quest to defeat the Communist Soviet Union, many considered them as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet they succeeded, and the iron curtain was lifted, the Berlin Wall fell and free people marched through the Brandenburg gate.

Today it might seem an impossible quest, but Taitz is fighting to make sure that the Constitution of the United States of America does not turn into a Dulcinea, who is never rescued by her Prince in Shining Armor.

Plaintiff wants to make sure, that she, as well as three hundred and five million American citizens are not treated as brain-dead robots, as a herd of sheep by Barack Hussein Obama who went through life with multiple Social Security numbers, who is sitting in the White House today using the Social Security number 042-68-4425 (which was assigned in the state of Connecticut to another individual born in 1890), who never provided any vital records that would be admitted in any court of law, and who does not even possess a valid long form birth certificate with the name of a doctor, name of a hospital and signatures; who has allegiance to three other Nations and god knows who else. Plaintiff is not asking your Honor to tilt windmills, but rather uphold the US Constitution, that your Honor took an oath to protect.

Motion: Request to Forward to the Attorney General Eric Holder for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute multiple acts of Social Security Fraud, Perjury, Identity Theft, Fraud and other possible felonies perpetrated by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

On 12/21/94, when your Honor reviewed evidence presented and found that Mr. Ira Magaziner has committed perjury, your honor contacted Eric Holder, prosecutor at that time, and asked him to start an investigation of Mr. Magaziner for perjury and criminal contempt. Your honor also asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the affair. According to the US Constitution, nobody is above the law. Millions of American citizens are following this case, as are Millions around the World. Even if your Honor does not find injuries sustained by the Plaintiff to be sufficient and the connection to Barack Hussein Obama to be strong enough, your Honor clearly has seen evidence of numerous felonies committed by Barack Hussein Obama:

1.Social Security Fraud 42 USC §408 (a)(7)(B), which is punishable under title 18 with up to 5 years in prison for each offense (Investigator Sankey shows some 39 different Social security numbers used);

2.Conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 USC §371, which carries up to five years in prison for each offense;

3.Perjury 18 USC §1621 with up to five years in prison for each offense

There are other crimes committed such as elections fraud, voter fraud, identity theft, that any other US citizen would have been convicted of and serving a lengthy prison term for the above crimes. Plaintiff is asking your Honor for equal treatment of the law for Mr. Obama, just as your Honor has treated other parties and any other citizen, and to forward the request to the US Attorney’s Office and Attorney General Eric Holder for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate multiple felonies perpetrated by Mr. Obama.

Motion for leave of court to file a second amended complaint with two additional plaintiffs: Presidential candidate from American Independent Party on the 2008 ballot Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, and Vice Presidential Candidate on the ballot in 2008 election Gail Lightfoot.

Motion for reconsideration is allowed when there is an error of fact or law. While typically Quo Warranto is utilized by interested parties, who challenge the franchise of the government, §16-3502, does not specifically limit quo warranto to such parties, whereby Your Honor is not statutorily precluded from granting Taitz Quo Warranto.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application…

As an attorney for plaintiffs, Keyes, Lightfoot and others, Taitz has submitted Quo Warranto requests to the Attorney General and US Attorney, who have not responded. Therefore, Taitz is asking for leave of the Court to proceed under Quo Warranto, and in case your Honor does not grant Quo Warranto to the Plaintiff, she moves for Leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint with two additional plaintiffs: Presidential candidate from American Independent Party in 2008 election Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, as well as Gail Lightfoot, a Vice Presidential candidate for a write in Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

Additionally, Ambassador Keyes was a senatorial candidate in the state of Illinois. Plaintiff previously submitted to this Court the March 25th Official report of the National Assembly of Kenya. Page 31 of the report contains a statement of the minister of Lands James Orengo, clearly indicating Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, and there is no evidence of Mr. Obama going through proper immigration procedures after his birth. As such, not only is Mr. Obama’s Natural Born status in question, but his citizenship in general is in question, and whereby, Ambassador Keyes has suffered particularized damage in losing both the senatorial and presidential elections to one who is not entitled to hold office, which indicates clear standing.

Motion for this Honorable court to grant Plaintiff sua sponte admission to US District Court bar without local attorney movant.

Typically, admission to this court requires a sponsor/movant local attorney or a local counsel for pro Hac Vice. Due to the sense of fear associated with a legal action, implicating a sitting president, the damage by slander and libel of Taitz has chilled the opportunity to secure a local attorney as a pro Hac Vice movant; however Your Honor can authorize her acceptance to the court Sua Sponte without such pro hac vice movant. She requests Sua Sponte authorization of acceptance to this bar in order to represent above mentioned additional plaintiffs and opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint on their behalf.

Commerce Clause claims

Your Honor has stated that the First Amended Complaint was filed prior to Patient Protection Act being signed into law, which signifies lack of standing. However, standing exists not only in relation to current injury; it exists in relation to imminent injury as well. Taitz has filed her First Amended complaint after the bill was approved by both houses of Congress and the injury was imminent, which suffice for standing. In the alternative Taitz is seeking a leave of Court to file a Second amended Complaint based on Amended Patient Protection Act, since the original act was modified through the process of reconciliation in Senate and House of Representatives, wherefore making any complaint in regards to the initial Patient Protection Act, moot.

FOIA relief

Your Honor has stated that the FOIA complaint has failed since Taitz did not wait until April 9th for the administrative remedies to be exhausted. As there was no response to the FOIA request by April 9 th and none was received by today, April 26th, Taitz is moving this Honorable court for a leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint for FOIA relief, due to the fact that by today, April 26th administrative remedies were exhausted and no relief was provided.

Fraud and RICO claims

Similarly, Taitz is seeking a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on these causes of action, more fully pleading reliance and damages based on 10th, 9th, 5th and 1st amendment with reference to the pattern of multiple crimes with more than two predicate acts of the enterprise, as well as more fully plead standing on the issues of fraud in relation to her Taxpayer standing and her Whistleblower status.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
Attorney for the Plaintiffs

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.: 949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603

Obama(doesn't)care Taking Surprise Hits

by David Limbaugh
April 27, 2010

As President Barack Obama is attempting to steamroll yet another enormous policy change through Congress against the best interests of Americans, we would be well-advised to keep abreast of the frauds that are already being exposed about Obamacare.
Last week, reality dealt Obamacare twin blows -- not that Obama will care. An analysis inside his own administration and a report from New York state shed the grim light of reality on this monstrosity before its Draconian provisions have even gone into effect.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department issued a report last week, conveniently after Obamacare was shoved through, finding that though more people will end up with health insurance (many of them against their will, of course), costs are going to increase. Shocker.

How could coverage not increase with the legal mandate forcing unwilling people to buy health insurance coverage? Today millions entitled to assistance don't avail themselves of it, but Obamacare will presumably be different because there will be a penalty for non-coverage -- an idea that Obama expediently mocked during the primary campaign.
But costs will also increase? I thought Obama promised to bend the cost curve down -- that he wouldn't add one dime to the deficit with Obamacare. But two dimes or a quarter are apparently a different matter.

The HHS analysis found Obamacare will raise projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years -- and this is without even considering the impact of numerous gimmicks and camouflaged items, such as the Medicare "doctor fix." There are presently scheduled 21 percent cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised that they won't be implemented. What a sham!

The report also revealed that Obamacare could drive 15 percent of hospitals into the red and possibly jeopardize access to care for seniors.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported last week that New York's experience with provisions that parallel Obamacare do not portend well for Obamacare.

According to the Times (it's amazing it admitted this): "New York's insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law -- insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills -- and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences."

Translation: In 1993, New York forced insurance companies to cover individuals and small groups regardless of pre-existing illnesses. It also forced insurers to charge the same premium rates for the same benefits in every region of the state regardless of the demographics of those covered and the different risks that might exist. How about those "unplanned consequences"? You guessed it: "Premiums skyrocketed." Of course they did, because the state grossly interfered with market forces by prohibiting insurers from using risk assessment to set their premiums -- just as Obama, in his beneficence, will be doing for all of us under Obamacare.
Healthy people began to subsidize people who needed more health care. Duh. The healthier customers began to drop out, and the pool of covered people shrank and mostly included high-risk people. Since 2001, the number of people buying comprehensive individual policies through HMOs has dropped dramatically, from 128,000 to 31,000. And "New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average."

Attentive readers might say, "Well, this won't happen under Obamadoesn'tcare because it forces people to buy health insurance whether they want it or not." Amazingly, again, the Times addressed that question, as well. Analysts, the Times said, conclude that this mandate "could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties" or if people opt out and pay the penalties.

Well, of course many of the healthy ones are going to opt out, because the penalties will probably be but a fraction of the premiums.

But these twin blows to Obamacare barely scratch the surface of the horror that awaits us. Respected health care expert Sally Pipes warns that Obamacare will add strain to an already burdened system by increasing the load on family doctors while imposing price controls on government plans. Those controls will inevitably be imposed on private plans, too, as they were in another state -- Massachusetts -- that is a partial microcosm of Obamacare.

So we'll have increased demand for medical care with price controls, which will necessitate rationing. But making matters worse, doctors are going to retire early; you've surely heard of the 2009 poll by Investor's Business Daily finding that 45 percent of doctors would consider quitting if Obamacare passed. You think the Obamacrats will try to amend the law to force doctors to keep their jobs? Why not? This living Constitution can be pretty handy in a pinch.

Can you believe there are actually Republicans out there contemplating forgoing a full repeal?

Monday, April 26, 2010

Ted Turner's New 10 Commandments to be Enforced by UN - Takes Place of 10 Commandments

Gary DeMar
April 26, 2010

Ted Turner does not like the Ten Commandments. Turner, founder of CNN, had this to say about the Decalogue when he addressed the National Press Association in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1988: “We’re living with outmoded rules. The rules we’re living under [are] the Ten Commandments, and I bet nobody here even pays much attention to ’em, because they are too old. When Moses went up on the mountain, there were no nuclear weapons, there was no poverty. Today, the Ten Commandments wouldn’t go over. Nobody around likes to be commanded.” Do you think Turner is familiar with the Ten Commandments, including the prohibitions against murder (sixth) and stealing (eighth)? Turner’s dismissal of the Ten Commandments led him to develop his own set of “new” commandments that he calls “Voluntary Initiatives”:

1.  I promise to have love and respect for the planet earth and living things thereon, especially my fellow species—humankind.

2.  I promise to treat all persons everywhere with dignity, respect, and friendliness.

3.  I promise to have no more than two children, or no more than my nation suggests.

4.  I promise to use my best efforts to save what is left of our natural world in its untouched state and to restore damaged or destroyed areas where practical.

5.  I pledge to use as little nonrenewable resources as possible.

6.  I pledge to use as little toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other poisons as possible and to work for their reduction by others.

7.  I promise to contribute to those less fortunate than myself, to help them become self-sufficient and enjoy the benefits of a decent life, including clean air and water, adequate food and health care, housing, education, and individual rights.

8.  I reject the use of force, in particular military force, and back United Nations arbitration of international disputes.

9.  I support the total elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction.

10.  I support the United Nations and its efforts to collectively improve the conditions of the planet.

Turner’s first Initiative does not include the protection of pre-born babies. The third Initiative has ominous overtones similar to China’s one-child policy that has resulted in a lopsided population with many more males than females. And what if we don’t “voluntarily” follow Turner’s recommendations? Notice the tenth “Initiative” about the use of the United Nations to accomplish these “Initiatives.” Doesn’t sound voluntary to me.

hose who criticize Christians and their moral dogmatism have their own moral dogmatism to contend with. Of course, because their moral assertions are their moral assertions, they carry the weight of absolutism that can be enforced with rigorous sanctions. How dare anyone object or question them. Eastern Michigan University has given us a sample of modern-day moral dogmatism. On March 12, 2010 Julia Ward was dismissed from the counseling graduate program after she referred a homosexual client to another counselor because she believes homosexuality is “immoral sexual conduct, and cannot affirm or validate that behavior or otherwise use her counseling skills and abilities to facilitate homosexual behavior, without violating her sincere religious beliefs.”

Like the Decalogue, the folks at Eastern Michigan University have declared their commandment about sexuality to be fundamentally true (First Commandment), and any rejection of that commandment will be punished (Second Commandment). There is no escape from law and their sanctions. The question is, What is the origin of laws and what makes them laws? Humanists can’t say, but this doesn’t stop them from making them and forcing us to comply.

A Gaza Garbage Truck

This is a captured garbage truck from Gaza (in the picture at the link above). The vehicle is set up to fire Kasem rockets from the nine tubes, and then lower the truck bed and drive off... looking innocent. The note on the driver's door says "In case of traffic violations, please contact The Palestinian Authority." There is evidence of ambulances and emergency vehicles set up the same way.

This is what the Israelis are up against. Obama sides with the "sanitation workers" ...and Andy Stern will likely try to get them to join the SEIU.

Hat tip: James Simpson

Losers in the Obama Counter-Revolution

Counter Revolution

These are the contractors who were laid off on Thursday as new EPA regulations went into effect. The agency's rules double the costs of residential and commercial rehab projects for any structure built before 1978. Any project that impacts more than six square feet of wall or floor space will be affected.

These are some of the 2,500 Sallie Mae employees who were laid off this month after the federal government took over the student loan industry. Tens of thousands of private sector employees will lose their jobs as the industry is nationalized.

These are the doctors who quit their profession after the federal government prohibited them from building clinics, MRI imaging centers or hospitals in the "comprehensive health care reform" bill. The nationalized health care bill controls one-sixth of the American economy.

These are the auto dealers who were forced to close their dealerships after the federal government nationalized two auto companies using funds authorized only for bank bailouts. Abrogating bankruptcy law, the White House awarded $60 billion of taxpayer funds to the auto unions, an apparent reward to their political supporters.

These are the laid-off construction workers at 25,000 non-unionized small businesses which were prohibited from bidding for Stimulus dollars by President Obama. The Association of Building Contractors says that this unprecedented step increases "construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate[s] against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership."
These are a few of the millions of unemployed workers who initially supported the $840 billion Stimulus program because President Obama and Congressional Democrats promised unemployment would not reach 8% if it were passed. Instead, official unemployment quickly hit -- and remains -- around 10%. The number of persons who were unemployed for more than six months hit an all-time high of 6.5 million last month.
These are the "Black Panthers" who waved batons at voters during the 2008 election, "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" some civil rights experts had ever seen. Despite this, the Attorney General declined to -- or was ordered not to -- prosecute the case, raising the potential for similar incidents in successive elections.
These are the leaders of two of America's staunchest historical allies -- the United Kingdom and Israel -- who have been shunned by this administration in an unprecedented series of diplomatic maneuevers. Several days ago, London's Daily Mail reported that, "Britain's special relationship with the U.S. is over." And the BBC recently reported that "Ties between Israel and the US are the 'worst in 35 years'."

These are the masterminds behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. They are known terrorists who've been granted the rights of American citizens in order for the Obama administration to hold trials near Ground Zero in Manhattan.

These are the "millions of 'green jobs'" President Obama pledged to create. More of these 'green jobs' will be created should "Cap-and-Trade" and other energy taxes pass, which the President and Congressional Democrats have strongly endorsed.
These are the illegal immigrants empowered by President Obama's promise of "comprehensive immigration reform". Their unchecked flow into the U.S. is intended to ensure a permanent Democrat majority. And their presence promises to bankrupt a welfare state already teetering on the brink of economic calamity.
* * * * * * * * *
No federal government has damaged the American free market more than this one. No federal government has stolen more employment, more freedom, more private property -- from this and future generations -- than this one. No government has created more regulations, more unconstitutional dictates, more -- dare I say it -- slavery than this one.

Now, given all of these facts: can there be any doubt what Barack Obama meant when he twice proposed, "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military?

The Obama-Democrat Left has mounted the first successful counter-revolution -- against the American Revolution -- in our history. Using an incessant series of attacks by a fifth column, the intent of the counter-revolution is to eradicate the effects of the American Revolution. The most magnificent society ever created hangs in the balance.

The midterm elections in November represent our last chance to salvage the American experiment.

Marshal your parents, your children, your siblings, your neighbors, your coworkers -- marshal everyone you know, because the stakes could not be higher.

Why did Obama Choose This Codename?

Obama the Renegade...
by Don Frederick

Renegade is Obama’s Secret Service codename.

From Webb Garrison’s book, What’s in a Word?:

“During the Crusades an occasional Christian deserted and joined the Muslim army. Some of the men were greedy for reward while others were fugitives from European justice. In order to be fully accepted by their one-time opponents, such fellows usually adopted the faith of Islam. From a Latin term meaning ‘to deny,’ Spanish churchmen framed renegado as a label for the man who denied his faith.

The English borrowed the vivid title and modified it to renegade. For three or more centuries the term was commonly used to designate the occasional turncoat who denied his religion for profit. At the same time it was applied to a deserter of any type.

The term of contempt was on the verge of dying out when it was revived by novelists who wanted a suitably vigorous name for a white man who deserted to the Indians during frontier warfare. Made prominent by western stories and movies, the term renegade has entered half the major tongues of the world.”

Obama himself purportedly chose his codename…

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Today, I cried for America

Don Fredrick

April 25, 2010

I have been reading reports of the Tea Party Express as it traveled across America, finally reaching Washington, D.C. on tax day, April 15. I have watched the limited accounts of its coverage in the mainstream media, which generally have been of the “ambush” nature. (The reporter, already having persuaded himself that the Tea Party attendees are angry, white, racist males, selects someone in the crowd to ask, “Why do you hate Obama? Or “Why do you hate black people?”) Those “interviews” are revolting to watch, but you cannot defeat the enemy without knowing who he is.

It is a shame the media has become the enemy. It is a shame that Democrats have become socialists. (Where are the Sam Nunns and Scoop Jacksons of today’s Democrat Party?) It is a shame that so many Republicans have become Democrats. (We know where to find Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe.)

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Had I not had a functioning brain I might have been a hippie or flower child. Instead, I studied hard, got good grades, worked while attending high school and college, and served in the U.S. Army. I was a typical American. I understood that if you worked hard you would prosper. I understood that some people occasionally had bad luck and needed to be helped by others, but I saw that as a function of private charity, not massive federal bureaucracies.

My paternal grandfather was a blacksmith. He and his neighbors, none of whom had much themselves, nevertheless chipped in to help a poor family with newborn twins who needed some assistance. They did it because it was the right thing to do, the neighborly thing to do. They also knew that their help was appreciated, and that even though the family might never be able to repay them with cash, they would be repaid with the knowledge that the family would do its best to get back on the path to self-sufficiency. It was temporary, voluntary assistance—not a lifetime of welfare and food stamps.

Our neighborhood was “mixed.” I attended elementary school with “colored” students. I was raised not to think of them as different or inferior. I did not think of them as members of a race that “needed to be taken care of,” but as individuals who, if treated with respect and given the same liberties as everyone else, would also prosper. Yes, I heard the “N-word,” but I always knew it was a “bad” word. And it was usually uttered only by someone much older than me.

All the black children I knew had a mother and a father, as did I and almost every other kid I knew. My family had little money, and the black families perhaps had even less, but I could never sense any envy or resentment. We had tough times, used powdered milk because it was cheaper than fresh milk, and ate a fair amount of macaroni and cheese and hot dogs. But we never went on “assistance.” We survived mostly because we had three generations living in one two-flat, owned by my paternal grandparents. We did not believe that others owed us a living. We did not blame others for our lot in life. We did not resent those who had more. We did not relish the thought of suing someone so that we could gain millions overnight.

When I saw a pregnant woman she was with her husband; she was not carrying textbooks on her way to high school. When I encountered a black kid on the street I was not fearful. Yes, when I saw 10 black kids together I was fearful and I crossed the street or turned around—but I did the same thing when I saw 10 white kids together.

I saw race relations getting better in the 50s and 60s, and assumed it was only a matter of time before racism would be extinguished. Those who used the “N-word” were the elderly, and after they were gone so would their attitude. I was wrong. It never occurred to me that politicians would see blacks not as Americans, but as a voting bloc. It never occurred to me that blacks would be ushered into public housing, given welfare and food stamps, and be told to “shut up and vote for the Democrats.”

I was raised to believe that a person’s race was irrelevant, and to judge individuals on their words and actions alone. When I started raising my own children I learned that was not an easy thing to do, because every time I emphasized that a person’s race was irrelevant, the television was blaring that so-and-so had become “the first African-American this” or “the first African American that.” (It is difficult to tell a child to judge a person on his behavior and that his race is unimportant when the media and their teachers are continually telling them that race is of prime importance.) I believe my children grew up with the right attitude, but it was despite the mainstream media and leftist teachers, not because of them.

Now, forty years later, we are supposed to cheer because Sonia Sotomayor became the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. Why is that important? Her ancestry is irrelevant. She is either qualified for the position or not. If she turns out to be a good Justice, no other Hispanics should take the credit; if she turns out to be a terrible Justice. No other Hispanics should be blamed.

Between the 1950s and today I saw a steady decline in the concept of personal responsibility. It crept through society slowly at first, then picked up speed, and now is at an unsustainable level. Everything is someone else’s fault. File a lawsuit and put yourself on easy street.

After all, you weren’t fired because you were incompetent and late for work four days out of five; you were fired because you are fat, thin, black, Hispanic, female, young, old, gay, near-sighted, dyslexic, or have attention-deficit disorder—so file a lawsuit.

You didn’t lose your house because you unreasonably bought one you could not afford while foolishly thinking you could sell it one year later for $50,000 more, but because Wall Street bankers are evil.

You don’t lack health insurance because you instead spent your money on an expensive SUV and every electronic item at Best Buy or the Apple store, but because other Americans are too stingy too pay higher taxes to give it to you for free.

You are failing to save money for the college education of your children not because you are irresponsible but because you expect the federal government to foot the bill.

You’re not dumping your parents in a nursing home because you don’t want to be bothered caring for them but because “society” has an “obligation” to old people.

We don’t have an unsustainable national debt because politicians don’t know how to limit spending, but because those selfish rich people have the audacity to want to keep 40 percent of what they earn.

The reporters stick their microphones into the faces of Tea Party protesters and ask, “Why didn’t you protest when George W. Bush was President?”—to imply that it is Obama’s racial make-up that brought people to their senses. No, millions of Americans came to their senses with the TARP bailouts in 2008. They did not want Wall Street to be handed $700 billion to save it from its foolishness—even if that foolishness was promoted and induced by irresponsible federal policies and an unaccountable Federal Reserve. Yes, Americans were angry with Obama for supporting TARP. But they were also angry with John McCain for supporting it.

Americans became angrier with the $787 billion (and counting) “stimulus bill” that did almost nothing to stimulate job creation in the private sector but did a lot to save irresponsible state governments from having to face the massive deficits they engineered.

Americans became even angrier when the federal government took over General Motors and Chrysler, rather than allow them to follow normal bankruptcy proceedings.

Americans felt their blood pressure rise when legislators at town hall meetings across the country ignored their concerns about rising deficits, federal spending run amok, and health care legislation that will create more problems than it will solve.

Americans are enraged that the government is doing little to police their southern border, despite increasing violence from Mexican gangs and drug smugglers that enter the United States illegally.

Americans are desperate for millions of jobs for the unemployed and underemployed, and see the federal government throwing obstacles in the way of the businesses that could be creating those jobs.

Americans are worried that their best days are behind them, and that they will forever be in debt to China and other nations.

Americans are at their breaking point with their combined income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, gasoline taxes, and utility taxes consuming more than half of their incomes.

Fifty-three percent of Americans are overwhelmed by the burden of income taxes to support the 47 percent who pay none.

And none of that has anything to do with the fact that Obama’s father was black.

Today I read “Blacks, Media and the Tea Parties” by Lloyd Marcus. (Find it at Marcus is a singer, composer, entertainer, author, and a conservative. And he happens to be black. Marcus traveled with the Tea Party Express, performing at 42 cities. He wrote:

“The liberal mainstream media is relentless in their quest to portray the tea party patriots as racist. And yet, I have performed my song, ‘American Tea Party Anthem’ at over 150 tea parties, been treated like a rock star and have even seen signs which read, ‘Lloyd Marcus for President!’ Not one tea party attendee has ever called me the N-word.”

“After my performance at a tea party in Traverse City, Michigan, a white reporter approached me for an interview. The mostly white upbeat audience loved me and my patriotic performance. Smiles were everywhere. With a stone face, the snooty female reporter asked me a series of annoying questions straight out of the liberal play book.”

“But, what really got my blood boiling was when she asked me the following question with the trademark liberal condescending edge, ‘Mr. Marcus don’t you think by calling yourself an unhyphenated American you are encouraging white people to feel comfortable with their racism?’”

“I wanted to say, ‘Lady, what the heck are you talking about? You are obviously one miserable, bitter and unhappy human being. Get away from me.’ Instead, I replied, ‘With all due respect, I strongly disagree.’ I turned and walked away from her, abruptly ending the interview.”

Marcus relates that in Washington, D.C. a reporter from Ebony magazine asked him, “So, why do you hate Barack Obama?” and “Are these rallies racist?”

That was the treatment Marcus received from the media. But from Tea Party activists he was treated much differently.

In Traverse City, Michigan a white woman in a wheelchair approached Marcus. “Extremely excited she said, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s Lloyd Marcus. May I have a picture with you? Thank you so much for all you are doing for our country. I love you!’ After a picture and hugs, I chatted with other fans. Later with tears in his eyes, Don, a Tea Party Express staff member told me more about the woman in the wheelchair. The woman’s daughter told Don her mom was dying. The daughter said her mom told her, ‘All she wanted to do before dying was to meet Lloyd Marcus.’”

In St. Augustine, Florida an elderly veteran thanked Marcus. They “broke down in tears for our country.”

And then I cried for America. I cried because, like Lloyd Marcus, I see the evil in the leftists who are dividing America in order to conquer it, and the evil in the mainstream media which is their willing and eager accomplice. I cried because I once lived in a time when we all thought America’s best days were ahead of us. I cried because I know they may now be behind us.

But while I have tears of sadness for what has gone wrong with America, those tears contain hope because it is clear that millions now understand. The leftist reporters cannot comprehend why anyone earning far less than $250,000 would attend a demonstration to protest higher taxes on those who do earn that much. For those reporters it is a game, pitting one group against the other.

The media leftists know that for socialism to succeed, its perpetrators need a divided America. They need the poor to hate the rich. They need the parasites to envy the producers and the producers to resent the parasites.

They need the whites to hate the blacks and the blacks to hate the whites. They need the Catholics to hate the Protestants and everybody to hate the Jews. They need the non-thinkers to vote for the liberals no matter how much their policies end up harming them.

They need Americans to be ignorant of the schemes the leftists have in store for them.

But millions of Americans are no longer ignorant. They are waking up. And after they shed tears over what they have lost, they will join in the battle to regain America.

TSA Ganging Up on Grandma

April 24, 2010
by Becky Akers

You may think LaWanda and her 43,000 blue-gloved colleagues at airport checkpoints couldn’t sink any lower than humiliating a little boy wearing braces on his legs. Or forcing a woman to stand on her sprained ankle, thereby fracturing it. Or yanking the crutches from a passenger crippled by polio and threatening to charge her with assault for reflexively grabbing at them – after ordering her to drop her trousers (not to worry: they promised to shield her privacy with a sheet, sorta like the whole-body scanners that blur our faces while strip-searching us).

Ah, but you underestimate LaWanda et al. These brutes boast a limitless reservoir of cruelty – as Nadine Hays, her elderly mother, and a friend who was helping to care for the aged lady discovered at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, CA, last April. Before our public servants finished with them, Mrs. Hays would be in jail, her mother in emotional and physical distress, and her friend in tears at the savagery visited on them.

Mrs. Hays hoped to take her mother, Eleanor Albrecht, to a grandson’s wedding in Nashville: "I … thought of my mom, who at 93 years of age will probably not see any of her other unmarried grandchildren get married. I had to get her to this wedding." She was right: Mrs. Albrecht died last month.

The Almighty blessed me with four grandparents who lived into their nineties. I know first-hand how hard it is moving folks that old from a rocker to the dinner table, never mind cross-country. Compounding the challenge were the usual nonagenarian infirmities – dementia, diarrhea, dehydration – from which Mrs. Albrecht suffered. And so Mrs. Hays packed a cooler with snacks that would soothe and sustain her mother during their flight: "milk to make her specially formulated protein drink, grapes, sliced cheese, salami, cottage cheese and applesauce."

Astoundingly, this doesn’t violate the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) endless and silly prohibitions on what supposedly free citizens may carry onboard planes. When it comes to "persons with disabilities and medical conditions," the agency ditches its paranoia about exploding Ensure and Evian to allow "liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels… in volumes larger than 3.4 ounces (100ml)."

So the astute Mrs. Hays was unpleasantly surprised when the screener at the checkpoint "started removing items from the ice chest saying ‘You can’t take this, you can’t take this.’ ... I told her the food was for my 93-year-old mother (I pointed to her) and that she had special needs; this did not change her mind. I immediately asked her for her supervisor. Her supervisor came over and agreed that none of the items could go on board."

Mere arbitrariness and inhumanity seldom satisfy the TSA’s goons; sure enough, these two added robbery. They "tossed everything back into the ice chest and started to walk away with it." They even confessed their larcenous intentions when Mrs. Hays protested their stealing: "The supervisor looked at me with scorn and said … that they were going to confiscate the entire ice chest."

Our heroine reacted with the outrage appropriate to theft, especially when it happens in broad daylight to items necessary for a parent’s well-being: she reached for her property. "A ‘tug of war’ over the ice chest proceeded…," she says. "[A]t one point I noticed the agent look up to her supervisor and give her a smirk like this was really funny! I finally gave a very hard pull to the ice chest, got it away from the agent, walked over to the trash can, [and] dumped all of the contents into the trash…"

She then left the checkpoint, mistakenly supposing that was the end of it. After all, the TSA had won, hadn’t it, protecting American aviation from an old lady’s cottage cheese and applesauce? But no. The horror continued at the gate: when "the American Airlines employee" saw Mrs. Hays and her party approaching, she "closed the glass doors. When I said that we needed to get on the plane she said, ‘You’re not boarding this plane…. With what just happened you are a threat to my passengers and I won’t allow you to board.’" In vain did Mrs. Hays plead her mother’s poor health and discomfort.

You might assume we’ve reached the zenith of lunacy, heartlessness, and sheer evil. Alas, dear reader, you again underestimate aviation’s gulag. No situation is ever so destitute of humanity that cops can’t wring a few more barbarities from it. And bingo, along came several to arrest Mrs. Hays. On what charge, you ask? Ministering to her mother? Preventing a crime, i.e., the theft of her property? No: battery. The TSA’s supervisor asserted that Mrs. Hays "struck [her] in the arm with a closed fist."

Thank God, whatever instincts cops possess completely passed me by. I don’t itch to Taser expectant mothers; I long to cheer, not ticket, cars doing 32 MPH in a school zone. But even I would have noticed that the bunched and excited audience a cat-fight always draws wasn’t crowding the checkpoint when I arrived moments after the alleged brawl. I might also have asked the few witnesses gathering their belongings after the TSA’s warrantless searches whether they had seen Mrs. Hays punch anyone. And then, glancing overhead to confirm that yes, the ubiquitous surveillance camera was duly recording events, I would have asked to view the tape.

Not Burbank’s Finest. They listened as employees of a bureaucracy notorious for its lying lied. Then they arrested Mrs. Hays, cuffed her, and inflicted further indignities (including a strip-search as well as denying her a chair while booking her despite her arthritic knee). In all this sorry mess, we long for just one gentleman, a single person of goodwill, courage and integrity, to stand against the bestial madness, to protest the senseless, vicious abuse of a lady and her ancient mother, to rescue them from these sadists, or, at the least, to extend some small comfort. The closest we come is a "female officer" who finally agrees to handcuff Mrs. Hays less painfully.

Believe it or not, Leviathan actually brought this travesty to court, though not until this week. On Tuesday, a judge dismissed the charges against Mrs. Hays – provided she "stays out of trouble" (sic for "doesn’t tick off any bullies with badges") for the next six months. Apparently, he was too busy scolding this exemplary woman to reprimand the TSA’s lying lackeys, the callous coward at American Airlines who effectively robbed Mrs. Hays of her ticket, and the cops who arrested her without cause. Nor did he suggest, much less require, them to compensate her for the $15,000 and stress this nightmare cost.

Savaging women, preying on the weak and elderly, punishing decency, kindness, and all that’s civilized while glorifying power … more and more, the Warriors on Terror chillingly imitate their mentors.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Presidential Candidates Will Have to Prove Natural Born?

Another state considers Arizona eligibility plan
Georgia lawmaker says when Congress won't act, 'states have a duty to step up'

Posted April 23, 2010
Bob Unruh
Another state has begun considering a law like an Arizona plan approved by the state House there that would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility before being allowed on the election ballot.
Georgia Rep. Mark Hatfield, part of a coalition in his state supporting new election requirements, says it's really the responsibility of members of Congress to make sure a foreign-born individual or dual citizen isn't installed in the White House.

But he said without the leadership in Washington necessary to do that, it is up to states to tackle the issue. Arizona's plan is closest to adoption, awaiting only approval from the state Senate.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Oklahoma also has pending in a legislative committee a referendum that could be put before voters.

The organization says during 2009, various plans to require documentation from presidential candidates were considered in Maine, Oklahoma, Missouri and Montana but were not adopted.

But that track record is not at all unusual for controversial issues such as a requirement for documentation for a presidential candidate's eligibility.

The NCSL records also show that other election proposals were considered that were much more vague about whether they would apply to presidential candidates or not.

"If Congress was being responsible about this, Congress would step in and enact reasonable requirements," Hatfield said today in an interview on the G. Gordon Liddy show, where WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah was filling in behind the microphone.

"In the absence of action by Congress states have a duty to step up," he said.

Hatfield has introduced into his legislature House Bill 1516, which, he said, recognizes the need "for some sort of enforcement mechanism with regard to Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution."

The Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

"The bill is basically a bill that would provide some teeth to the Article 2, Section 1 by requiring presidential candidates in the future to submit an affidavit showing their citizenship and age, and their residency, and appending to that documents that would prove citizenship, age and residency," Hatfield said.

He said he used as a model the legislation that now is nearing approval in Arizona.

Members of the Arizona House of Representatives have approved 31-29 a requirement for presidential candidates to produce their documentation if they want their name of the Arizona ballot in 2012.

The issue arose with the candidacy of then-Sen. Barack Obama, who has written that he was born in Hawaii of an American mother and a Kenyan national father. Lawsuits erupted over the issue before his election and have been continuing to this date. Some claim he was not born in Hawaii, since he only has released a computer-generated image of a "Certification of Live Birth," documents which were accessible to non-native children at the time he was born, and others allege the Founders of the U.S. excluded dual citizens from the presidency.

"No citizen of the United States should ever have any doubts about the qualifications of the individual who occupies the highest office in the land," Hatfield said on the Liddy show.

A recent CBS-New York Times poll revealed that only 58 percent of Americans even "think" that Obama was born in this country.

The poll result, Hatfield said, is "eye-popping information" and calls for states to act "to make sure our Constitution is complied with."

He said his plan has seven sponsors, but since the legislative session is approaching closure, it probably will be taken up in the next session.

Hatfield said the longer the questions about Obama remain unanswered, "the longer this issue will remain around."

According to the NCSL database, a New Hampshire proposal was pending concerning "inserting the presidential qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."

In New York, a proposal by a freedom of information organization to state lawmakers would have provided "an individual seeking placement on the New York State's election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution."

In South Carolina, there was discussion over a plan to prohibit the name of a candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."

Questions also remain about the wording of various proposals. In Obama's situation, the question specifically refers to his status as a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution, not any status as a "citizen" or even "native born citizen."

The proposals essentially are moving the same direction as a federal measure proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

But whatever support Posey's plan has, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.

In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.

"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times when her state's proposal was beginning its journey through the law-making process. .

The issue with Obama's eligibility is that although a computer-generated image of a "certification of live birth" was posted online by his campaign, the image does not actually document a birthplace.

Hawaiian law at the time, for example, allowed family members to register a birth in Hawaii by submitting information to the state.

Another significant factor is the multitude of documents that Obama has kept from the public.

Besides his actual birth documentation, the documentation includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Further, there is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases specifically preventing any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.

And as WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

Friday, April 23, 2010

McCain, the Beast and the value-added tax

by J. D. Foster
April 22, 2010
The Washington Times

The Obama spending surge is not merely the result of the recession and typical Washington fiscal profligacy. It is step one in President Obama's unannounced strategy often called "Glut the Beast." And the capstone to this strategy involves maneuvering the country into accepting a massive new value-added tax.

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, decided not to wait on Mr. Obama's pleasure in calling for a value-added tax, so on April 15 Mr. McCain offered a sense of the Senate resolution that read simply:

"It is the sense of the Senate that the Value Added Tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."

The tally: 85 senators stood with American families and Mr. McCain against the value-added tax. An unlucky 13, one retiring Republican and 12 Democrats, stood for soaking the American taxpayer with a devastating new tax. This was a landmark vote, strikingly reminiscent of the 1995 Senate vote that permanently iced the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

What is Glut the Beast and how does the value-added tax fit in? Recall Ronald Reagan's reputed policy to "starve the beast." Facing strong resistance to spending cuts, a starve-the-beast strategy holds down tax levels to build political support for lower spending. As the deficit grows, so does concern about it. That concern then merges with the desire to restrain spending.

Glut the Beast applies the same logic in reverse: First, raise spending as fast as possible. Here, Mr. Obama and his allies have been notably successful. As a share of our economy, federal spending is up almost a quarter since 2008. The recent passage of Obamacare promises to keep government spending rising rapidly for decades.
The next step, the "Who, me?" stage, is critical. The president must imply that the spending is nothing new really, that it is inevitable, vital, an act of God, anything but the consequence of his policies and strategy. Then, having established the apparent inviolability of spending, the only remaining option for addressing overwhelming deficit pressures is a massive tax hike. Voila, the value-added tax.

As pressures build for a value-added tax, proponents will offer many soothing palliatives, like suggesting the tax is OK because we're not really overtaxed compared with most other industrialized nations. In truth, Americans are heavily taxed, but less so than Europeans. As a consequence, the United States also generally enjoys a stronger economy over time and more freedom all the time. To argue that matters could be worse is hardly a ringing endorsement for a value-added tax.

Another argument is the current tax system harms economic growth and the value-added tax would do less harm. The federal income tax does seriously harm the economy, and real tax reform is needed. But this relative harm argument conveniently confuses tax replacement with adding a tax. Adding the value-added tax is not tax reform and would weaken the economy.

A related argument is that a value-added tax would be better than raising the income tax dramatically. True again, but also not an argument for a value-added tax. Washington's desperate search for revenues demonstrates that the current system cannot generate the revenues Mr. Obama needs for all the spending he wants. He needs the value-added tax to feed the beast. But adding a less bad tax to a really bad tax would not be an improvement.

Finally, and most laughably, is the claim that the value-added tax would strengthen the economy. This is an updated rendition of the goofy old Rubinomics of the Clinton era.

To be sure, Mr. Obama's budget deficits are unsustainable, which means in part they will do real damage to the economy. At some point, that damage will exceed even the damage from higher taxes. But just as one does not acquire virtue by becoming a better thief, one does not strengthen the economy by doing slightly less damage. The solution to fix the fiscal house and to boost the economy is as simple as it is odious to the Glut faction: reverse the Obama spending surge.

More so than Obamacare, enacting a value-added tax would be a crowning achievement for the "progressives" who seek to recast the nation into a full state of dependency on Washington. Nothing less is at stake.

Americans who have other ideas for the country's future need to challenge anyone running for office, anywhere in the country, to take a stand on the value-added tax just as Mr. McCain's colleagues did in the United States Senate. Every town council member, every mayor, governor, or congressional or senatorial hopeful should be pressed to declare whether he or she stands with American families or with Washington's beast. As they do, it will become apparent to all that the United States is not a value-added tax country.

• J.D. Foster is the Heritage Foundation's Norman B. Ture senior fellow in the economics of fiscal policy.

Bibi Netanyahu's "Secret Letter" to Obama

Bibi's Secret Letter to Obama

Netanyahu tries (well, should try) to straighten out Obama regarding the miseducation he received from Rashid Khalidi.

by Leon de Winter
April 21, 2010

Dear President Obama,

It saddens me that I have to be frank with you, frank and impolite, but our last meeting didn’t end peacefully. It’s hard to accept the contrast: you bow for an obscene tyrant, you joke around with corrupt Latin-American caudillos, then you insult me — the prime minister of America’s best friend, Israel.

May I conclude that your friend Rashid Khalidi has not been talking to you in vain during all those dinners and parties you hosted for each other?

Some geopolitical problems are complicated on the surface, but deeper there is often a simple truth which highly educated left-wing academics like you fail to recognize. The truth of our conflict with the Arabs isn’t longer than two dozen words:

Muslims don’t accept non-Muslims ruling a piece of land that the Muslims consider sacred Islamic land until the end of times.

Rashid Khalidi has never been this clear with you. He explained to you that the Jews of Israel were hated because of their treatment of Palestinian Muslims. He never exposed to you how the Arab Palestinians are treated in Lebanon, or how other Muslims are being treated by fellow Muslims. Look at the mass slaughter the Muslims of Iraq commit upon each other, or the Muslims in Yemen.

Or maybe Khalidi did talk about it — and he explained to you that the Muslims decapitate each other and blow up women and children because they are so terribly humiliated by the Israeli Jews.

On the cruel list of the most violent conflicts in terms of body count since World War II, the Israeli-Arab conflict stands at number 49. This accounts for 0.06% of all conflict victims since then.

We can’t be proud of this — it is awful to be on that list. Our conflict with the Arabs, since 1948, has cost the precious lives of over 50,000 people, including soldiers of both sides.

The civil war in Algeria has cost the lives of over 200,000 people — as precious as the lives in our wars and confrontations with the Muslims. These lives are hardly mentioned by American media, and they are not part of the Rashid Khalidi narrative, which exists as such:

The Arabs are upset about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli Jews, who are backed by you, and when the Palestinian Arabs have their own country on the West Bank and Gaza, the Arabs will be a bunch of happy campers and start loving America and Osama bin Laden will spend the rest of his life as a barber trimming the colored beards of his Taliban friends in Kandahar.

You were deeply and truly impressed by Khalidi. You spoke at his farewell party in Chicago after Khalidi was appointed Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University.

Videos were made of your attendance, but the Los Angeles Times, which obtained a copy, still refuses to make the video public.

We happen to have obtained a copy of that video as well — we have some contacts here and there. It’s not a happy sight, you speaking at that event. I understand that you don’t want your Israeli friends to watch it, and the editors at the Los Angeles Times are comfortable hiding it from Americans. Don’t worry, my lips are sealed. But it is clear that I can’t call you a friend of Israel.

Mr. President: let us imagine that next year a Palestinian state is founded. Or two, whatever. A Hamas state and a West Bank state. No Israeli military presence anymore between Tel Aviv and the Jordan River. Eastern Jerusalem is the capital of the West Bank state, without walls, open to the western part. Gaza is the capital of the western Palestinian state. A highway connecting these two states? Why not; throw it in the basket. I am requesting that you imagine this happening, and I am requesting you take full responsibility for it.

Because I can’t.

I am interested in one thing and one thing only: security. We Jews have a thing with security. Some nasty things happened recently in our history and in the preceding two thousand years. As a result, we are a bit allergic to danger and we take threats seriously. Hamas states in its founding charter that it wants to destroy the Jews, since the Jews are the eternal enemies of Islam. They are backed by their friends in Lebanon and Tehran, which recently hosted a so-called Holocaust conference regarding whether the Holocaust really happened.

Your friend Rashid Khalidi convinced you that everything will change in the Islamic world when the Palestinians have their own midget state west of the Jordan River and east of Tel Aviv (within three miles of our biggest city). And you bought it.

You really believe that Muslims will be confident and satisfied members of their societies the moment you open an embassy in East Jerusalem, don’t you? You really believe that potential suicide bombers will start studying a Scandinavian language, instead of destroying whole families? You really believe that Palestinians will immediately stop firing rockets at Israel the moment the Palestinian flag is atop the Temple Mount? No more improvised explosive devices killing your military heroes in Afghanistan, no Taliban “students” throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls. Everything changes the moment Palestine is born … you really, truly believe it, don’t you?

You really believe that Muslims will love you the moment you bring the Israeli Jews to their knees.

You want me to take the risk that you are wrong. I will not do that.

I cannot accept your experiment. Because I am absolutely convinced that violence will continue, will increase. Your men will be targeted in Iraq and Afghanistan by the same enemies. It is not about us, this misnamed Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about the core values of the Islamic world.

Our problems with Muslims are not due to our treatment of the Palestinians. The injustices in our country — yes, we have them and we try to combat them — and the territories we control militarily are less grievous than the injustices within the Muslim world. And, surprise, less cruel.

Our conflict is about the big scandal that a little nothing country like Israel can patent more inventions and scientific breakthroughs, year after year, than all Islamic countries combined. We have more Nobel Prize winners than the whole Islamic world. A higher standard of living, more liberties, an independent judiciary. Peaceful transitions of elected politicians.

And you really believe that these great Israeli achievements have come at the price of the Arabs?

We stole their liberties, their independent judiciary, their creativity, their Nobels?

We built our land on dry, barren sand without oil money. The Saudi princes chose to build a medieval state of perverts and hypocrites with their great oil wealth.

This is not about us. It is about the soul of Islam. It is about their lack of curiosity, the lack of critical discussions. The lack of liberal arts, free speech, free scientific research, a revolution of free spirits, women’s rights, urban cosmopolitanism — the lack of respect for everything that deviates from the early medieval concepts of Islam.

It is delusional to think that you can solve our problems or create an environment for the Palestinians in which they can transform their society into a modern, open state with a division of powers.

In Gaza, the Palestinians elected an Islamic-fascist party into office. If there were to be elections in the West Bank, they would do the same. The tribal families of the Palestinian territories hate each other as much as they hate us.

You have no clue. You have no idea what the Middle East and the Arab world is about. It is not what Khalidi told you — a conflict with some Jews about a strip of land half the size of Bill Gates’ backyard. This is about the decline of an old civilization, Islam, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This is about big things, big historical events with big consequences.

Perhaps our founding fathers made a mistake — it would have been safer to create a new Jewish homeland in Florida. But we have a history here, going back about three millennia, and that weighed quite heavily on the decision. Don’t you agree?

You are staring at a map of our tiny country and its bordering areas, and you think that you can find the solution there, and you are mistaken. This is about culture. Tribal traditions. Stories about a prophet who went to visit heaven on a horse, and used Jerusalem as a launch area. The Arabs and Muslims are so obsessed by their medieval aggrandizing worldly claims — legitimized by their religious myths — that they can’t live in the present and are afraid of the future. That’s why they don’t have Nobel Prize winners, no exciting patents, no cutting-edge industries.

It’s not about us, sir. It’s about them. Please think about it the next time you bow for a Saudi pervert or have me waiting for you in a side room while you have dinner.

Your friend,
Leon de Winter is a novelist and columnist for Elsevier Magazine in the Netherlands. His last novel, The Right of Return is a thriller set in Tel Aviv in 2024. He presently lives in Los Angeles.