Conservative Points to Ponder

Urgent Action: Stop this bad debt ceiling bill

2011-08-01T08:01:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

Judson Philliips
August 1, 2011

If we thought the Boehner Bill was bad, he and Mitch McConnell have taken the White Flag of Surrender to new heights.

Everyone must wear their Congressmen out to stop this bill.

Here are the low lights:

First it contains a massive $2.4 trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling.

It contains almost no immediate spending cuts.

The Deficit commission that is going to be created by this nightmare bill will be equally divided between six Democrats who want massive tax hikes and six Republicans who will look for the first opportunity to surrender, much as John Boehner.

The bill also calls for massive cuts in defense and allegedly in entitlements if the Deficit Commission is deadlocked or otherwise cannot come up with more budget cuts. The deficit commission will have the option of recommending tax hikes. The Bush tax cuts will be gone. Capital gains will be raised from 15% to 28%, destroying investment. Middle class deductions, such as home mortgage interest will be gone.

In short, by the end of the year, the left will have everything it wants. It will have massive new borrowing to cripple the economy. It will have massive new tax hikes and it will gut defense spending. About the only thing it won’t do is repeal the Bill of Rights. They are saving that for next year.

This bill is so incredibly bad and the worst part is it will give the Democrats the political cover they need. The GOP will not be able to pin this one on the Democrats because Boehner and McConnell brought this to the Republicans and the Republican House passed it!

Folks we have to act today. Call, fax, email, tweet and visit your Congressman’s office. Tell them that if this bill passes and they vote for it, it is war. I don’t care who the Congressman is, we will find a Tea Party candidate to run against them.

As a rule, at Tea Party Nation, we do not believe in threatening Congressmen but this bill is so bad we have no choice. We have to make the GOP Representatives fear the loss of their jobs. That is the only way they can overcome the pressure the House Leadership will be putting on them.

Act immediately and look for further updates here on TPN.

Communist Goals (1963) - How Many Have Been Fulfilled?

2011-01-18T16:44:00.003-07:00

Click Here for Link

Posted by Jared Law
March 16, 2010 at 10:25pm in Principles, Ideology, & Religion

If I'm not mistaken, I first read this in 2006 in The Naked Communist, a very eye-opening book written by W. Cleon Skousen. It is stunning and quite depressing to see how many of the goals of the Communist Party have been accomplished. It's motivating to those of us who are determined to restore America!

Please take a look at these; it is very eye opening. If you've read these, but it's been more than a few months, take another look. It's good to have this information fresh in our minds.

Once you read these, you'll realize just how successful the "progressives" have been at progressing toward communism here in America.
--------

Communist Goals (1963)

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note by Webmaster: The Congressional Record back this far has not be digitized and posted on the Internet.

It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them.

Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records.

Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter.

--------

Documentation

Webmaster Forest Glen Durland found the document in the library.

Sources are listed below.

The quote starts on page 259.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microfilm:

California State University at San Jose

Clark Library, Government Floor

Phone (408)924-2770

Microfilm

Call Number:

.R5

Congressional Record, Vol. 109

88th Congress, 1st Session

Appendix Pages A1-A2842

Jan. 9-May 7, 1963

Reel 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The book was found in the off campus stacks, was ordered and checked. The quote below was checked against the original and is correct. The few errors in the copy from the Congressional Record are shown in [ ] .

The quote starts on page 259.

California State University at San Jose, Clark Library stacks call number:

Naked Communist

S55

Book title page:

Skousen, W. Cleon. Naked Communist

Salt Lake City, Utah: Ensign Publishing Co.

C. 1961 , 9th edition July 1961.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will find the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto interesting at this point. Here they are:

In the early '60's during the days of the "former" Soviet Union, Russian Premier Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium of the United Nations and shouted to the West, "We will bury you!" Fearing an invasion from the Reds, America proceeded to build the most awesome military machine in history. Unfortunately, we forgot to guard our political homefront from being taken over by socialist - communist - liberal activists who would gain office and destroy American law by process of gradually installing the Communist agenda within our legal system and seperate branches of government. The Communist program from the start has been one which sees their revolution of 1917 successful only upon total domination of the world.

Americans, being the most naive people among the nations, now believe that Communism is dead because the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain have been removed. The ironic truth is that Communism has just switched names to become more "politically correct". Today it is called international democracy. The reason that the Berlin Wall came crashing down is not because Communism is dead but because they have achieved the planned agenda to communize the West, including America. Washington D.C. has indeed become part of the New World Order of atheist governments. With the last vestiges of Christian law having been removed from "American government" over the last twenty years, there is no longer a threat of resistance against world Communism. In reality, "American government" became part of the Iron Curtain, thus there was no more need for the likes of a Berlin Wall.

Once again, in their foolishness, the American public has believed the lies of their "leaders" who applaud "the fall of Communism", while they have sold out the country to anti-Christian, anti-American statutes and regulations on the federal, state, and local levels. Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become commmunist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist. Communism, but by any other name...??

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);

Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome-Based "Education" .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scary, isn't it? Motivates one to redouble their efforts, doesn't it?

Are you ready to organize your neighborhood? Attend a caucus meeting? A Party Convention? Campaign for a Principled Constitutionalist/Patriot candidate? Start a study group in your neighborhood? Talk to your children about what they're learning in school?

INVITE your friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, church congregation members, customers, service providers, and other peers to join us? Educate yourself about American History?

Pray for America?

What are your thoughts?

Nullifying Obamacare

2011-01-04T09:49:00.002-07:00

What happened to Mead's stance on Obamacare, standing with other states in the lawsuit against the Constitutionality of Obamacare?
From the Casper Star Tribune 1/4/11:

"The issue of affordable health care is one that will be addressed," Mead said. "The question is whether we in Wyoming address it in a fashion that meets our needs, or whether we accept the design drafted by 435 representatives and 100 senators, only three of whom are from Wyoming."

"A compromise solution may be the best Congress could do. It is not the best we can do," Mead said to applause from the audience.

Compromise is absolutely NOT what any decent conservative Republican wants. The RINOs and progressives would do it that way.

Fred Barnes has an EXCELLENT article in the Weekly Standard describing a possible scenario which will benefit ALL Americans:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nullifying-obamacare_524862.html

Nullifying Obamacare

Here’s one more weapon.

Jan 3, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 16 • By FRED BARNES

The vehemence of the opposition to President Obama’s overhaul of health care has spawned an assortment of strategies for killing it. The newest and most ambitious would create a health care compact among the states and use it to switch control of health care programs from the federal government to the states.

If that sounds like a long shot, it’s no more so than the other schemes for nullifying Obamacare. These include repeal by Congress or by constitutional amendment, lawsuits to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate, and actions by governors and House Republicans to slow down its implementation.

Those are worthy efforts. But a health care compact would do more. If successful—a very big “if”—it would reduce the scope of Washington’s power. States, not Congress, the White House, or federal bureaucrats, would set the rules for health care from top to bottom, from Medicare and Medicaid to individual insurance policies.

And as ambitious as that sounds, it’s merely the initial goal of the group of conservative activists leading the compact drive. They want to use compacts to return other areas of federal control—the environment, drug and medical device regulation, education, to name three possibilities—to the states or even local governments.

Interstate compacts aren’t a wild idea. They just haven’t been tapped for such a political purpose before. The authority for compacts was established in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 10), and more than 200 have been set up. One example: the agreement uniting Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to build and operate the Washington area’s Metro subway system.

An issue of interest to two or more states can lead to a compact. It works this way: State legislatures approve a proposal, the states agree on the parts of mutual concern (such as buying insurance across state lines), then the compact is dispatched to Washington for ratification by Congress and the president (though the need for White House assent isn’t spelled out in the Constitution). Ratification turns the compact into federal law.

However, there’s a bigger reason for forming a compact against Obamacare. By banding together, states would have far more political clout in Washington. Backers of the health care compact figure they need more than 20 states to pressure Washington to go along. Their assumption is members of Congress (even Democrats who support Obamacare) would be inclined to vote for a formal request from their home state. Members who oppose Obama-care would vote for it as well.

The compact strategy grew out of talks last summer among a handful of conservatives worried about the growth in federal power, particularly under President Obama. They chose health care, given its unpopularity, as the issue on which to draw a new line between federal and state authority. Texas attorney Ted Cruz, a former state solicitor general, suggested the use of a compact. “It’s certainly a new application” of the compact, Cruz told me.

In October, Eric O’Keefe of the Sam Adams Alliance broached the compact strategy with the leaders of Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin. And in November, they, in turn, took the idea to their national council, gathered in Washington to conduct an orientation session for newly elected members of Congress (only Republicans showed up).

When O’Keefe and a panel explained the strategy, they got a standing ovation from the 180 members of the council. “I’ve never heard of a panel getting a standing ovation,” O’Keefe says. At least 37 of them signed up as state coordinators for winning legislative approval of the health care compact. An experienced political consultant, Mike Barnhart, was hired as national coordinator.

“We constantly receive ideas from people on what we should do,” says Meckler, an attorney specializing in Internet law. After hearing O’Keefe’s pitch, he read the American Bar Association’s guide on interstate compacts. “Despite the fact that it was very boring,” he was struck by how appropriate a tool it could be for slashing the power of the federal government.

The campaign for the compact begins early next month when many state legislatures convene. Texas and Nebraska are among the target states. “There are a lot of good opportunities,” Cruz says.

Like the other efforts to snuff out Obamacare, the compact drive is likely to aid Republicans and conservatives by keeping the health care issue alive. That won’t help Obama in his reelection campaign. But it could be an effective tool for Republicans in recruiting volunteers and appealing to voters.

But what attracted conservative organizers like O’Keefe and Tea Partiers is how broadly the compact strategy can be used to shrink the power of the federal government. It’s an “unused lever point” with enormous potential, O’Keefe says.

“We picked one of the tougher issues,” health care, he says, and ratification by Congress and the president is “a big hurdle. But we want the fight. We want the clarity. We want to define the lines of the fight” between Washington and the people. Achieving that won’t be easy. But not impossible.

***********************************************

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

American Narcissus - the Vanity of Barack Obama

2010-11-18T07:34:00.004-07:00

Click Here for Article

by Jonathan V. Last
November 13, 2010

Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama’s failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama’s vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency.

It’s revealed in lots of little stories. There was the time he bragged about how one of his campaign volunteers, who had tragically died of breast cancer, “insisted she’s going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt.” There was the Nobel acceptance speech where he conceded, “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war” (the emphasis is mine).

There was the moment during the 2008 campaign when Obama appeared with a seal that was a mash-up of the Great Seal of the United States and his own campaign logo (with its motto Vero Possumus, “Yes we Can” in Latin). Just a few weeks ago, Obama was giving a speech when the actual presidential seal fell from the rostrum. “That’s all right,” he quipped. “All of you know who I am.” Oh yes, Mr. President, we certainly do.

My favorite is this line from page 160 of The Audacity of Hope:

I find comfort in the fact that the longer I’m in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for power and rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience.

So popularity and fame once nourished him, but now his ambition is richer and he’s answerable not, like some presidents, to the Almighty, but to the gaze of his personal conscience. Which is steady. The fact that this sentence appears in the second memoir of a man not yet 50 years old—and who had been in national politics for all of two years—is merely icing.

People have been noticing Obama’s vanity for a long time. In 2008, one of his Harvard Law classmates, the entertainment lawyer Jackie Fuchs, explained what Obama was like during his school days: “One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone’s remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the ‘Obamanometer,’ a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn’t just share in class—he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers. ”

The story of Obama’s writing career is an object lesson in how our president’s view of himself shapes his interactions with the world around him. In 1990, Obama was wrapping up his second year at Harvard Law when the New York Times ran a profile of him on the occasion of his becoming the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. A book agent in New York named Jane Dystel read the story and called up the young man, asking if he’d be interested in writing a book. Like any 29-year-old, he wasn’t about to turn down money. He promptly accepted a deal with Simon & Schuster’s Poseidon imprint—reportedly in the low six-figures—to write a book about race relations.

Obama missed his deadline. No matter. His agent quickly secured him another contract, this time with Times Books. And a $40,000 advance. Not bad for an unknown author who had already blown one deal, writing about a noncommercial subject.

By this point Obama had left law school, and academia was courting him. The University of Chicago Law School approached him; although they didn’t have any specific needs, they wanted to be in the Barack Obama business. As Douglas Baird, the head of Chicago’s appointments committee, would later explain,

“You look at his background—Harvard Law Review president, magna cum laude, and he’s African American. This is a no-brainer hiring decision at the entry level of any law school in the country.” Chicago invited Obama to come in and teach just about anything he wanted. But Obama wasn’t interested in a professor’s life. Instead, he told them that he was writing a book—about voting rights. The university made him a fellow, giving him an office and a paycheck to keep him going while he worked on this important project.

In case you’re keeping score at home, there was some confusion as to what book young Obama was writing. His publisher thought he was writing about race relations. His employer thought he was writing about voting rights law. But Obama seems to have never seriously considered either subject. Instead, he decided that his subject would be himself. The 32-year-old was writing a memoir.

Obama came clean to the university first. He waited until his fellowship was halfway over—perhaps he was concerned that his employers might not like the bait-and-switch. He needn’t have worried. Baird still hoped that Obama would eventually join the university’s faculty (he had already begun teaching a small classload as a “senior lecturer”). “It was a good deal for us,” Baird explained, “because he was a good teaching prospect and we wanted him around.”

And it all worked out in the end. The book Obama eventually finished was Dreams from My Father. It didn’t do well initially, but nine years later, after his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention made him a star, it sold like gangbusters. Obama got rich. And famous. The book became the springboard for his career in national politics.

Only it didn’t quite work out for everybody. Obama left the University of Chicago, never succumbing to their offers of a permanent position in their hallowed halls. Simon & Schuster, which had taken a chance on an unproven young writer, got burned for a few thousand bucks. And Jane Dystel, who’d plucked him out of the pages of the New York Times and got him the deal to write the book that sped his political rise? As soon as Obama was ready to negotiate the contract for his second book—the big-money payday—he dumped her and replaced her with super-agent Robert Barnett.

We risk reading too much into these vignettes—after all, our president is a mansion with many rooms and it would be foolish to reduce him to pure ego. Yet the vignettes are so numerous. For instance, a few years ago Obama’s high school basketball coach told ABC News how, as a teenager, Obama always badgered him for more playing time, even though he wasn’t the best player on the team—or even as good as he thought he was. Everyone who has ever played team sports has encountered the kid with an inflated sense of self.

That’s common. What’s rare is the kid who feels entitled enough to nag the coach about his minutes. Obama was that kid. His enthusiasm about his abilities and his playing time extended into his political life. In 2004, Obama explained to author David Mendell how he saw his future as a national political figure: “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game.” After just a couple of months in the Senate, Obama jumped the Democratic line and started asking voters to make him president.

Yet you don’t have to delve deep into armchair psychology to see how Obama’s vanity has shaped his presidency. In January 2009 he met with congressional leaders to discuss the stimulus package. The meeting was supposed to foster bipartisanship. Senator Jon Kyl questioned the plan’s mixture of spending and tax cuts. Obama’s response to him was, “I won.” A year later Obama held another meeting to foster bipartisanship for his health care reform plan. There was some technical back-and-forth about Republicans not having the chance to properly respond within the constraints of the format because President Obama had done some pontificating, as is his wont. Obama explained, “There was an imbalance on the opening statements because”—here he paused, self-satisfiedly—“I’m the president. And so I made, uh, I don’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”

There are lots of times when you get the sense that Obama views the powers of the presidency as little more than a shadow of his own person. When he journeyed to Copenhagen in October 2009 to pitch Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, his speech to the IOC was about—you guessed it: “Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night,” he told the committee, “people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of . . . ” and away he went.

A short while later he was back in Copenhagen for the climate change summit. When things looked darkest, he personally commandeered the meeting to broker a “deal.” Which turned out to be worthless. In January 2010, Obama met with nervous Democratic congressmen to assure them that he wasn’t driving the party off a cliff. Confronted with worries that 2010 could be a worse off-year election than 1994, Obama explained to the professional politicians, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.”

In the midst of the BP oil spill last summer, Obama explained, “My job right now is just to make sure that everybody in the Gulf understands this is what I wake up to in the morning and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about: the spill.” Read that again: The president thinks that the job of the president is to make certain the citizens correctly understand what’s on the president’s mind.

Obama’s vanity is even more jarring when paraded in the foreign arena. In April, Poland suffered a national tragedy when its president, first lady, and a good portion of the government were killed in a plane crash. Obama decided not to go to the funeral. He played golf instead. Though maybe it’s best that he didn’t make the trip. When he journeyed to Great Britain to meet with the queen he gave her an amazing gift: an iPod loaded with recordings of his speeches and pictures from his inauguration.

On November 9, 2009, Europe celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was kind of a big deal. They may not mention the Cold War in schools much these days, but it pitted the Western liberal order against a totalitarian ideology in a global struggle. In this the United States was the guarantor of liberty and peace for the West; had we faltered, no corner of the world would have been safe from Soviet domination.

President Obama has a somewhat different reading. He explains: “The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.” Pretty magnanimous of the Soviets to let the long twilight struggle end peacefully like that, especially after all we did to provoke them.

So Obama doesn’t know much about the Cold War. Which is probably why he didn’t think the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was all that important. When the leaders of Europe got together to commemorate it, he decided not to go to that, either. But he did find time to record a video message, which he graciously allowed the Europeans to air during the ceremony.

In his video, Obama ruminated for a few minutes on the grand events of the 20th century, the Cold War itself, and the great lesson we all should take from this historic passing: “Few would have foreseen . . . that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.” The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the freedom of all humanity—it’s great stuff. Right up there with the election of Barack Obama.

All presidents are hostage to self-confidence. But not since Babe Ruth grabbed a bat and wagged his fat finger at Wrigley’s center-field wall has an American politician called his shot like Barack Obama. He announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, on the steps where Abraham Lincoln gave his “house divided” speech. He mentioned Lincoln continually during the 2008 campaign. After he vanquished John McCain he passed out copies of Team of Rivals, a book about Lincoln’s cabinet, to his senior staff. At his inauguration, he chose to be sworn into office using Lincoln’s Bible. At the inaugural luncheon following the ceremony, he requested that the food—each dish of which was selected as a “tribute” to Lincoln—be served on replicas of Lincoln’s china. At some point in January 2009 you wanted to grab Obama by the lapels and tell him—We get it! You’re the Rail Splitter! If we promise to play along, will you keep the log cabin out of the Rose Garden?

It’s troubling that a fellow whose electoral rationale was that he edited the Harvard Law Review and wrote a couple of memoirs was comparing himself to the man who saved the Union. But it tells you all you need to know about what Obama thinks of his political gifts and why he’s unperturbed about having led his party into political disaster in the midterms. He assumes that he’ll be able to reverse the political tide once he becomes the issue, in the presidential race in 2012. As he said to Harry Reid after the majority leader congratulated him on one particularly fine oration, “I have a gift, Harry.”

But Obama’s faith in his abilities extends beyond mere vote-getting. Buried in a 2008 New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza about the Obama campaign was this gob-smacking passage:

Obama said that he liked being surrounded by people who expressed strong opinions, but he also said, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” After Obama’s first debate with McCain, on September 26th, [campaign political director Patrick] Gaspard sent him an e-mail. “You are more clutch than Michael Jordan,” he wrote. Obama replied, “Just give me the ball.”

In fairness to Obama, maybe he is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters. After all, his speechwriter was a 27-year-old, and the most affecting part of Obama’s big 2008 stump speech was recycled from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, with whom he shared a campaign strategist. But it’s instructive that Obama thinks he knows “more about policies on any particular issue” than his policy directors. The rate of growth of the mohair subsidy? The replacement schedule for servers at the NORAD command center? The relationship between annual rainfall in northeast Nevada and water prices in Las Vegas?

What Scott Fitzgerald once said about Hollywood is true of the American government: It can be understood only dimly and in flashes; there are no more than a handful of men who have ever been able to keep the entire equation in their heads. Barack Obama had worked in the federal government for all of four years. He was not one of those men. More important, however, is that as president he shouldn’t be the chief wonk, speechwriter, and political director.

David Remnick delivers a number of insights about Obama in his book The Bridge. For instance, Valerie Jarrett—think of her as the president’s Karen Hughes—tells Remnick that Obama is often bored with the world around him. “I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually,” Jarrett says. “So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that they had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.” Jarrett concludes, “He’s been bored to death his whole life.”
With one or two possible exceptions, that is. Remnick reports that “Jarrett was quite sure that one of the few things that truly engaged him fully before going to the White House was writing Dreams from My Father.” So the only job Barack Obama ever had that didn’t bore him was writing about Barack Obama. But wait, there’s more.

David Axelrod—he’s Obama’s Karl Rove—told Remnick that “Barack hated being a senator.” Remnick went on:

Washington was a grander stage than Springfield, but the frustrations of being a rookie in a minority party were familiar. Obama could barely conceal his frustration with the torpid pace of the Senate. His aides could sense his frustration and so could his colleagues. “He was so bored being a senator,” one Senate aide said.

Obama’s friend and law firm colleague Judd Miner agreed. “The reality,” Miner told Remnick, “was that during his first two years in the U.S. Senate, I think, he was struggling; it wasn’t nearly as stimulating as he expected.” But even during his long, desolate exile as a senator, Obama was able to find a task that satisfied him. Here’s Remnick again: “The one project that did engage Obama fully was work on The Audacity of Hope. He procrastinated for a long time and then, facing his deadline, wrote nearly a chapter a week.” Your tax dollars at work.

Looking at this American Narcissus, it’s easy to be hammered into a stupor by the accumulated acts of vanity. Oh look, we think to ourselves, there’s our new president accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. There’s the president likening his election to the West’s victory in the Cold War. There’s the commander in chief bragging about his March Madness picks.

Yet it’s important to remember that our presidents aren’t always this way. When he accepted command of the Revolutionary forces, George Washington said,

I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to the extensive and important Trust. . . . I beg it may be remembered, by every Gentleman in the room, that I, this day, declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the Command I am honored with.

Accepting the presidency, Washington was even more reticent. Being chosen to be president, he said, “could not but overwhelm with despondence one who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”

In his biography of John Quincy Adams, Robert Remini noted that Adams was not an especially popular fellow. Yet on one of the rare occasions when he was met with adoring fans, “he told crowds that gathered to see and hear him to go home and attend to their private duties.”

And Obama? In light of the present state of his presidency, let’s look back at his most famous oration:
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

The speech was given on June 3, 2008, and the epoch-making historical event to which “this moment” refers throughout is Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

A senior writer at The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last covered the Obama campaign in 2008.

George Will: SHOCKING HYPE ON THE VOLT

2010-11-14T07:32:00.002-07:00

Click Here for Article

George Will
November 14, 2010

Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century, and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive.

--Joe Biden, Oct. 26 WASHINGTON General Motors, an appendage of the government, which owns 61 percent of it, is spending some of your money, dear reader, on full-page newspaper ads praising a government brainstorm -- the Volt, Chevrolet's highly anticipated and prematurely celebrated (sort of) electric car. Although the situation is murky -- GM and its government masters probably prefer it that way -- it is unclear in what sense GM has any money that is truly its own. And the Volt is not quite an electric car, or not the sort GM deliberately misled Americans into expecting.

It is another hybrid. GM said the Volt would be an "all electrically driven vehicle" whose gas engine would be a mere range-extender, powering the Volt's generator, not its wheels: The engine just would maintain the charge as the battery ran down. Now GM says that at some point when the battery's charge declines, or when the car is moving near 70 mph, the gas engine will power the wheels.

The newspaper ads proclaim, "Chevrolet Runs Deep." Whatever that means, if anything, it does not mean the Volt runs deep into a commute or the countryside just on electricity. At the bottom of the ads, there is this, in microscopic print: "Volt available in CA, TX, MI, NY, NJ, CT and Washington, DC, at the end of 2010. Quantities limited." Well.

Quantities of everything -- except perhaps God's mercy, which is said to be infinite -- are limited. But quantities of the Volt are going to be so limited that 44 states can only pine for Volts from afar. Good, because the federal government, which evidently is feeling flush, will give tax credits of up to $7,500 to every Volt purchaser. The Volt was conceived to appease the automotive engineers in Congress, which knows that people will have to be bribed, with other people's money, to buy this $41,000 car that seats only four people (the 435-pound battery eats up space).

Mark Reuss, president of GM North America, said in a letter to The Wall Street Journal: "The early enthusiastic consumer response -- more than 120,000 potential Volt customers have already signaled interest in the car, and orders have flowed since the summer -- give us confidence that the Volt will succeed on its merits." Disregard the slipperiness ("signaled interest" how?) and telltale reticence (how many orders have "flowed"?). But "on its merits"? Why, then, the tax credits and other subsidies?

The Automotive-Engineer-in-Chief -- our polymathic president -- says there will be a million plug-in cars in America by 2015. This will require much higher gasoline prices (perhaps $9 a gallon) and much bigger bribes: GM, which originally was expected to produce as many as 60,000 next year, now says 10,000 for all of North America.

GM says that, battery powered, the Volt has a 40-mile range. Popular Mechanics says 33. Thomas R. Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association of the electric utility industry, is, understandably, a Volt enthusiast: This supposedly "green" vehicle will store electric energy -- 10 to 12 hours of charging on household current -- produced by coal and gas-fired power plants.

The federal government, although waist-deep in red ink, offers another bribe: Any purchaser can get a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost (up to $2,000) of an extra-powerful (240 volt) charger. California, although so strapped it recently issued IOUs to vendors, offers a $5,000 cash rebate for which Volt buyers are not eligible but purchasers of Nissan's electric Leaf are. Go figure.

In April, in a television commercial and a Wall Street Journal column headlined "The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full," GM's then-CEO Ed Whitacre said, "we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule." Rubbish.

GM, which has received almost $50 billion in government subventions, repaid a $6.7 billion loan using other federal funds, a TARP-funded escrow account. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, called this a "TARP money shuffle." A commentator compared it to "paying off your Visa credit card with your MasterCard."

Meretricious accounting and deceptive marketing are inevitable when government and its misnamed "private sector" accomplices foist state capitalism on an appalled country. But those who thought the ethanol debacle defined outer limits of government foolishness pertaining to automobiles were, alas, mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact George Will at georgewill@washpost.com.

Separation of Church and State? For Muslims, Not so Much

2010-11-09T13:15:00.010-07:00

De Facto Shariah Law in America

Click Here for Article

By Janet Levy
November 9, 2010

Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.

Christianity Suppressed

In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren't blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.

Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of "Allah hu Akbar" from Muslim bystanders.

In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of "Ave Maria" was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito's protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.

In direct contrast to the above incidents, which limit Christian prayer and expression, numerous examples exist of special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.

Islam Accepted

In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.

After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher's aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time. (Note: Looked this up also and revised it a bit as well.)

In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a "Merry Christmas" sign from their station.

Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.

At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, "The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety."

Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.

These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran -- "Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions" (48:28), "Islam will dominate other religions" (9:33), and "Islam does not coexist with other faiths" (5:51). Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam -- "The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them" (9:123).

Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt), it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America.

Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and "winter holidays" replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California's classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.

Censure of Non-Muslims

Further, the First Amendment, free-speech rights of non-Muslims are being curtailed amidst the demands of Muslims who operate under few constraints. While non-Muslims are self-censoring out of fear and being shut down by authorities, Muslims enjoy almost unfettered rights to speak out.

For example, leading up to the 9th anniversary of the Muslim attack on 9/11, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida announced that he would burn the Koran in protest of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Not only was Jones's life threatened by Muslims, but an Obama administration official asked him to cancel his plans. New York Governor David A. Paterson commented in response to Jones' threat: "More and more, particularly this year, I feel that the memory of those who were lost is being disrespected." However, Paterson did not criticize the Muslim threat on Jones' life, nor the plan itself to build a mosque over the remains of the victims of Islamic terrorism killed on 9/11.

While Pastor Jones was punished by the loss of his mortgage and insurance and was presented with a bill for $180,000 for security by the City of Gainesville, Muslims avoided any public opprobrium even though twenty innocent people around the world died during Muslim protests against Jones. Like the response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons years earlier, the Koran-burning activity was suppressed and censured as disrespectful to Muslims. It was even compared to the burning of churches and synagogues. Yet Muslims who threatened violent reprisals against Jones were not warned that attempts to curtail First Amendment rights and even mayhem, assaults, or murder would not be tolerated and would be punished to the full extent of the law.

In another instance of free speech rights violations, when New Jersey Transit Authority (NJTA) worker Derek Fenton burned a Koran near Ground Zero on 9-11, he was promptly removed by authorities as much for the perceived insult to Islam as for his own safety. The very next day, he was fired from his job of eleven years.

In October, NPR reporter,Juan Williams was fired for expressing on Fox News a fear shared by the majority of Americans in a post-9/11 world -- his discomfort about being on a plane with people who dress as conservative Muslims. Thanks to pressure from CAIR, a Hamas-supporting, extremist-linked organization, Williams was punished for this thoughtcrime and, without first talking to Williams, an NPR spokesperson broke the news on Twitter. Ironically, CAIR spokespersons are regular guests on NPR programs.

Cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to disappear after declaring April 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Norris ignited a religious firestorm with radical Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki publicly ordering her execution. Under FBI recommendations and at her own expense, Norris went underground, changing her name and identity. She is no longer publishing cartoons at the publication where she has been a regular contributor.

Freedom of Speech for Muslims

Whereas Norris was forced to enter a witness-protection program in response to a fatwa against her, Islamic leaders enjoy unlimited freedom to spread their messages of hate within the United States. Some even receive protection at taxpayer expense, as did Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian-American Sufi imam who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Rauf is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, endeavors to supplant U.S. law with shariah, and refuses to condemn jihadist groups and terrorism. In addition, he refused to sign a pledge revoking the mandatory death sentence for Muslim apostasy, has encouraged U.S. government officials to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and blames the United States for 9/11. Imam Rauf, who created the Shariah Index Project, which rates countries around the world on shariah compliance, has said that he believes in shariah supremacy.

Tariq Ramadan, a highly controversial leader in the fundamentalist Muslim world and the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, visited the United States in April. As a keynote speaker at the Hamas-supporting Council on American Islam Relations and as a speaker before another Muslim Brotherhood organization, the Muslim American Society, Ramadan refused to condemn the shariah law provision that calls for stoning women for alleged improprieties or to denounce suicide bombing. Ramadan is suspected by U.S. intelligence of having ties to al-Qaeda. He espouses amicable messages of peace and respect when speaking with Western audiences, while endorsing Wahhabism and spreading hatred of the West to Arabic-speaking audiences.

Even Muslims targeted by our own government for their crimes receive protection. Anwar al-Awlaki, dubbed the "bin Laden of the internet" and suspected of having prior knowledge of 9/11 by having met privately with two of the 9/11 hijackers, has been defended by the American Civil Liberties Union. After President Obama approved placing Awlaki on a government assassination list, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging the order to kill him. This despite Awlaki being on the FBI's Most Wanted List and his having met and corresponded with Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin. He trained the Christmas underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was the inspiration for Faisal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square car bomber. In a recent video delivered to CNN, Awlaki stated that Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against the United States.

Nine years after 9/11, in contrast to protections enjoyed by Muslims, individuals perceived by Muslims to have damaged Islam in some way have been threatened, fired, and publicly censured. This development indicates how far we have come down the road to dhimmitude, a subservient status in relation to Muslims. Clearly, if Norris had organized a Draw Jesus or Draw Moses Day, her life would be very much intact. If Juan Williams had talked about his fear of fundamentalist Christians, he would still be an NPR host in good standing. Had Jones burned the Old Testament, twenty people murdered by Muslims jihadists would still be alive, his reputation would be untarnished, and his financial situation would be undamaged. Had Derek Fenton burned a copy of the Old or New Testament, it is unlikely that the NJTA would have taken any action against him.

Islamization of America

We are witnessing a transformation of American society in which Islam enjoys a privileged place among the country's religions. The sensitivities of the country's 3 to 5 million Muslims are considered above those of non-Muslims. Non-Muslims even assist sensitive Muslims in the weeding out of potentially offensive statements or actions that could be remotely critical of Islam or Muslims. Since 9/11, Americans have been well-trained not to talk about Islam and terrorism or to use the word "jihad." Publicly criticizing, voicing concern about, or even expressing fear about Muslim behavior or activities is forbidden. While other religions may be freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons, and denigrated by artwork, Islam is sacred, supreme, and beyond reproach.

Every effort is made in the United States to accommodate Muslims and engage them in interfaith dialogue and community affairs. Muslims may pray openly in public -- on city streets and in airport terminals. Many U.S. government departments hold Iftar dinners to celebrate the end of Ramadan. The Ground Zero mosque will be built over the ashes of 9/11 victims, but the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed by Muslims will not. Non-Muslims enjoy no such privileges or special treatment in Muslim countries. They may not visit Mecca nor build churches or synagogues. U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia are prohibited from wearing visible religious symbols.

The foregoing examples, not exhaustive by any means, point to the fact that we are living under a de facto shariah law system in the United States today that has compromised the freedoms we have enjoyed under our Constitution -- freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Now, we no longer enjoy equal protection under the law. Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression. This has led to the stealthy introduction of shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.

Instead, claims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bias are rampant. Yet consider the following: the Muslim atrocity of 9/11, the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Abdulmutallab to detonate plastic explosive in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009, the massacre of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood by jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hassan in 2009, the failed bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last May, the violent jihad plot in North Carolina planned by Daniel Patrick Boyd, the recent storming of a Baghdad church and murder of 58 Christians, the UPS plot to bomb synagogues in the Chicago area uncovered this past weekend, and countless other incidents over the past several years.

It is not irrational and biased to fear practitioners of a religion who are trying to kill non-Muslims based on teachings from their religion's doctrine. Apologists for Islam whitewash these events, but Islamic teachings (Reliance of the Traveller, o4.9, p. 590) specifically state that a Muslim's life is worth three times that of a Christian or Jew and fifteen times more than that of a Zoroastrian. (The Consulate General of India, Jeddah lists indemnities for Hindus and Buddhists at 1/15 that of Muslims). When non-Muslims so much as express any discomfort with Muslims and Islamic ideology, they risk public censure, financial ruin, loss of livelihood, and even death. he United States is truly under shariah law when it is forbidden and a punishable offense to call out Islamic doctrine for what it is.

Bernanke's Cowardice Has Sealed Our Fate

2010-11-09T12:54:00.003-07:00

Click Here for Article

Monty Pelerin blogs at http://www.economicnoise/
November 09, 2010

The day after the election, the Federal Reserve launched QE2, the second round of Quantitative Easing. This public relations euphemism attempts to hide the fact that the Fed is "printing money" (the Fed actually does it electronically these days). "Cheating, debasing and inflating," as in stealing from the public, is a more accurate description.

Bernanke indicated from 600 to 850 billion additional dollars would be created. To put this in perspective, the Tarp package was in this range. The total Federal Reserve balance sheet was $829 billion at the end of 2004 and only $869 billion in August 2007. At the end of 2009 it had ballooned to over $2,200 billion. This announcement means it is headed to $3,000 billion (3 trillion).

Ben Bernanke weakly defended his action with the following justifications:

•... further support to the economy is needed

•Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth.

•higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending.

The first two statements are true as stated, but unlikely to be affected by additional QE. The third is partially true, although it is unclear that his action will raise stock prices. Furthermore, empirical data is not supportive of the alleged relationship between stock prices and spending (see the Kass reference below).

Many economists and analysts believe that the Fed actions will not help. Several believe they will actually make conditions worse (two examples are Doug Kass and Pimco's El Erian).

The Real Reason for QE2

Mr. Bernanke's justification for committing nearly another trillion dollars does not meet the "smell" test. In prior life, Professor Bernanke would flunk an Econ 101 student for such weak justification (of course we know no one really gets an F at Princeton, no matter how deserved).

Mr. Bernanke's performance was a charade meant to hide the fact that the government is now illiquid! Mr. Bernanke instituted QE2 because the Federal Government has reached the point where it cannot pay its bills.

If the Fed does not buy government bonds (print money), checks will stop for programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, military pay, etc.

The Madoff Model of government just ended. There are no longer enough bond buyers or taxpayers to pay for the profligate spending of the US government.

For more than a decade, responsible economists and analysts warned how this situation had to end. That point has apparently just been reached as a result of some of these reasons:

•We are increasingly viewed overseas as a profligate, fiscally irresponsible country with no willingness to change.

•Our debt levels have become dangerously high, raising the probability of sovereign default.

•Our annual deficit is 3 to 4 times larger than ever before and looks like there is no political will to address it. Interest rates are too low to compensate for the perceived risk.

•Foreign countries that supported us are now either unwilling or unable to purchase our debt.

Solving Insolvency

The root cause of the liquidity problem is insolvency. Insolvency is a condition where eventually obligations cannot be met. Illiquidity then results. QE2 provides liquidity, but does nothing to solve the insolvency issue.

Unless the insolvency problem is solved, illiquidity will continue. From a mathematical standpoint, it is possible to solve the insolvency problem. From a practical or political standpoint, it is likely impossible.

Our funded Federal Debt is almost 100% of GDP. Our unfunded social obligations are about another $100 trillion. The total net worth of the country is about $55 trillion. Government has promised benefits that are twice what everything in the country is worth. To understand the math, see Spiraling to Bankruptcy.

Laurence Kotlikoff referred to a recent International Monetary Fund assessment of the US financial condition:

... the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: "The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today's federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates." It adds that "closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP."

The government would have to double every tax it collects (including payroll taxes) to run 5% surpluses for decades in order to bring government obligations into manageable range. Such tax increases would plunge the US and probably the world into an economic Dark Ages.

Alternatively, current government spending could be cut by about 50%. Managing spending forward so that a 5% surplus was maintained would also work.

Bernanke's Morton's Fork

Mr. Bernanke was faced with two choices, neither of which were good. He could have refused to initiate another round of QE, which would have forced the government to make tough decisions. Such action might have put the economy into another Great Depression. He likely would have lost his job and been blamed for any economic difficulties that followed.

He chose the other option -- provide the needed funds. As such, he chose to be the Enabler-in-Chief, reinforcing the out-of-control government fiscal policies. This choice likely enabled him to keep his job (for the time being) and made him appear to be the White Knight responsive to economic needs.

Unfortunately for the country, his choice makes matters worse, much worse.

The Road Ahead

With QE2, the government will be able to pay its bills. If the shortfall were temporary, Bernanke's actions might be considered prudent. Of course if the shortfall were temporary, the government would be able to borrow in the marketplace.

Without a solution to spending excesses and social commitments that cannot be met, there is no end to our shortfalls. Welcome to QE2, soon to be followed by QE3, QE4 ... and hyperinflation.

QE2 is just another step toward "banana republic" status. We are on the same road travelled by Argentina, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany and many others who destroyed their currencies.

These countries did not intend that result. Each step was justified based on the expediency of keeping the government going. As Hayek pointed out:

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments.

In every case, including our own, the government had already failed. Its attempt to survive made matters much worse for its citizens.

QE2 may only represent the first step, but its effects alone are apt to be profound. Pimco's Bill Gross anticipates it will produce a 20% decline in the value of the dollar. If you were China or Japan, would you want to buy Treasury Bonds? Would you continue to hold dollar-denominated assets? These types of considerations trigger currency runs.

Mr. Bernanke has deferred the day of reckoning. His action will not prevent government collapse, it will ensure it, along with collapses in the currency, economy and likely society itself. This little man, unelected and accountable to no one, has just sentenced the country to an Economic Apocalypse.

Milton Friedman's concern seems especially appropriate:

The power to determine the quantity of money... is too important, too pervasive, to be exercised by a few people, however public-spirited, if there is any feasible alternative. There is no need for such arbitrary power... Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic - this is the key political argument against an independent central bank.

How Will This End?

There is no pleasant ending. Political activity over the past fifty years guaranteed that. As Ludwig von Mises observed:

Credit expansion can bring about a temporary boom. But such a fictitious prosperity must end in a general depression of trade, a slump.

The best solution is for Mr. Bernanke to cease and desist from his QE policy. That would require the political class to face up to its problems. It would require a massive roll-back of the welfare state and government. It would require resizing government to a level that productive citizens would support. Transitional hardships would occur, including civil unrest and possibly a Depression.

The worst solution is the one that Mr. Bernanke has selected. If he stays on this course, fiat money will become worthless. So will Social Security checks, because they will have no purchasing power. All fixed income and savings will be wiped out. The middle class will be financially destroyed.

Markets will cease to function except on a barter system. Food and other necessities will be in short supply, possibly to the extent of health risks developing. Unimaginable civil unrest is likely.

A Greater Depression is assured. Unlike the first Great Depression, citizens would be without any financial wherewithal. Their savings and fixed income will have been stolen from them via hyperinflation. In short, it would be the worst Economic Hell imaginable.

Mr. Bernanke was unwilling to tell you what is happening. His action has moved us into the eye of a massive storm. Do not be lulled into complacency for as von Mises stated:

A fiat-money inflation can be carried on only as long as the masses do not become aware of the fact that the government is committed to such a policy.

Now you know and others will pick up on this quickly. Make like the political elite and protect yourselves from the Level Six economic hurricane that Mr. Bernanke is stoking.

The history of government management of money has, except for a few short happy periods, been one of incessant fraud and deception.

-Friedrich Hayek

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh and His Listeners [From a Democrat]— With Notes on the Democrat Civil War Already In Progress

2010-10-28T07:14:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

October 27, 2010
Kevin DuJan, Editor in Chief
Hillbuz.org

When Obama and the DNC attacked Hillary and her supporters, they permanently alienated tens of millions of us from the party. I know for a fact I am not the only guy with a picture like this on his wall who is working every day to bring down the Obama White House and Democrat Party. Not for Hillary, though I love the woman, but for America...because I love this country even more.

Dear Rush,

It’s my great hope that some of your listeners find a way to get this letter to you, or that it makes it to “Snerdley” and finds its way into your hands. I don’t think even you understand just how much damage Obama has done to the Democrat Party — to the point where formerly lifelong Democrats like myself, and everyone here at HillBuzz.org, are actively working to expose the party and literally burn it to the ground for the good of the country.

None of this is being reported in the media, but a Civil War in the Democrat ranks has been raging since May 31st, 2008…a date every Hillary Clinton supporter knows well, because that was the date of the Democrat Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting where Howard Dean (then-DNC Chair), Donna Brazile, and scores of other Kool-Aid slurping Obama flunkies took off their masks and revealed the full extent of the Leftist coup that had taken over the party. This was the day when the DNC took delegates Hillary Clinton won in Michigan away from her and handed them to Obama (despite the fact he wasn’t even on the primary ballot in that state, because he removed his name when his campaign realized he’d come in third in that race).

May 31st, 2008 was a day when Hillary “babes” (as you call us sometimes) like us flew to Washington in large numbers to stand outside the Marriott near the National Zoo, where this Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting was held, to shout for the DNC to count all the votes and operate the nominating process fairly — but they refused. The anger over that day has never abated. In fact, it’s grown considerably since then.

This was the determining factor in millions of us leaving the Democrat Party for good. This was the day when the P.U.M.A. movement began — in response to Donna Brazile’s calls for “party unity” following the Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting, we “Hillary babes” said “Party Unity My A$$” (or People United Means Action, depending on how you want to phrase it). Exit polls showed 8 million PUMA voted Republican for the first time in our lives in the fall of 2008…casting ballots for McCain/Palin (and in truth, mainly for Palin, whom we support, and not to a small degree because she receives many of the same attacks lobbed at Hillary Clinton all these years).

You seem to know most of all this, so I’ll end the history lesson by noting the people alienated by the Democrat Party during the primaries in 2008 — where it was clear the party and the media colluded at great lengths to push Obama while hammering Hillary Clinton into the ground — never came back to the Democrat Party.

This is also when most of us stopped using the term “Democratic Party”, since there’s nothing “democratic” about these people. They are the “Democrat Party”, and even that is hard to acknowledge because they really and truly have proved themselves to be enemies of real democracy.

I’m still registered as a Democrat here in Chicago (because the Cocktail Party GOP establishment so disgusts me I can’t will myself to party-ID Republican, and there’s no Independent option here in Illinois) but I can’t imagine ever voting for another Democrat again, as long as I live. To Hell with Democrats. This was solidified for me on Christmas Eve of last year, when Democrats rushed Obamacare through the Senate in the dead of night, through various secret channels, and every single Democrat voted for its passage (even supposed moderates like Evan Bayh in Indiana, who quickly realized his vote would cost him re-election…so the coward retired rather then face angry voters over what he did). I just don’t believe Democrats should be given elected office by voters because they cannot be trusted to even read bills before they vote on them, not even when said bills seek to permanently alter the entire American economy. This is reckless and reprehensible to the point of treason.

I was a Democrat for 32 years before the heavy-handed push for Obama alienated me from the party…and I borrow what Hillary Clinton said about Republicans once, back when she was a Goldwater Girl, and will paraphrase by saying that I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me.

AFTER it beat me to a pulp, called me a racist, berated and insulted me, and used Alinsky Rules to hit me with everything it had. Not just me, but all Hillary supporters.

This is the part I don’t think you understand because I don’t know if you and your listeners paid much attention to what the Obama campaign and DNC did to malign and assault Hillary Clinton’s supporters during the 2008 campaign. None of this has been forgotten by any of us.

If you have not seen it already, Rush, you need to watch Gigi Gaston’s documentary “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″. I’m featured in a segment on the voter fraud that was committed in the Iowa Caucus back in January of 2008. While I was always aware Democrats use unions and other means to cheat in elections, I never knew the Democrat Party was capable of the large-scale, aggressive, unapologetic fraud it committed on Obama’s behalf all through 2008. In Iowa, I watched Obama’s ACORN and SEIU goons push and shove old people, bully them, and intimidate them when they wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. I saw scores of Illinois license plates fill the parking lots outside caucus locations, with Chicagoland Obama supporters illegally entering the Caucus sites to vote for Obama and game Iowa for him. Having planned ahead, Obama supporters actually RAN those caucus sites, and held the doors open for all these fraudulent voters to walk right in, without being asked for IDs, where they then took control of the caucuses and bullied the Iowa residents into supporting Obama — lest they be called RAAACISTS! out in the open in front of their friends and neighbors in those open-air caucuses.

The media has never talked about this. I don’t remember ever hearing you talk about it. But one of the biggest reasons the Democrats are in the trouble they’re in right now is because of how frequently the Left and the media (one and the same, really) called anyone who opposed Obama a RAAACIST. If you supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries instead of Obama, you were called a RAAACIST. If you were someone like me who fundraised for Hillary, who hosted events for her, who put yourself out there and wrote columns advocating her or did media spots talking up her candidacy, you were aggressively targeted by the Obama campaign and his supporters…relentlessly attacked as a RAAACIST! and assaulted with the Alinksy Rules for Radicals in hopes of breaking your spirit, terrorizing you, and making you abandon Clinton for fear of having these people destroy your life, ruin your business, and make you an absolute pariah in your community.

This is what the Obama campaign, the media, and the DNC did to DEMOCRATS.

For almost a year, the Obama zealots and the Left waged all-out-war not just on Hillary Clinton, but on lifelong, loyal, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat voters like me. This came straight from the top, from Obama himself. Both he and his wife Michelle called the Clintons racists. Obama’s surrogates like James Clyburne, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, and others called Geraldine Ferraro, Madeline Albright, and others racists. The Obamas toxified the South Carolina primary, in particular, with foul race-baiting and turned North Carolina and Indiana into racial powder kegs by ramping up accusations that anyone not supporting Obama was a vile racist that needed to be pounded into the ground.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, my former Congresswoman back home in Cleveland, was a black Hillary Clinton supporter to the very end — and she was called a “race-traitor”, an “Aunt Jane”, and all manner of worse names as she was bullied, berated, and verbally assaulted by the Obama team…because she was black and dared to stand with her friend Hillary Clinton, the person Tubbs Jones knew would make a better president than “The One”. To her dying day in August of 2008, Tubbs Jones was threatened by the Obama campaign and told she’d be primaried in 2010 and kicked to the curb for being a “race-traitor”. She died of a brain aneurysm while driving her car, and Obama supporters filled Daily Kos, DemocratUnderground, and other George Soros-supported sites with lies about her drunk driving, doing drugs, and other slurs because even after she died these people wouldn’t stop hating her for daring to be an outspoken black woman who would never abandon Hillary for Obama.

This is similar to the grief that I’ve received here in Chicago for being a gay Hillary former Democrat in Boystown who never drank any Kool-Aid, never stopped speaking out against Obama, and who recently fully came out as a conservative — in the face of the same kind of Alinsky-grade, identity-based, “traitor” hectoring that Tubbs Jones got for being a black woman who didn’t kneel before the Obama altar.

Well, Rush, let me just tell you, from personal experience, that the tens of millions of people relentlessly abused and hounded by Obama supporters (remember that back in 2008 he urged his followers to “get in their faces” and “confront their neighbors” if they weren’t drinking his unicorn-pumped sparkly Kool-Aid ) will NEVER EVER FORGET what the Obama campaign directed at them, in terms of all this Alinsky bullying.

To quote Jeremiah Wright, the man Obama spent twenty years eagerly listening to at Trinity United Church of Christ: somebody’s chickens have now come back to roost.

During the campaign, Donna Brazile famously said that the Democrat Party no longer needed the people Obama once described as “bitter, religion-and-guns-clinging, Midwesterners”. Brazile took this further and said, outright, that the Democrat party did not need blue-collar white voters, the Jacksonian voters, the Hillary voters, because the party was “Obamafied” and would win elections for generations with the Obama coalition of blacks, Leftist elites, Hispanics, low information gay voters, and self-hating Jews.

This is all the Democrats have left, Rush.

Speaking from personal experience, as someone who has worked in fundraising for over 10 years and who has been a part of every presidential campaign since 1992, the Democrats have permanently alienated tens of millions of people who normally turned out reliably every year not just to vote Democrat, but also to write checks and otherwise participate in campaigns.

No more. Never again.

Here in Chicago, just about everyone who was part of Team Hillary efforts with me on the ground has completely divorced themselves from the Democrat Party. Being called a racist repeatedly and hearing from Donna Brazile that we are not needed will do that to a person.

But in a bigger sense, Democrats, by being so shameless and aggressive with the voter fraud in 2008 have opened too many eyes for us to ever go back to pretending that fraud and corrupt practices aren’t the hallmark of the Democrat Party.

There was a show on ABC a few years ago called Alias starring Jennifer Garner in which she played a woman working for a company called Credit Dauphine…which she was told was a front for a CIA organization called SD6. Garner’s character, Sidney Bristow, carried out her missions for SD6, overlooking different things the organization did that she might not have liked, because she thought she was doing what was best for the country. And then, one day, Sidney learned SD6 was actually an enemy of America…that it’s real mission was to destroy the country…that everything Sidney was told about SD6 was a lie. The mask came off SD6, and Sidney Bristow realized she had to work aggressively to take the whole enterprise down.

Rush (and his listeners), please hear me on this because you will not read this in the media — but just about every one of us from the Hillary 2008 campaign is a Sidney Bristow today.

Those of us who worked Democrat campaigns in the past put up with union associations and the other unsavory aspects of being a Democrat because we were told this was the only way Democrats could win…with union muscle. But, in 2008 the Democrats revealed themselves to be an SD6 conglomeration of every force in this country that wants to bring America down, tank our economy, usurp our Constitution, and lay waste to the American way of life.

Democrats took off the mask. The DNC reveled in being fully Leftist-controlled. Crazy people unapologetic in their Communist admiration took over positions of great influence not just in the DNC, but in our state and federal governments as well.

I’m horrified by that.

Hillary supporters are horrified by that.

And we have not sat back quietly to allow this to happen without a fight.

I know for a fact that people I worked with on the Hillary 2008 campaign have been actively working against every single Democrat who supported Obama’s nomination. Everyone who backstabbed Hillary Clinton is being undermined and sabotaged by people who might still be registered as Democrats but have no more loyalty to the party. Sometimes, conservative sites try to make this into a “sour grapes” sort of “Hillary’s revenge” meme — and there might be a taste of this in what’s going on — but the real driving force is that we former Democrats saw just how insane these people really are and we are now doing everything we can, behind the scenes, to use everything we know about the Democrat Party to collapse it from within.

If you think about it logically, there is not enough energy to sustain a years-long drive to remove Obama supporters from office just because people are still upset Hillary Clinton was not the 2008 nominee and is not president today. Sometimes, I think even you believe this is what this is all about. Your “Reverse Operation Chaos” initiative seems predicated on this, but that belief is apocryphal in that it misses a few big marks.

This is and it isn’t about Hillary.

What it’s really about is what the Democrat Party did to Hillary that alienated tens of millions of Jacksonian/Clintonian/middleclass Americans from the party permanently — and this includes what the party and Obama campaign did to Hillary’s supporters themselves (ie, calling them racists, telling them they weren’t wanted, calling them bitter clingers, etc.).

For the first time in our lives, so many of us former Democrats were given an Alinsky taste of what the Democrat Party really stand for…what it really believes…and how it really feels about America, our Constitution, our economy, and our way of life.

Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama took the mask off the Democrat Party…and the Leftist gorgon that lurked beneath is something America-loving, middleclass, Jacksonian/Clintonian Democrats want nothing to do with.

As part of your “Reverse Operation Chaos”, you really need to emphasize something the media just won’t talk about — and that’s the simple fact that even if you called yourself a Democrat for 32 years, the way I did, because everyone you grew up with and everyone in your family was a Democrat, that in 2010 it’s time to ask yourselves what that really means.

Do you want to be in a party that calls people racists for stepping out of line and voicing opposition to the socialist lurch of the current administration?

Do you condone voter fraud and the shameless, undemocratic tactics employed by Democrats?

Do you wish to associate with the likes of ACORN, the SEIU, the Black Panthers, and all the other thugs, goons, and degenerates the Obama campaign and White House employ as the DNC’s muscle on the ground?

It is crystal clear that being a patriotic American who loves this country is intellectually incompatible with being a Democrat. If you love America and want it to prosper, the Democrat Party is at absolute odds with everything we need for a thriving, successful economy.

Hillary supporters realize this.

We received a heaping helping of Alinsky assaults to wake us up to this reality.

The reason so many of us support Governor Palin is not just because we see the same Alinksy assaults being waged upon her…but the woman is pitch-perfect in outlining exactly why Obama and the Left are wrong, and why Democrats under Obama are dangerous to have in elected office.

I know you talk about a “Hillary 2012″ but Rush, as much as I love Hillary Clinton, and as much as I worked my heart out for her in 2008, there’s no way that even she can repair the damage Obama has done to the party. Certainly not by 2012. MAYBE the Clintons and their supporters can purge the Obama lunatics from the party by 2016…but I doubt even that will happen. Just like with the Leftists Carter infected the Democrat Party with, Obama legacy hires will be in the DNC for a generation to come…and it might not be until the 2030s before the Democrats can remove the taint Obama and his Leftist agenda have put on the party.

Democrats have made themselves synonymous with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-democracy. Obama and his acolytes decidedly upped the ante when it came to their aggressive push towards socialism…and this Center-Right nation is resisting it in what I am certain will be an epic refudiation (to borrow the Governor’s term) next week.

On November 3rd, no one I know will be resting on any laurels. November 3rd starts the 2012 campaign…and not just the presidential race (where we’ll back Governor Palin) but the drive to knock people like Claire McCaskill out of office, continuing our work to take down every last one of the Obama supporters who backstabbed Hillary Clinton and helped install this socialist into the White House back in 2008. When you hear talk of a Hillary “enemies’ list”, or just “The List” as we call it in HRC supporter circles, this is very much real…and we are truly committed to making sure the Claire McCaskills out there get everything that is coming to them for all their service to Obama and his agenda.

Hear that, Ben Nelson…voters will be coming for you.

You and everyone like you.

Every last one of you.

If you voted for Obamacare, you are politically dead but may not know it…and it is your own fault. Being intensely stupid is no defense. If you were a YES vote on anything related to Obamacare you are going to be defeated…if not in 2010, then in the primaries in 2012. If you survive those, you will be taken down in the 2012 general election. Your political career is over…dummy.

Hope your time on the Obama Kool-Aid bandwagon was worth ruining your life over.

We will not forget those Obamacare votes. We will not forgive being called a racist because we don’t support this terrible man and his awful agenda. We will not be silenced.

We will not give up.

It’s going to be years, if ever, before the lamestream media ever catches up to any of this, and realizes that a large swath of people who used to be Democrat loyalists are now doing everything they can to destroy the party. Some of them are out and open, like me and my friends here at HillBuzz, but many are doing their part quietly. They just stop writing checks. Or maybe now they write checks to Democrat opponents. They might continue to attend events and fundraisers, but now they call up Republican sites and give them all the dirt on what they heard in those meetings. The Democrat Party alienated so many people who are now working to bring it down that I could go on for pages and pages more on this topic.

It’s very Sidney Bristow, Rush. And if you watched that show Alias, you’d know she not only won in the end, but looked damn good kicking ass while doing it.

THAT, El Rushbo, is what your “Hillary babes” are up to.

Here in Boystown, and in every town, because the Civil War Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama started on May 31st, 2008 is raging without end until the Democrat Party is no more.

Tell your listeners to count on that.

Obama’s Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide

2010-10-13T07:12:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

Oct. 12, 2010
Warner Todd Huston

Some of Obamacare’s most destructive forces are quickly becoming common knowledge. We have, for instance, become painfully aware that Obama’s claim that we all could keep our plans and doctors “if you like them” is an outright falsehood as some people are already losing their coverage. It is also becoming clear that companies will be dropping plans all over the place making a lie of the idea that plans will be cheaper and easier to get once Obamacre comes into force. Another aspect of the destructive nature of this top down-style of “healthcare” is that once government takes over the system Democrats will assume they have the power to force religious-based healthcare providers to perform abortions and this will cause thousands of facilities to close down. This will, of course, make care even harder to get in many cities across the nation as hospital beds are lost in great numbers.

In fact, we are already seeing this disastrous situation of closing hospitals playing out in Scranton, Pennsylvania where three Catholic-operated hospitals are likely going to be shut down and/or sold off because of the negative affects Obamacare will have on these facilities.

Kevin Cook, the CEO of Mercy Health Partners, the company that operates these three hospitals, told WNEP TV News that Obamacare “absolutely” playing a role in the decision to sell off the facilities.

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role.” Cook said. “Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”

Almost immediately Obama associate Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association came out to slam Mr. Cook.

Keehan’s press release says in part: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”

The CHA is a for profit company that works for some Catholic hospitals as a sort of trade association and Keehan is a close associate of the president and a prominent supporter of Obamacare. Keehan was even a recipient of one of the 21 pens that Obama used to sign the Orwellian named Affordable Care Act — much to the chagrin of Catholic Bishops.

This Keehan apostate is constantly put forth by the Old Media as some representative of Catholic hospitals. Worse few Old Media outlets note that she is an Obamacare activist and Obama associate.

As Jeffery Lord of the Spectator says, “In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends.”

For instance, back in March the AP passed off a false news story attempting to mislead the public into thinking that Catholic hospitals supported Obama’s healthcare bill. AP then reported the support of Obamacare announced by the CHA, an independent group that does not represent the Catholic Church nor Catholic hospitals per se, and conflated that announcement to a claim as if all Catholic hospitals and therefore the Church itself were standing behind Obama’s take over of the nation’s healthcare system.

AP reported the announcement by the CHA and made as if it somehow represented “Catholics,” but this group has no official relationship with the Catholic Church, nor does it represent any groups of religious Catholics, nor serve as a source for Catholic teaching or doctrine. Needless to say the CHA also does not represent all Catholic hospitals but only the few that have paid to join her association.

The costs that Obamacare will force upon hospitals isn’t the only problem for Catholic-based healthcare. Obama, his party, and their pro-infanticide supporting associates also intend to force Catholic and other religious based healthcare facilities to perform abortions whether it violates their consciences or not.

Recently former Senator Rick Santorum (R, Penn) raised this point in an editorial for Philly.com. Santorum cites a new effort by the ACLU to get Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama’s controversial abortion supporting recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, to force all healthcare providers to perform abortion procedures.

Santorum rails against this effort saying: “This abuse of conscience betrays American principles that go back at least to the country’s founding, when George Washington respected the pacifist consciences of Quakers. Similarly, since Roe v. Wade and under both political parties, Congress has passed laws that respect the consciences of health-care workers.”

This effort to force all healthcare providers to provide abortion is a serious threat to the nation’s healthcare system.

By 2005 there were over 615 Catholic hospitals, some 400 healthcare centers, and over 1,500 specialized healthcare homes. These facilities employ almost 600,000 employees and accounted for more than 20% of all hospital admissions. And this is just the Catholic oriented healthcare facilities.

As the realities of the strict, anti-religious qualities of Obamacare dawns on people and as the government begins to crack down on religious organizations forcing them to obviate their consciences the eventual result will be the end of religious-based healthcare institutions. This will leave millions of Americans underserved and will also leave their health in danger.

2010-10-11T20:17:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

by Lurita Doan

Pity the poor entrepreneur and small business owner in America now getting socked, with the mother of all taxes, by a government that has become either hostile, or indifferent, to understanding what it takes to build a business, grow a company and hire more workers. I'm not talking about new fees, but about a much greater confiscatory tax, imposed without any real debate or consideration--the confiscation of time.

Nearly every Obama administration initiative demands new, more complicated reporting and compliance filings on small businesses and entrepreneurs that are already overburdened with a mish-mash of reporting requirements that suck away an entrepreneur's time and energy. 2008 compliance costs for a small business, according to a recent SBA Report, was approximately $10,000 per employee. But, the Obama Administration has added new, and far more onerous, reporting demands that are likely to treble those costs to $30,000 per employee. Facing such huge, and hidden, costs of compliance, is there any wonder small businesses are not hiring as they have in the past?

Consider, for example, one of the new reporting requirements contained in Section 9006 of the disastrous Obama healthcare bill which requires all small companies to file 1099s for any purchase over $600, to include anything from office supplies to electricity to independent contractors. As a result, small businesses may need to hire a full-time compliance officer that does nothing but file these new forms and reports.

But that is just the start. For example, Section 1512 of the Recovery Act (ARRA) requires that a report with a minimum of 12 data points be submitted quarterly for each Recovery Act project over $25,000. A separate report has to be submitted if the business worked as a subcontractor on any ARRA project. This report is separate from and in addition to the mandatory, contractual reports submitted monthly to the government contracting officer on each project and, separate from and in addition to, the quarterly program reviews provided for agency leaders. Of course, if the business performs ARRA work at the State level, many of those states have additional reporting requirements for businesses who are working on federally funded stimulus projects within the state.

Small business already struggles because the federal government’s reporting requirements are a moving target. Businesses must track the unusually frequent changes in government-issued guidance regarding reporting requirements. For example, since issuing the first reporting requirements for ARRA in February 2009, these requirements have changed nine times in the past 19 months, in March 2009, April 2009, June 2009, September 2009, November 2009, December 2009, April 2010, May 2010 and most recently in September 2010.

Each “update” to the reporting requirements issued by OMB is followed by an ancillary memo issued within each federal agency by each agency’s Chief Acquisition Officer.

Businesses, especially small businesses, may spend large segments of the workday tracking reporting requirement changes. Businesses must do this because a clerical error, which could be interpreted by the oversight community as fraud, carries severe penalties, and the burden of proof of innocence falls on the business.

Taxes take many forms. More damaging, than canceling the Bush tax cuts, more damaging than the changing definition of who is considered “rich”, more disturbing than Obama Administration's complete lack of understand of what it takes to grow a business and an economy, is the fact that time is money, so the new, burdensome and intrusive reporting requirements demanded by Obama's flawed policies puts a tax burden of time on all businesses.

Under the guise of “accountability” and the lure of “transparency”, the Obama Administration continues to bombard businesses with additional, ill-thought reporting requirements. Few legislators and few members of the Obama Administration have ever experienced first-hand, the struggles of entrepreneurship--what Jerry McGuire calls "an up-at-dawn, pride-swallowing siege," of trying to win a customer's business, be competitive and succeed. The Administration, clearly, does not understand or does not care about the true cost to business of their self-serving actions.

Peter Drucker, the management guru once said: “if you’re meeting, you’re not working”. Perhaps the corollary is that when a business is “reporting”, then they aren’t really working either.

Make no mistake: well-reasoned reports aid in accountability and transparency and are essential to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely by the government. But this is not happening in the Obama Administration. The President Obama once promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Yet, fees, fines and mandatory purchases are “onerous, rigorous demands” which, according to Webster, qualify as taxes.

Obama has demanded the one commodity which is in limited supply, and which can never be reproduced once spent—time. Obama wastes our time--and that tax is the greatest of all.

"Here's to You Mr. Jefferson"

2010-10-10T14:31:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Link to Youtube

Absolutely awesome video on our Founding Fathers! Share with your friends! Sung to the tune of "Here's to You, Mrs. Robinson."

All the King's Horses and all the Kings Slaves Couldn't Put Butts in the Streets

2010-10-03T17:01:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

Imagine that: all of Caesar's subjects from across all spectrums of the leftist universe couldn't fill a ...... tooth. Oprah, Jon Stewart, ACORN, SEIU -- union attendance was mandatory. Sharpton and his gang pay folks ($65 a day) to show up at their hate fests.

Astroturf? Thousands Given Free Bus Rides by Unions & NAACP to One Nation Rally

Worse, these bloodsuckers and parasites trashed the World War II Memorial.

Leftist and Media Double-Standards on Socialist 'One Nation' Rally Reporting American Power

It's nothing new, of course, but the media's campaign to downplay the left's communist-dominated "One Nation" protest yesterday needs to be highlighted nevertheless.

The first thing to notice is this photograph on crowd size comparisons from "Restoring Honor" and "One Nation" (via Old Retired Petty Officer).

Crowd estimates have an "outsized" importance when the press and leftist blogs seek to minimize and ridicule the tea parties. But as soon as Democrat-Socialists march on D.C., wild claims of "double" the size of the Glenn Beck rally get wide play. Tom Maguire reports on the widely divergent crowd-size estimates, as well as systematic efforts to withhold on-the-ground reports (MSNBC edited out AP's first-hand report indicating that "Saturday's crowds were less dense and didn't reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck's rally"). And while some lefty blogs continue to pump up bogus "larger" crowd numbers, some have scaled back their claims as the facts have become available. The Political Carnival, which posted two entries yesterday boasting bigger numbers for "One Nation," has now issued a hilarious retraction, asking "Does Size Matter?" Well obviously it did yesterday, but now we have this: "While it is a visual indicator of enthusiasm and support, the size of a crowd isn’t as important as the content, message, and tone of the event."

Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, October 03, 2010 at 05:23 PM

Matt Mead and the Hansen conservative heritage

2010-10-02T11:22:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

Matt Mead, 2010 Republican candidate for governor of Wyoming, has promoted himself as a rancher, playing to the respect and admiration we feel for the cowboy, an icon of independence, self-reliance, and resourcefulness, a symbol of the man who is able to push through hardship and hard work to provide for himself and his family.

So how well does Mead size up to this icon of independence?

Matthew Hansen Mead can claim a family tradition of political conservativism. Mead’s mother, Mary Hansen Mead, was the daughter of Clifford P. (Cliff) Hansen, one of those rare men who was almost universally respected for his great successes in defending Wyoming’s rights. Cliff’s father, Peter Arthur Hansen, did surveying and ditch work on ranches and built up the Jackson Hole ranch he and his wife homesteaded with Cliff and the other children helping every step of the way. Cliff liked to tell the story that he never tasted beef until he was a college student, not because the family didn’t like beef, but because it was a luxury. The family produced cattle, and ate wild game like elk and deer. This was a story every frugal cattleman could relate to…you don’t eat your profits.

Cliff Hansen was a true son of Wyoming, growing up and getting his early education in Jackson before heading to the University of Wyoming where he earned a degree in animal science in 1934, then back home to Jackson. From 1943 on Hansen’s life included Wyoming political service, as Teton County Commissioner (1943-1951), UW Trustee (1946-1966), Governor (1963-1967) and U.S. Senator (1967-1978). At the same time he was President of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association (1953-1955) and a member of American National Cattlemen’s Association. This was a man who stayed in the middle of things, getting things done.

Hansen worked for all the people of Wyoming. Governor Cliff Hansen drove an expansion of highways and reservoirs in Wyoming, critical to our way of life. Senator Hansen, with Louisiana’s Sen. Huey Long Jr, won the battle to turn the flow of Wyoming’s public mineral oil royalties to Cheyenne rather than the U.S. Treasury. Hansen was involved in amending the Surface Mining Act, assuring that private land owners are compensated when minerals are extracted below the surface. He drove a change in national legislation to make the state’s share of public mineral royalties to 50%, up from 37.5%. He demonstrated selflessness for sake of Wyoming when he resigned his Senate seat three days early to allow his successor, Alan Kooi Simpson, to assume the seat, giving Simpson seniority in the U.S. Senate which stood to Wyoming’s advantage.

Given this man stood at the head of Mead’s family, leading by example, you would expect Matt to be a natural conservative.

Check the articles "What Heritage is Matt Mead Carrying Forward?" and "A Progressive Heritage - Not Constitutionally Based" for the answer.

A Progressive Heritage - not Constitutionally Based

2010-10-02T10:56:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

This is the next in a series about Matt Mead’s political heritage. [found at www.wyomingwatchdogs.com]

We’re going to digress for just a bit from our focus on Mead to lay some groundwork for what will follow. Most of us think we know what a ‘liberal’ is and understand that Liberals and Progressives are somehow linked. For instance, there was Obama addressing a gathering of our elected officials as his “Republican and Progressive friends”.

Democrats were in the room, just not addressed as ‘Democrats’. And Hillary Clinton told us not long ago that she strongly identifies with the best of the century-old American Progressivism movement. But for the most part that link is fuzzy, as we’ve only recently begun to hear our politicians publicly identify themselves as Progressives. So let’s clear up a bit of confusion.

In a previous article we explored the basic nature of Conservatives. A simple explanation of the difference between a Progressive and a Conservative in the United States is:

A Conservative wants to conserve or maintain traditional institutions, including the U.S. Constitution, and believes that some laws transcend time and place.

A Progressive wants to progress, or move beyond…everything, anything, traditional Americans stand for. For them, change must be constant. And most importantly, they insist we must progress beyond the U.S. Constitution, which they say is outdated and no longer applicable to our laws or our lives.

There are many variations on the Progressive theme, and there have been three major Progressive Party advances in the course of our nation’s life, so it’s difficult to follow and understand the movement. But every day we’re getting better acquainted with their ideas through their policies, laws, and regulations. How influential are they? Members of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) have drafted, developed or sponsored most of bills advancing modern Progressive goals over the course of its 20-year life. The Caucus’s 80-plus members include many House Representatives and three Senators.

Mind you, there are other Congressional Member Organizations that our national elected officials have formed. These exclusive clubs are built around an ideology, philosophy or race identity, and behind their closed doors members hammer out positions, plans and projects. But CPC’s members are particularly powerful.

There’s Barney Frank and Maxine Waters who, along with enablers and enforcers, put in place the rules and laws that delivered the sub-prime lending fiasco directly leading to our latest economic crash. There’s Henry Waxman, who has a bill before Congress right now intended to put controls on our internet free speech and access. Waxman and his good friend Ed Markey are sponsors of the cap and trade bill. Then there’s Alcee Hastings, a current Florida Representative who was a federal judge until he was impeached for “corrupt conspiracy”. This is the guy who when asked in March “how can Congress use the reconciliation rule to pass the health care bill?” replied, basically, that rules were for dummies and furthermore “we make them up as we go along“.

Other notable members of the CPC include Alan Grayson, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and New Mexico Senator Tom Udall. Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, was a member until she became House leader. The late Senator Ted Kennedy, who was so effective at shoving Progressive health care goals forward issue by issue, regulation by regulation, bill by bill for years, was also a member.

The fire burning in the bellies of Conservatives is a direct result of these Progressives. Now here’s the second half of the story. Progressives aren’t found only in the Democrat’s ranks. These ideals cross party lines. And there you have the source of much of the political frustration and anger this country’s people feel toward their government. No wonder nothing in our political world makes sense anymore.

Making your head hurt more

Do start in on some reading of your own. To find out what Progressives are thinking straight from them, take a look at http://www.ppionline.org/, or http://www.dlc.org// or http://www.progressivefix.com/, or http://www.progressive.org/node/130774.

Then for another perspective from outside their movement, read Ronald Pestritto’s American Progressivism: A Reader, or Peter Berkowitz’s Varieties of Progressivism in America.

That’ll keep you busy, and awake at night, for quite a while.

1 http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfmknlgAreaID=87&subsecID=205&contentID=896. Accessed Sep 29, 2010

2 http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/30/9310. Accessed Sep 29, 2010

3 http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/ Accessed Sep 29, 2010

What Heritage is Matt Mead Carrying Forward in Governor's Race?

2010-10-02T10:26:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

Matt Mead has big political shoes to fill. His grandfather Cliff Hansen took principled Conservative stands in his service as an elected official. So how does grandson Matt stack up against that? We’ve gone to Mead’s campaign website as a primary source for his positions on the issues we’re exploring.

To be fair, his website says he’s a fiscal Conservative, so it may that he’s not claiming to be an all-round Conservative. But let’s assume that in his quest for Conservative votes, he’s trying to convince us he is.

How do Conservative Republicans define themselves right now? The newly formed Republican National Conservative Caucus gives us some clues. Their No. 1 defining issue is a commitment to “work together to restore our Constitutional Republic”. Nowhere can I find that Mead is even interested in this, much less driven to accomplish the goal.

Conservative Republicans are also committed to:

• God, family, country, conservative principles, political party, in that order.

• Accountability (requiring individuals to answer for what they say and do).

• Free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, individual liberties, and a strong national defense.

• Dignifying human life and holding it sacred.

• Protecting families from interference in their lives.

We could add others, like state’s rights, a topic not found on Mead’s issues list. The most Mead has said about state’s rights is he ‘believes in them’. Mead generally says that any federal mandate forcing states to pick up the tab for regulating and enforcing a federal law should be decided by the courts.

So how do Mead’s positions fit into the rest of the Conservative ones?

Committed to God, family, country, conservative principles, political party, in that order.

The Wyoming Tribune-Eagle quoted Mead on his priorities.

“My major priorities include creating jobs and building the economy; developing our resources – ag, energy, water; making our education system the best possible for our children; protecting our gun, private property, and state’s rights; improving our transportation infrastructure and our quality of life; and improving connectivity and technology for the freedom to live and work wherever we choose to live in this great state”.

Clearly his priority order doesn’t match up. As for the priority issues themselves, some of the Conservative issues are missing in Mead’s and some of Mead’s aren’t found in the Conservative list. One noteworthy absence involves the top priority, commitment to God. I can’t find any quotes showing that Mead recognizes the existence of a Creator, or that he would agree that that our basic natural rights, like life, are granted by that Being. The LAST priority is supposed to be commitment to political party. Mead? I think it’s safe to say that he would put commitment to party way ahead of many of the others. And he definitely expects the R-people to be committed to him, which he tells us on his campaign website…” Wyoming GOP needs unity to win gov’s race”. In other words, he’ seems to be saying “R’s, I won the Primary, now you owe me your vote”.

Accountability. Mead, an experienced attorney, is a practiced sidestepper. See ‘Dignifying human life…’ below for more on that.

Free enterprise … limited government…individual freedoms and liberties, and a strong national defense

His priority of ‘creating jobs’ is not a Conservative concept. Government isn’t business and should have no influence except to keep regulations from hampering business. As for limited government, his website includes his statement that “Wyoming must honor its commitment to the state retirement system”. If his priority is to state employees, is it also to growing their influence, numbers, bureau size and reach? Much of his website describes how the state, meaning state bureaus, not the citizens, needs to guide, direct, dominate, and drive our government in all sorts of areas.

Dignifying human life and holding it sacred

He says “Regarding abortion, I believe in the sanctity of life and am against abortion. But, as a conservative, I believe in individual rights…” Possible translation, he’s against abortion unless the pregnant woman wants one.

Protecting families from interference in their lives

More families are finding themselves under the not so protective wings of social services, education programs, and so-called justice programs. Families we know worry about their family incomes, about their kids getting a poor scholastic education and a too liberal social education. They’re worried about bullying, by kids and school staff, about whether their kids will find work and a successful, happy life, and they worry about how to keep them ‘busy’ and out of trouble while Mom and Dad are at work.

Mead’s legal focus has apparently caused him to zoom in on one thing he sees as a priority for families – “protecting Wyoming children from exploitation” and making adoption easier. Seems narrow, given the concerns of our families, and in some respects, even vaguely threatening.

In the end

Mead’s positions seem to be at odds with Republican ideals, and the fact that he successfully recruited at least a couple thousand Democrat votes for the Primary puts a point on his chameleon political nature. Could a Conservative Republican really garner this kind of support? Not likely.

So if he’s not a Conservative Republican as we’ve defined it, where do his views fit?

Check the article "A Progressive Heritage - Not Constitutionally Based" for some answers.

Ronald Reagan and Capitalism

2010-09-28T07:51:00.000-06:00

Islamic (Sharia) Law: Stoning Video Surfaces from Pakistan

2010-09-25T09:44:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

September 25, 2010

Imagine, one of the attendees of this stoning released the video. So just think about what we don't see. I saw this video first at ABC, but didn't run their video because it was irresponsibly edited, and because the accompanying narrative was so wrong, so patently false and deliberately misleading -- the commentary from Gayle Lemmon, an apologist from the Council of Foreign Relations (a tool for the stealth jihad), makes these pathetic excuses to ABC's Brian Ross, who nods cluelessly:

"It's difficult to know where and when it was shot," says Gayle Lemmon, deputy director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program at the Council of Foreign Relations, in an interview with Ross, "It is consistent with videos that have been coming from Taliban-controlled areas since the '90s."

Lemmon says that when women "stray outside the line" in Taliban-controlled areas, they may "face severe punishment."

"Women are respected as carriers of the family honor," says Lemmon, "but they also pay the price."...

It's the sharia, stupid. Check out the rest of the idiocy over at ABC here.

Click Here for Video of Taliban stoning woman in northwest Pakistan

WARNING: The video is graphic, and beyond disturbing. It is footage of a woman dying under a barrage of stones. But it must be exposed:
This is Sharia. This is an act Muhammad approved of and participated in, according to canonical Islamic sources including Sahih ("sound," "reliable") Bukhari.

This is Islam's "justice," "compassion," and "mercy" which apologists will not repudiate, attempting to dodge the issue by assuring the uninformed (and maybe even trying to make themselves believe) that it is not an issue because it is not prescribed in the Qur'an itself. Click here for why that does not make a difference to the Muslims who have continued the practice over the centuries.

And what was this woman's crime? Here is the back story. "Rare Video Shows Taliban Allegedly Stoning Woman to Death in Pakistan," by Megan Chuchmach for ABC News, September 24:

A rare video reportedly smuggled out of northwest Pakistan allegedly shows a woman being stoned to death by Taliban militants in the upper region of Orakzai. Al Aan, a Dubai-based pan-Arab television channel that focuses on women's issues, said it had obtained cellphone footage that it says shows a woman being executed because she was seen out with a man. The killing reportedly took place two months ago and was smuggled out by a Taliban member who attended the stoning, according to Al Aan. ABC News could not independently confirm the cellphone video's authenticity. The video, which seems to show a woman tethered to the ground as a group of men throw stones at her, is so graphic that ABC News cannot show it in its entirety. Parts of it air today on the 25th episode of "Brian Ross Investigates."

Gee, what a great system: be "honored" or be killed!

The ABC link has its own video, including a mostly dismal interview with Lemmon, who hedges on whether this has anything to do with Islam.
But we know better.

Celebratory day for Obama is a day of "mourning" for a Wyoming Dr.

2010-09-24T06:45:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

President Barack Obama today called attention to tomorrow's date as marking 6 months since he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. He held this up as a celebratory date for his administration's accomplishments. He signed that bill on March 23, 2010.

Not coincidentally, March 23, 2010 also marks the date of my retirement from the practice of medicine. Although at age 67 I was still healthy and active and enjoying my profession part-time, I felt obligated to express my dissatisfaction -- my thorough disapproval -- of a plan conceived not in the best interest of the American people, but a political sword thrust to derail the free market system at the expense of patients and providers from coast to coast, border to border, and to bring the American population further under direct control of an uncaring government.

My retirement was and is a symbolic protest. I completely agree that health care reform was warranted -- but a a plan much simpler, more market-oriented, and far less intrusive had been proposed by conservative thinkers and rejected out of hand, without consideration, by the Powers That Be in government and most of the media. The conservative alternative never saw the light of day, and the general public was told, in fact, that the Republicans were rowdy obstructionists who had no plan of their own. This was patently untrue.

I have watched in dismay as our government has enslaved us for generations to come, with no positive results and apparently no end in sight to the ensuing chaos and irresponsible behavior.

And thus my symbolic gesture, and a promise to spend more of my (now much-freer) time being actively involved in the pursuit of political change. Our country faces a transformation, as promised by Barack Obama, but I doubt that many who desired change are satisfied with the direction our Republic is heading. I hope that multitudes will agree with me.

Obama celebrates September 23, 2010, as the six-month mark in the official existence of "Obamacare." I mourn the same day as the six-month mark of my withdrawal from medical practice. My symbolic gesture represents a very small voice in this vast nation -- but I hope with all my heart that "We, the People" will all make our individual small voices heard, to build to a resounding roar that will save our country from the relentlessly downhill course that the administration and a "progressive" Congress have planned.

Kent D. Stockton M.D., Riverton, Wyoming

Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on Private Property Rights

2010-09-23T11:07:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

Thursday, September 23, 2010

-- Mead is hardly concerned with private property rights, citing lots of examples of how the Feds influence the state but no real plan for how to protect private property rights.

-- Haynes sites the constitution and plans ("I will") to use it to protect the rights of private citizens.

Haynes on Property Rights

"I will promote and sign legislation preventing the government from interfering with the lawful use of private property under the guise of protecting endangered species.

I will restore the fourth amendment rights to all Wyoming citizens by promoting and signing legislation to stop the use of Eminent Domain by private companies."

from Mead's web-page :

"In large part, we owe our beautiful vistas, open spaces, clean environment, and recreational opportunities to private landowners. Private property rights and our land and water must be protected. The federal government, through laws like the Endangered Species Act and the proposed amendment to the Clean Water Act, continues to try to encroach on these rights. It’s time for that to stop."

----- Haynes on Property Rights -----

----------
What would the Founders say about Private Property Rights?

-----
No matter what Mead says, it seems there are his own words that contradict what he says he believes.

For Example ...

Mead: "The federal government ... continues to try to encroach on these(private property) rights. It’s time for that to stop." But when it comes to actually having a stance on acting on those beliefs, he can't find solid footing.

-- Sheriff Richard Mack has a history of fighting for State and Individual Rights up against the Fed - and winning.

-- Mead has declared his disagreement by having a "different perspective" with the Sheriff, who has done nothing but enforce the US Constitution.

-- Side note : Sheriff Mack endorses Taylor Haynes and he, The Sheriff, also endorsed Ron Micheli, a strong conservative candidate that Mead must have felt he needed to separate himself from, making himself more attractive to a more liberal base of voters. No?

So is Mead standing by principle and doing what is right or is he standing for whatever is opposite of conservatism and truth because that is where the people who like him are? Is that not, by definition, a major criteria for a RINO?

So where does Mead really stand on Private Property rights? ... because he claims : "Whether it takes a lawsuit, joining with other state governors, use of the bully pulpit, or a combination of those things, as Governor, I will take up the fight for Wyoming’s rights as a state."

But again, he also claims he has a "different perspective" on issues of state sovereignty as compared to that of Sheriff Mack - an advocate of enforcing the constitution - i.e. by using the LAW.

Somehow Mead sees that as "promoting violent resistance"
So there is a different perspective ... of what? the constitution?

Perspectives :

As an acting Sheriff, Mack fought the Feds in the Supreme Court over the issue of State Sovereignty, and won. (videos w/Mack below)**

As an acting Federal Attorney, Mead fought on the side of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms against Wyoming's defense of the 2nd Amendment. Mead and the Fed's won.

----------------------------------

Mead can't find solid ground of "Fiscal Conservatism" either ... even though he says "as a conservative" ...

How much can we believe of what Mead lathers onto his web page?

On the issue of his conservative claim to fiscal responsibility ... In his Issues on Property page :

"As the federal government becomes more saddled with debt and more unwieldy from sheer size and bureaucracy, states like Wyoming that are both fiscally disciplined and fundamentally sound will show the way, assuming the mantle of leadership while others follow our good example."

But when asked about those same issues and how they have been applied here in Wyoming : growth of government, bureaucracy, fiscal discipline, and leadership, Mead responded :

"I think the governor has responded accordingly to that and in a proper way. And so ... I do not think the growth of government in the last 6-7 years has been excessive" audio clip
----------------------------------
Sheriff Mack interviewed in 2009 ...

----- Part 2

----------------------------------

----- from an e-mail written by Mead in response to "Are you familiar with Sheriff Mack and his travels teaching the sheriffs in our country (about) their constitutional rights in standing up and supporting the constitution of the US when the feds are moving in on a citizen?"...

... I heard Richard Mack speak in Sublette County in February. My perspective is different from his. As a county and federal prosecutor for a number of years and as U.S. Attorney for Wyoming from 2001 to 2007, I enforced criminal laws, including laws prohibiting illegal drugs. I have seen from my work as a prosecutor how drug use, abuse, and trafficking takes a huge societal toll, ruins lives and families, brings about violence and death. Regarding federal overreach, I would seek a court injunction or judicial determination, not promote violent resistance, because our country’s judicial system is set up to resolve disputes when state and federal interests collide.

Let me say further that both the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution start with the words “we the people” so first and foremost our government is to serve us. I am a strong supporter of state’s rights and individual’s rights. If elected governor, I will aggressively defend these rights against federal policies that are harmful to Wyoming. My defense of these rights will include a robust litigation agenda. Whether it takes an independent lawsuit, joining with other states, use of the office’s bully pulpit, or a combination of measures, as governor, I will proactively fight for Wyoming’s rights as a state and for the constitutional rights of the citizens of our state...

-----
More Reading ...

Earl Taylor is the "James Kirk" of the National Center for Constitutional Studies

Fundamental Differences: Haynes and Mead on Taxation

2010-09-22T21:26:00.003-06:00

Click Here for Article

The real issue is how to balance a bloated/bloating state budget.

-- Mead has openly suggested raising taxes in a variety of areas.

-- Haynes is suggesting eliminating them, like private property taxes.

"We can do it, lawfully," says Haynes. "Because the constitution says we can."

"on a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the state fuel tax, Republican candidates are split on the question... Rita Meyer and Matt Mead said they would consider a gas tax increase." -- Governor candidates divided over gas tax --- video:"increase in fuel tax"

"I am not interested in a Non-Profit director who makes $5M a year." -- said Mead in response to a question about taxing Non-Profit organizations.

The Wyoming state budget expenditures in ...

-- 2000 - $3.7B.

-- In 2003, when Gov. Dave took office - $4.7B.

-- In 2009 - $7.2B.

-- "$7.6B state spending plan for 2011-12".

Mead, when asked about his thoughts on the growth of Wyoming state budget said : "I think the governor has responded accordingly to that and in a proper way. And so ... I do not think the growth of government in the last 6-7 years has been excessive"-- audio clip

In high contrast to what Mead is offering Wyoming, Taylor Haynes has a completely different approach.
Haynes says that by simply following the constitution, having Wyoming "draw the line" that Wyoming will take back all that tax from natural resources and use it in the state of Wyoming. Part of that money would then eliminate the private property tax in Wyoming. It would not eliminate funding things like roads, schools, police department, it just would not come out of the peoples pockets.

That's a pay raise in any home owners check book.

Haynes says private property rights was the big reason why he endorsed current governor Dave Freudenthal. "Because at the time Dave was a supporter of private property rights," and that when he got into office, "what did he do about it? Nothing." He says, "And I was out of there. Fool me once, and that's it!" said Haynes.

So Gov. Dave got into office by selling himself as the most conservative candidate, and then did nothing. Hmmm ... "Matt Mead is the candidate who most reminds us of the state's current Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal." Early Praise from the Red Star ... of which Mead has NEVER said a THING about. He has never made a statement, never publicly declared that as inaccurate. He just went along with it, kept writing the check to pay for the heavy amount of advertising he did with the Tribune.

Haynes also talks about changes in the Eminent Domain law that would allow private property owners to have more negotiating power in cases where government or private companies want to buy their land. In brief, property owners would have a say in what kind of deal would be negotiated, 'private property owners can get their "piece of the action," says Haynes.

Haynes clarified further with that situation, giving an example, 'if the owner stands firm on an offer, and then government or that company says, 'well, that's just too much. We can't do that' ... "Hellooo!" says Haynes, "You can't do it then."

Consistently, Haynes speaks about enforcing the laws of the constitution.

Consistently, he speaks about empowering private citizens of Wyoming by putting them in charge.

Consistently, he offers a more conservative and principled approach to the issues because he sticks to the constitution.

All are encouraged to find out for yourself, bring questions, and bring the hard ones.

Find out where Haynes is going and bring a friend. Bring 'em all.

http://www.haynesforgovernor.com/

Facebook Haynes Events

A Write In Candidate is a viable vote. It is yours. Not the parties.

With Taylor Haynes, your voice is not limited.

It is mathematically impossible to split the vote and have Leslie Petersen win.
--------------

More Reading ...

-- Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on Life/Abortion

-- Fundamental Differences : Haynes & Mead on the 2nd Amendment

--------------
A serious question:

Governor candidates divided over gas tax :

"Mead said he is not in favor of a higher gas tax or tolling, but thinks a governor needs to look at all the options.

“Looking at our roads, delayed maintenance is simply not a good idea,” he said on his website. “We should look at all funding streams. I am unconvinced that a toll on I-80 would be the answer.

“As governor, I will pay special attention to the state’s infrastructure needs so we can keep our economy and our daily lives moving.”

A recent Casper Star-Tribune poll found that 59 percent of registered voters opposed increasing the state fuel tax to raise money to maintain I-80."

So Mead searches to find an answer without having to ruffle any feathers. What does that sound like? Someone wanting to get along? Someone being the immortal nice guy, because, 'you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, huh? would ya?'

Let us all remind ourselves that the elected office of governor is not American Idol, and it is not some snooty dinner party. If Wyoming wants a 'nice guy' to defend our UNalienable rights of which come from our CREATOR - in the face of the Obama Machine, who omits "Creator" and uses INalienable...

Then what else are we to expect but more of the same from Meadenthal?

Sheriff Mack Endorses Dr. Taylor Haynes

2010-09-18T08:21:00.005-06:00

Click Here for Article

Wyoming Watchdogs™ are thrilled to announce that 2010 Wyoming Gubernatorial Write-In Candidate Taylor Haynes has received Sheriff Richard Mack’s endorsement!

“I have taken a very serious look at the candidates for the Governor’s race in Wyoming, for those who are seeking a meaningful and Constitutional change that would have to be Dr. Taylor Haynes.”

~ Sheriff Richard Mack

Sheriff Mack is widely known and respected for his victory in Printz v. United States – a very famous case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Click here for Sheriff Mack interview discussing this case with FOX News, Judge Napolitano (Freedom Watch, August 2010)

Click here for more information on Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

Sheriff Mack is also well-known for his intimate involvement with Oath Keepers. If you are not familiar with this highly esteemed and honorable organization;

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone.

We will stand with you.

For more information:

Click here for the Oath Keepers website.
Click here to view their video, Orders We Will NOT Obey

Bill Gates: Death Panel Advocate

2010-09-13T21:07:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Video

September 12, 2010

Do you want your healthcare determined by the government? Your life span? Be sure to read the comments on this video.

Democracy and Power 103: Government Money

2010-09-13T07:36:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article
by Dave Abram
9/10/10

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. – Voltaire (1764)

The money taxed and spent by the politicians comes from the labor and ingenuity of millions of working persons. Politicians spend other peoples’ money.

The politician transfers money from productive people, to mostly favored special interest groups.

Lincoln's Last Earmark

The spending problem, in profile.

Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas has been attempting to change an agriculture insurance law to allow corporate agribusinesses to retroactively extract hundreds of thousands of dollars from the US Treasury. The total cost is $1.5 billion.

Senator Lincoln is the most endangered Democratic Senator in the upcoming November elections. Ardently, she has attempted to attach her “earmark” to a series of bills. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Mrs. Lincoln's claim is preposterous enough that she can't persuade even her fellow Democrats to pony up the cash. First she suggested tapping TARP for the money. When that didn't fly, she tried unsuccessfully to add an earmark to a war funding bill, and then to the small business bill that Congress will take up after Labor Day. Her colleagues keep saying "no."

Ah, but the President must help a collaborator in need. The WSJ continues:

Enter the White House. In an August 6 letter, deputy budget director Robert L. Nabors II pledged that "the Administration is committed to providing [the disaster] assistance consistent with your legislative proposal by the end of the month." The White House says it can do so under a Depression-era law allowing tariff funds to be used for farm emergency payments.

Will the amounts received by the agribusinesses be published? Apparently, not.

Coincidentally—or not—the USDA has chosen this moment to stop publishing the names of farm subsidy recipients and how much they receive. As EWG (Environmental Working Group) puts it: "This policy effectively shields from disclosure subsidy benefits going to multiple, and often absentee, owners of large, agribusiness farming operations." The USDA says shutting down the data base will save money. Welcome to the new era of transparency in government.

According to the WSJ the insurance program has merit, and this raid will destroy the program.

If Mrs. Lincoln gets her $1.5 billion, the White House will have eviscerated the one laudable farm subsidy reform in years. Congress will revert to raiding the Treasury every year to enrich its wealthiest constituents. All of this in a last ditch, and probably futile, effort to help Mrs. Lincoln retain her Senate seat.

Tragically, this is politics as usual in DC.

Democracy and Power 103: The politician transfers money from productive people, to mostly favored special interest groups.

Or as Walter Williams states:

Conservatives and liberals are kindred spirits as far as government spending is concerned. First, let's make sure we understand what government spending is. Since government has no resources of its own, and since there's no Tooth Fairy handing Congress the funds for the programs it enacts, we are forced to recognize that government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person's property to give it to another to whom it does not belong – in effect, legalized theft.

The Perspective on Gaza You Won't See on CNN

2010-09-13T07:16:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

September 13, 2010
Posted by Trevor Loudon

This is the best video about Gaza that you’ve never seen. It was released on July 25 but has had relatively little exposure, so I'd encourage you all to pass on this important video.

The producer of the video, Ronen, says about it:

"It's a non-sugar coated, eye opening look at the REAL conflict in Gaza. One that is concealed from the Western world on how the Gaza siege truly begins from within Gaza itself via Hamas, before ever factoring Israel's blockade for security reasons. Hamas has all of Gazan's hostage and silences their opposition at gunpoint. Gaza is one massive human shield and the only road to a free Gaza, is a Gaza not under siege by a Terrorist mafia posing as a government authority."

This is part 1. Part 2 should be released any day now.

2007 - Do You Remember Muslims Burning Bibles and Destroying Crosses?

2010-09-10T14:52:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

Published June 18, 2007
by Kimberly West

After defeating their rivals in Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, Muslim extremists are focusing their attacks on Christians in Gaza City. Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the
international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists.

Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.

Gunmen used the roof of the school during the fighting, and the convent was "desecrated," Mussalem told the AP.

"Nothing happens by mistake these days," he said.

Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

Catholic Online reports that the heads of Christian churches in the Holy Land have urged both sides to put aside their weapons, noting that the infighting diverted international attention from the national goal of Palestinian independence.

"This domestic fighting where brother draws his weapon against brother is detrimental to all the aspirations of achieving security and stability for the Palestinian people," they said. "In the name of the one and only God as well as in the name of each devastated Palestinian, many of whom are still dying, we urge our brothers in the Fatah and Hamas movements to listen to the voice of reason, truth and wisdom."

One young woman told the Catholic News Service that she was concerned the Islamic extremists would "enforce a strict dress code, forcing women to wear veils and robes." One Christian teenager spoke to the Catholic News Service on the condition that her name not be used. She said the days of fighting had been "very difficult" but they were "OK now."

"We all hope it will be better, but it will never ever be good with Hamas," she said.

Approximately 2,500 Christians live in Gaza.

Sept 11th-Join Us at Ground Zero for Rally of Remembrance - YES to Freedom, NO to Ground Zero Mosque

2010-09-10T06:59:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article and MOVING Powerpoint Presentation

Rally of Remembrance: No to Ground Zero Mosque September 11, 3pm

Park Place and West Broadway, Ground Zero

Dedicated to the men, women and children

who lost their lives; those brave people who gave their lives

And the Heroes who responded to the emergency

11 September 2001

7 Mg Powerpoint Presentation Here - Click on Link Above for the Powerful, Moving Presentation in honor of those who Died on 9/11/01 - Absolutely Beautiful Tribute to those who Died on 9/11/01

and Their Families

This is what we are responding to

Please join us on

September 11th at the FDI/SIOA Rally of Remembrance 3pm West Broadway and Park Place
Yes to Freedom, No to the Ground Zero Mosque
PLEASE BRING FLAGS

The human rights organization Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) will be hosting a pro-freedom Rally of Remembrance against the Ground Zero mega-mosque on September 11 at 3pm at Park Place and West Broadway.

The confirmed list of speakers includes 9/11 family members, former U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton (video message); the Dutch Parliamentarian and freedom fighter Geert Wilders; journalist Andrew Breitbart (video message); war hero and North Carolina Congressional candidate Ilario Pantano; nationally syndicated conservative radio host Mike Gallagher; Nelly Braginskaya, 911 family member -- mother to Alex; Muslim Iranian activist Sam Khoshbaten; Coptic Christian activist Joseph Nassralla; Lisa Vincent, widow of author and journalist Steven Vincent, who was killed in Iraq; Sudanese ex-slave and human rights activist Simon Deng; Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which has filed suit to stop the Ground Zero mega-mosque; Dan Weber, founder of the Association of Mature American Citizens; James Lafferty, VAST; Professor Richard Connerney of Pace University (Pace lost 4 students and 43 alumni); New York Congressional candidate York Kleinhandler; Darla Dawald, National Director of ResistNet.com; and Satya Dosapati of Hindu Human Rights Watch.

The rally will begin with a brief memorial service for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, featuring prayers offered by a rabbi, a minister and a priest for the families of the victims and for the nation.

The acclaimed vocalist Sarah Lee Michaels will sing the National Anthem.

Hosting the rally are Pamela Geller, the popular blogger and columnist who publishes the acclaimed AtlasShrugs.com blog and executive director of FDI and SIOA; and SIOA associate director Robert Spencer, the bestselling author and director of JihadWatch.org. Geller is the author (with Spencer) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton), published by Simon & Schuster.

Responding to requests from a faction of 9/11 family members who asked her not to hold the rally on September 11, Geller said: "I would have canceled the rally, but due to the large number of family members who have contacted me and asked us to help them speak out for their loved ones and give them a voice to express their opinions, in all conscience I cannot postpone the rally."

Building the Ground Zero mosque is not an issue of religious freedom, but of resisting an effort to insult the victims of 9/11 and to establish a beachhead for political Islam and Islamic supremacism in New York. Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an open proponent of Sharia, Islamic law, a system that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Given the thousands of triumphal mosques that have been built on the cherished sites of conquered peoples throughout Islamic history, the mosque leaders' claim that this mosque would be understood differently by Muslims worldwide lack foundation.

Free citizens are coming from all over the U.S. to attend the rally.

Join the largest Caravan in America coming cross-country to the 9/11 Rally.

Pamela reports cars, trucks and vans will be festooned with yellow ribbons, flags, flags and more flags as they drive across America to the 9/11 Day of Remembrance.

The Caravan Facebook page is here.

Keep an eye out for this car and all the others from the caravan as they head in to Lower Manhattan and join together at Ground Zero.

FDI/SIOA is one of America's foremost organizations defending human rights, religious liberty, and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the United States.
Join SIOA's Facebook page here.

Sign Liberty Counsel's "Vote of No Confidence" Statement concerning President Barack Obama's failed administration

2010-08-30T20:59:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article and Petition to Sign

"This is what change looks like."
Barack Obama, after signing health care "reform" into law

There is widespread and growing distrust among Americans of all backgrounds and political affiliations toward Barack Obama and his ideological basis for "change." Liberty Counsel's "Vote of No Confidence" Statement is a practical way for concerned Americans to express their increasing disillusionment with the failed leadership of the Obama presidency. This Statement is a powerful call to stop his agenda of progressive socialism and its destruction of the very foundations undergirding the United States of America.

By signing Liberty Counsel's "Vote of No Confidence" Statement, you will be joining hundreds of thousands of other concerned Americans in resisting President Obama, his administration, and the rubber-stamp 111th Congress, all of whom are pushing aside the clearly expressed will of the people and forcing our country down the road of government expansion and socialism.

Although our "Vote of No Confidence" does not have the power of an official recall or directly relate to beginning Impeachment proceedings under the law, it is a very clear statement of citizen outrage and can lay the groundwork for more binding citizen actions in the future.

When you sign our "Vote of No Confidence" Statement, we will share your views - along with many, many thousands of your fellow concerned Americans - with the administration, the media, other elected officials, and whoever else needs to understand its clear, resolute message.

The "Vote of No Confidence" Statement declares:

As a concerned citizen, I am freely and strongly expressing my "Vote of No Confidence" in: President Barack Obama and his executive administration; his blatant disregard of his oath of office; his issuing of unconstitutional mandates; his rampant, systematic expansion of government; his overt disregard for the clear will of the American people; and his subversion of our Constitution, which he is sworn to uphold.

By signing this statement, I am joining with Liberty Counsel and citizens across the nation who are acknowledging the failure of Barack Obama's presidency and calling for an immediate end to:
The advancement of "Big Brother" policies and the overt takeover of American industries, including misguided bailouts and stimulus packages that have done little or nothing to improve unemployment or our economy.

The bankrupting of America through uncontrolled government spending coupled with the creation of a crippling and insurmountable national debt.

The weakening of the United States through a foreign policy that emboldens America's enemies, kow-tows to other nations' leadership, and intentionally undermines America's image as an exceptional nation.
The liberalizing our courts of law through radical nominees and appointments while promoting international law (including Islamic Sharia law) at the expense of our own legal code.

The nurture of a political environment exhibiting corruption, kickbacks, and pervasive "buying" of congressional votes with special favors and earmarks.

The consistent catering to special interest groups that are advancing the homosexual agenda, funding abortion with our tax dollars, curtailing citizens' free expression of deeply held beliefs, and generally undermining the rights and privileges of American citizenship.

Mr. President,

Your imperial style of leadership, your pervasive socialist agenda, your unconstitutional public policies, and your subversion of our rights are grossly out of touch with the desires and best interests of the vast majority of Americans. I hereby declare my "Vote of No Confidence" in your leadership and call for "change that WE can believe in" !

Click here to sign the petition.

Three Things About Radical Islam

2010-08-21T22:48:00.003-06:00

Click Here for Article

The video clip that is highlighted in this discussion thread is great; I just wish I would have seen it sooner! It was posted a few weeks ago, but I saw it for the first time yesterday.

Having read some EXCELLENT books explaining the complex history and issues surrounding Islam, namely, The Middle East War Process: The Truth Behind America's Middle East..., The Middle East Explained: Answering the Critical Questions On Amer..., and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)., I can assure you that these three books are so incredibly informative & educational, they really should be read by every American. The PIG (Politically Incorrect Guide) is a must-read, and the other two are also must-reads. The PIG focuses more on the violent history of Islam, and doesn't pull any punches; those who are willing to lie for Islam (employing the principle of Taqiyya) will hate and rage against the PIG. The other two are a bit less abrasive in tone, and contain a bit more history, but teach much of the same things, presented in a more historical/anecdotal fashion.

But back to the video clip: it's right on; it presents a tiny bit of the information contained in the above-listed books. Every American should watch this video, and hopefully be motivated to read at least two of the three books listed above. Sadly, the truths contained therein are not in ANY American textbook of which I'm aware.

But such things MUST be taught if we are to avoid being FORCED to submit to radical Islam here in America. The video clip below teaches SOME of the key nuggets of truth about Islam contains, presented in a way which captures the attention of even the most ADHD-riddled individual. Enjoy!

Here's another video clip that really helps expose the threat of Radical Islam, using the sort of video clips from Middle Eastern media outlets we routinely see on Glenn Beck exposing their counterparts within the Obama Regime, called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West:

And here's another video clip, this one from a movie called The Cult of the Suicide Bomber from the author of the book See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on...:

Omerica - My heroes --- Reporters vs. Conservative Black Leaders at Press Conference 8-4-2010

2010-08-21T19:57:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Video

Two reporters engage in a heated exchange with black conservative leaders at a press conference at the National Press Club on August 4, 2010 challenging the NAACP on its charges of racism within the tea party.

Now That’s a President

2010-08-21T07:07:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

August 19, 2010

In a letter to Dr. Walter Jones in 1814, Thomas Jefferson, America’s third President (1801-1809), wrote this about the first President of the newly independent United States of America:

“[H]is was the singular destiny and merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quite and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example.”

George Washington was the commander of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783. He never used his command for his own advantage. Washington even rebuked his men when they suggested that he become king or that the army assert its control over the civilian authorities. As Commander in Chief, Washington demonstrated his respect for the rule of law by his consistent deference to the elected Continental Congress. When he ended his service at the end of the war, he resigned his commission in 1783 and retired to private life at his plantation in Mount Vernon, thereby proving King George III wrong. George III had asked what Washington would do after the war and was told of rumors that he would return to his farm, prompting the King to state, “if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Washington presided over the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787. Washington was elected the first president, unanimously by the Electoral College, something that has never been repeated in American history.

Washington belonged to no political party and served as America’s first President from April 30, 1789 to March 4, 1797. After two terms Washington thought it was important that he step aside. He believed that a peaceful transition of power to a newly elected president was necessary before his death. He feared that if he died in office and the vice-president ascended to the presidency, it would appear too much like an heir ascending to the throne after the death of a king.

Washington’s farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars. When Washington stepped aside at the end of his second term, George III said that Washington’s retirement from the presidency along with his earlier resignation of Commander in Chief, “placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living,” and that his relinquishing power made him “the greatest character of the age.”

Washington died in 1799. Henry Lee, delivering the funeral oration, declared Washington “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen”. Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the greatest United States presidents.

[Sources HERE and HERE]

Tears streamed down my face as I wrote this post. We the People are political orphans. Where have all the good presidents gone?

~Eowyn

Security Implications? Red Rosa DeLauro's Communist Party Connection

2010-08-21T06:49:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

August 19, 2010

U.S. Rep Rosa DeLauro is a powerful and influential woman...

DeLauro has been the co-chair of the House Democratic Steering Committee since 2003, where she makes committee assignments. This position gives Rep. DeLauro the power to determine the make up of powerful House Committees, to stack them with those Congressmen she deems most appropriate.

She is also a member of the far left Congressional Progressive Caucus , which may help to explain why that organization is so well represented on several powerful House Committees.

The representative from Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District is the second-highest ranking woman in the U.S. House, after her close friend and colleague, Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi.

Rosa DeLauro's Congressional District is centered on the City of New Haven, which happens to be a stronghold of the Communist Party USA. For many years the Connecticut Communist Party has been very influential in the local labor movement, "peace" movement, city government and the Democratic Party.

The Communist Party's activity, is centered on the New Haven Peoples Center, (established 1937), which houses Party front groups, and hosts Party functions.

Communist Party member Al Marder is president of the Peoples Center, while his comrade Joelle Fishman serves as a board member.

On August 11, the Party allied local chapter of the Alliance for Retired Americans (Joelle Fishman is a board member) hosted a function to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of Social Security.
Guest of honor was local Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.

Listening to the first few minutes this speech, makes its very clear that DeLauro is familiar with many of those in attendance.

Photograher at the event , which was well covered in the Peoples World, was long time Party supporter Henry Lowendorf.

Celestino Cordova, at least a Communist Party supporter, presented DeLauro with postcards, calling on Congress to reject any proposals to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.

Cordova serves on the City of New Haven Peace Commission with Party members Al Marder and Joelle Fishman and indicates his support for the Party paper Peoples World on his Facebook page.

In June this year, DeLauro presented Celestino Cordova with medals for his Korean War service at a ceremony at the Fair Haven Elderly Apartments community room.

Rosa DeLauro may have a thing about hugging communists.

Below is a picture taken at the August 11 Peoples Center celebration , of DeLauro embracing confirmed communist Joelle Fishman.

Unfortunately Joelle Fishman is not just any communist. Fishman chairs the Connecticut Communist Party and is a member of the Communist Party USA National Board.

Most importantly however she is Chair of the Party's Political Action Commission. This is an highly important and influential post.

Fishman has the responsibility for organizing Party support for "progressive" Democratic Party candidates at the state, congressional, senate and presidential levels.

This means that Fishman is very important to the Democratic Party, as she has the power to influence where communist led unions, "community groups", churches and "peace" groups throw their money and manpower.
The fact that Fishman clearly has a personal relationship with a key leader of the Democratic Party should be raising eyebrows and ringing alarm bells.

Like virtually all Communist Party USA members, Joelle Fishman actively campaigned for Party "friend" Barack Obama in 2008.

Joelle Fishman wrote in the Connecticut Communist Party's CT People Before Profits Blog November 2 2008:

It was enjoyable to knock on doors and find voters who were enthusiastic and inspired by Obama’s historic candidacy, like the teacher who said her whole family was spreading the word. There were several families of divided opinion and others who declined to say. The most challenging conversations were with voters who did not want to support Obama because they were caught up in the lies and rumors undermining his integrity and patriotism. Those who were ready to discuss appreciated the comparison of McCain’s anti-worker record with Obama’s near perfect score.

It was exciting to be part of the quarter million union volunteers across the country, the biggest election mobilization in labor’s history, which has influenced the political climate in working class swing states and districts, laying the basis for a much larger labor movement.

The example set by labor’s top leaders talking directly with white sisters and brothers about how Obama represents their best chance for a secure future will have a lasting impact...

This year the chance to uproot ultra-right corporate political dominance is much greater. Voters want to be part of history. They see that the policies of the Bush administration, which McCain-Palin would continue, are bankrupting the country and endangering the world.

Labor’s giant effort along with massive organizing by African American, Latino, women’s and youth groups has turned historically Republican states’ House and Senate seats into battlegrounds, including the Senate seat in New Hampshire.

A landslide victory for Obama and Congress will open the door for big new struggles to organize workers into unions and place the needs of working families front and center in this economic crisis.

Incidentally Joelle Fishman is also the daughter-in-law of the late Victor Perlo, an economist and Party member who spied for the Soviet Union inside the U.S. Government in the 1930s and '40s.

Below is a video of Joelle Fishman speaking at the New Haven Peoples Center at the Communist Party's 2009 Amistad award dinner. Listen to Fishman praise Barack Obama and the communist effort to elect him.

At the end, Fishman hands out awards to Party members Brian Steinberg and Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Connecticut Communist Party.

Rosa DeLauro is no stranger to communist causes.

In the 1980s she was executive director for Countdown ‘87 a national campaign to stop U.S. military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras - who were then fighting the Marxist-Leninist led Sandinistas.

A decade later, Congresswoman DeLauro was a co-sponsor of H.R. 950, the Job Creation and Infrastructure Restoration Act of 1997 . This Bill was promoted by the Los Angeles Labor Coalition for Public Works Jobs and the New York Coalition for Public Works Jobs - both of which were led by Communist Party USA members or supporters.

In recent times DeLauro has co-sponsored, H. Res. (House Resolution) 68, calling for the U.S. to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This Resolution is supported by several Communist Party USA influenced organizations, including the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which is led by Party linked activists Al Marder and Henry Lowendorf.

The Greater New Haven Peace Council is affiliated to the Communist Party initiated U.S. Peace Council which is in turn affiliated to the communist dominated and former Soviet front World Peace Council.

New Haven's Al Marder is a vice president of the World Peace Council.

Rosa DeLauro clearly has ties to the Communist Party USA, including to Joelle Fishman, the Party official specifically charged with organizing support for "approved" Democratic Party candidates.

We should also not forget that the Communist Party USA maintains close ties to several U.S. adversaries including the governments of China, Cuba, Venezuela and with the still powerful Russian Communist Party - many of which have records of spying on the United States, or attempting to influence internal U.S. policy

DeLauro has the ear of the Speaker of the House and has the power to influence the make up of Congressional Committees.

Should her ties to Joelle Fishman and the Communist Party Party USA, be a cause for concern?

Are there security implications here?

NY Times Scrubs Imam Rauf's Controversial Islamic Supremacist Ground Zero Mosque Remark, "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic"

2010-08-18T07:42:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

Back on December 8, 2009, the New York Times ran a puff piece on the proposed Ground Zero mosque at the site of a building hit in the World Trade Center attacks. In that piece the following quote ran:

Despite the potential backlash against an Islamic institution opening so close to ground zero, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who already leads prayers and reads from the Koran inside the building, said that the location was one of the project's key selling points. "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic," said the 61-year-old cleric, who is known for being a longtime critic of radical Islam. Being in a building "where a piece of the wreckage fell," he added, "sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11 ... We want to push back against the extremists."

I ran the piece back in December, as did a number of other on line journals like this.

Now that quote is gone. Poof.

The NY Times has since scrubbed this telling remark, "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic," and the paragraph now reads:

The building has no sign that hints at its use as a Muslim prayer space, but these modest beginnings point to a far grander vision: an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

“We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal, 61.

They removed the quote. Why?

CNN on Ground Zero Mosque: It's All Geller's Fault!

2010-08-18T07:32:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

The Crescent News Network, CNN, is framing the narrative in a most disingenuous way. But I am being too kind. John Roberts filled in for Anderson Cooper tonight and did a puff piece on the mosque, while placing the blame for grief stricken and humiliated Americans at the door of moi. It is so condescending and contemptuous of decent American .... as if they don't think for themselves or know their own minds. On second thought, I just described the CNN viewer.

Echoing Salon, who got their talking point from Daisy Con herself, the left lemmings are off like a pack of wild dogs.

Sick. I am surprised they even had me on ........the opening to this segment is crazy. It takes mental contortionism to come up with such a twisted narrative for what is essentially an absence of common decency and compassion.

The lack of respect and understanding by the Imam, Daisy and the media is radically intolerant.

UPDATE: Unhinged. Check it out.

Obama's US Treasury Department Pushing Zakat (Islamic Donations)

2010-08-13T19:01:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

We know that terror is funded through the use of "islamic charities." The most glaring example was the Holy Land terror funding trial, the largest in US history. CAIR, ISNA, MAS, and the MSA were all named fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood and co-conspirators.

I find this statement from the US Treasury department absurd and dangerous. Where in our Constitution does it speak to this?

Obama is aggressively pushing zakat. No one has ever stopped Muslims from giving to Islamic charities. It was "charities" that funded blowing up babies that were the problem.

Obviously the separation of church and state is radically enforced by the likes of the ACLU et al. But what about the separation of mosque and state?

"Muslim outreach" is costing US taxpayer billions. This is all part of the Obama US Muslim Engagement charter, a large-scale effort by the US government to open areas of cooperation (dhimmitude) with the Islamic world in the political, cultural and economic spheres. Read this document US MUSLIM ENGAGEMENT - Changing the Course". I

Who will make sure that zakat doesn't go for jihad, as it has in the past -- the Holy Land Foundation's millions for Hamas?

Obama's State Department and Hillary Clinton welcomed Tariq Ramadan to the US. Ramadan was banned under Bush - one reason being Ramadan's contributions to a "charity" that was funneling money to Hamas.

Treasury Department Statement Marking the Beginning of Ramadan (hat tip Irene)

WASHINGTON – As Muslims in the United States and around the world begin their observance of Ramadan, the U.S. Department of the Treasury recognizes the importance of this period of intense devotion, reflection and charitable giving. Charitable giving and philanthropy are core American values, reflected in many faiths and traditions, and are of particular significance within the Muslim faith during the holy month of Ramadan.

The Treasury Department fully supports the ability of American Muslims – and Muslims worldwide – to fulfill their religious obligations through charitable giving and seeks to advance charitable giving at home and abroad, while protecting the charitable sector from the threat posed by those who seek to abuse this sacred obligation. In recent years, Treasury has strengthened its partnership with the charitable sector and donor community to promote transparency and to safeguard against such abuse.

The Treasury Department will continue to work closely with the charitable sector and Muslim American communities to promote our common goals of safe and effective charitable activity and to protect the sector from exploitation by terrorist organizations. We look forward to the continued development of this partnership.

For information about steps that donors and charities can take to guard against terrorist abuse, visit link.

ICE's Mission Melt 3: Endangering America

2010-08-13T07:08:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

By Janice Kephart
August 12, 2010

On June 30, 2010, five days after Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Director John Morton received the unanimous "No Confidence" letter from the union representing ICE detention and removal officers and immigration enforcement agents, Morton issued a memorandum to “all ICE Employees” entitled "Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens." Upon a careful review of both documents – the first from the employees outlining their grievances against Morton for basically rendering them incapable of upholding federal immigration law and the second guidance from the director they are complaining about – what is clear is that ICE employees' complaints were both ignored and proven justified by Morton's directive.

Morton's directive justifies the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce immigration law by stating that ICE "only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States." (This is ironic considering that senior ICE leadership refuses to ask for more resources, as I discussed in my second blog in this series.) The directive goes on to ask law enforcement officers to exercise a form of prosecutorial discretion, delineating out all minor crimes where no one has been hurt – yet – and not holding these illegal aliens or even pursuing them in any way. Robbers, burglars, identity thieves and con men, drunk drivers and those driving without a license, are all likely free and clear under the Morton rubric. In fact, unless there is national security information of sufficient concern or a violent criminal conviction, all other illegal aliens, even criminal ones, are not to be held or even brought before a judge for a bond hearing.

Okay, so the priority is violent criminal aliens. Got it. That is perhaps a justifiable priority assuming (1) immigration enforcement officers should be making decisions that should be made by prosecutors, and (2) ICE agents and officers, all 7,000-plus of them, should do nothing but chase after the most violent of criminals – who are likely in U.S. jails or detention centers already – leaving ICE officers and agents bound to do close to nothing.

Yet even if Morton is right to prioritize his admittedly limited resources, the success of his priority to only target the "worst of the worst" within the illegal alien population falls squarely into a policy dung heap if you believe his employees, who say that state and local prosecutors across the nation are generally so overwhelmed that criminal aliens are not being prosecuted, but let go. No convictions, perhaps, even for some pretty bad criminal aliens? If there is no conviction, there is no ICE action. This means the whole house of ICE cards depends – ironically – on the state and locals convicting the criminal aliens in their jurisdictions. (Although states are even rethinking this after the head butt Arizona is perceived to have received recently in the SB 1070 partial injunction ruling.) Here is what the ICE labor union said in their No Confidence letter:

Criminal aliens incarcerated in local jails seek out ICE officers and volunteer for deportation to avoid prosecution, conviction and serving prison sentences. Criminal aliens openly brag to ICE officers that they are taking advantage of the broken immigration system and will be back in the United States within days to commit crimes, while United States citizens arrested for the same offenses serve prison sentences. State and local law enforcement, prosecutors and jails are equally overwhelmed by the criminal alien problem and lack of resources to prosecute and house these prisoners, resulting in the release of criminal aliens back into local communities before making contact with ICE. Thousands of other criminal aliens are released to ICE without being tried for their criminal charges. ICE senior leadership is aware that the system is broken, yet refuses to alert Congress to the severity of the situation and request additional resources to provide better enforcement and support of local agencies.

Moreover, according to the No Confidence letter, Immigration Enforcement officers were already "prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting." Clearly, Morton's directive was already the policy in operation; the June 30 directive just sealed its fate. Even worse, the employee letter goes onto say: "This has effectively created 'amnesty through policy' for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation."

So ICE officers have to sit on their hands, and simply turn a blind eye, or worse, get laughed at, by an illegal criminal population. Perhaps it begs the question to ask, what immigration enforcement mission is left? Endangering America?

STIMULUS -- REAL OR FAKE: Can you tell which of these government spending projects are real? (Brilliant Video With The Beautiful Rebel Economist) »

2010-08-13T06:51:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

Joke-telling robots, expensive walking turtle tunnels, Blackberries for smokers, and training American prostitutes to drink responsibly. What do these things have in common? They're all questionable government spending projects in a time when our economy is struggling and people can't get jobs....or, maybe we just made them up.

Put yourself to the test. See if you can outwit the Rebel Economist before she stumps you. So what is it: REAL or FAKE?

Want to learn more about the projects featured in the video, the waste in your state and hundreds more examples? (Even better: want to do something about it?) Try our Spending #FAIL Map, which allows you to choose the spending projects of your (dis)liking, share the facts with others on Facebook, and call and tweet your member of Congress:

Vaughn & State Plus 8

2010-08-12T22:45:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

It may be only a matter of hours before a higher court intervenes, but after hearing arguments, Judge Vaughn Walker has ordered the state to issue same-sex "marriage" licenses as early as next week. The decision to shove Proposition 8 aside so quickly only heaps more outrage on a judge who should have never been allowed to consider the case in the first place. By lifting the "stay" on marriage licenses, he's attempting to plunge the state- and, by extension, the country--into deeper legal chaos just to satisfy his own radical agenda. Even supporters of counterfeit marriage like John Yoo argue that Walker is traumatizing the country by elevating himself above "the collective wisdom" of millions. Once again, this judge has disregarded the will of the people by interpreting the U.S. Constitution in a way that imposes his own personal beliefs on the state.

Fortunately, the attorneys expected this after his wild ruling and have already filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking for them to intervene. If the judges stick by Walker's order, our side will immediately file a motion with Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, who is the Circuit Justice over the Ninth Circuit. The odds are good that Kennedy will grant the stay or that the full Court would grant the stay. Either way, Judge Walker's dream of forcing same-sex "marriage" on the state by August 18 is a distant one. Few courts--including the liberal Ninth Circuit--should see Walker's decision as anything but irresponsible.

Ed Whalen, the judicial guru behind NRO's "Bench Memos" says the chances of thwarting today's order are strong. "If the [Ninth Circuit Court] refuses to impose a stay pending appeal, then it will be up to the Supreme Court to, once again, put an end to Walker 's lawlessness--this time, I would think, unanimously." Like so many legal experts, Whalen warned about Walker's impartiality before the original ruling was ever handed down. From the judge's push to televise the case to allowing same-sex activists to serve as "expert witnesses," his personal agenda has been clear from the very beginning. If Walker has a long-term male partner (as the LA Times confirmed eight weeks ago), "then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California," Whalen says. "If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has 'any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.'"

Even the ultra-liberal San Francisco Chronicle, which broke the story on Walker 's sexuality, agrees. In an op-ed published this week, law professor John Eastman argues that this judge compromised the "public's confidence in the judicial process." His "failure to disqualify himself or at least to disclose his potentially disqualifying relationship to the parties requires that the opinion in the case be vacated and a new trial conducted before a different judge... Judge Walker has unilaterally neutered the votes of more than seven million Californians. A contentious step under the best of circumstances, such a decision should only be rendered, if at all, by a judge whose impartiality is beyond reproach. Judge Walker's, unfortunately, is not."

Rancher claims Mexican cartels takeover Texas ranch -Police blotter confirms story is not a hoax

2010-08-12T22:11:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

August 10, 2010
San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner

After 16 days of denials by Laredo law enforcement and local officials regarding a Mexican drug cartel takeover of a Laredo area ranch, a Texas police blotter proves the alleged incident did in fact happen and that multiple agencies responded to the scene of a seized U.S. ranch.

Think about it for a moment.

One of the most brutal drug cartels operating in Mexico crossed the U.S. border and took a ranch from its lawful owner.

Intimidation has arrived along the southern border.

The police blotter tells the story of the events that unfolded on July 23rd;

“On Friday 7-23-10 Laredo Webb informed that their county SWAT Team is conducting an operation in the Mines Rd. area. According to LT. Garcia with LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) received a call from a ranch owner stating that the Zetas had taken over his ranch. As per the 17 (reporting person) he informed them that they stated La Compania (area name for Zetas) was taking the ranch and no one was permitted on the ranch without permission. SO (Sheriff Office) will have an unmarked green Ford Taurus with two officers stationed at Los Compadres and a white Chevy Tahoe with two officers stationed at Mineral Rd. The LSO (Laredo Sheriff Office) will maintain surveillance in the area and advise if action is taken. Susp (suspect) Veh (vehicle) are described as a gray or silver Audi, a BLK (black) Escalade or Navigator and a van truck with a logo of a car wash spot free on the side. Border Patrol also has their response team on scene. Also known info of BMW’s and Corvettes entering and leaving the area. Auth LT Lichtenberger if assistance is requested LPD (Laredo Police Department) will secure the outer perimeter. (07/24/10 07:42:10 NR1873)”

Cartels have crossed the sovereign borders of the United States causing multiple agencies to respond and the end result was a media blackout. It’s well documented that media blackouts in Mexico are happening because the cartels are threatening reporters and news outlets with bodily harm. The question is why American law enforcement agencies are giving reporters the “We can neither confirm nor deny the incident happened line?”

It was a law enforcement officer on the scene that also confirmed the incident in fact happened and officers on the ground said they “considered this an act of war.”

The cover-up surrounding this story has reverberated throughout other federal law enforcement agencies. A recently retired ICE veteran, John Sakelarides had plenty to say about the latest U.S. incursion.

“What do you call an invasion by foreign nationals who are armed and occupy territory belonging to a sovereign nation? An act of war. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Anyone who is denying this is what has occurred and that it constitutes an act of war is either an idiot or is somehow involved in this act of war.”

He continues to say, “If they (those covering-up the story) are elected representatives or government officials and they are aware that an act of war has been perpetrated against the United States, and refuse to admit it has occurred, much less do anything about it, is violating their oath of office.”

The approximate location of the U.S. ranch taken by the Zetas was 10 miles northwest of I-35 off Mines Road and Minerales Annex Road.

The Los Zetas drug cartel is an offshoot of the elite Mexican military trained in special ops, many of whom were trained by the U.S. military. The mercenary organization is said to include members of corrupt Mexican Federales, politicians as well as drug traffickers. The group was once part of the Gulf cartel, but has splintered and now directly competes with the Gulf cartel for premium drug smuggling routes in the Texas region.

The leader of Los Zetas cartel is Heriberto “El Lazca” Lazcano and the Zetas are considered the most violent paramilitary group in Mexico by the DEA. These drug cartels routinely kidnap tourists, infiltrate local municipalities and smuggle large quantities of narcotics into the U.S. marketplace.

A media firestorm ensued after this reporter posted a story on Saturday July 24, 2010. Now that the story is corroborated, it will be up to local media to track down what events took place after the Zetas seized a U.S ranch.

Lt. Col. Allen West’s battle cry: “Come and get it!”

2010-08-12T20:29:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

August 11, 2010

West gives a speech to staffers at the opening of a new campaign office that sounds more like a battle cry. It’s amazing. I mean really. I am so motivated after hearing this speech that I want to go down to Florida and work for him.

Wow.

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give

2010-08-12T20:16:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.
I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

What Makes Islam So Successful?

2010-08-11T08:10:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

IF YOU WANTED to deliberately design a collection of ideas with the purpose of making one that might eventually out-compete every other religion or political system on earth, you would be hard-pressed to do better than Islam.

Let's look at some of the individual ideas within the collection, keeping in mind that many of the ideas enhance each other. In other words, adding one idea to the others can make the whole collection more effective because some ideas work synergistically.

Here are some of the key components of the package of ideas (or bundle of beliefs) known as Islam:

1. A standardized version of the idea-collection is written down. This is something basic to several religions and isn't an Islamic invention, but it is an important factor in the success of Islam.

Something only transmitted orally can change over time, but something written will be identical a thousand years from now, and with modern printing presses, can be reproduced in the millions, giving it an enormous advantage in spreading identical copies of the idea-collection.

2. The Qur'an includes instructions for its own spread. It tells believers they must spread Islam. It is their holy duty to bring Mohammad's warnings and Islamic law to every corner of the world.

3. The idea-collection includes instructions for its own preservation, protection, and duplication. The Qur'an, the most important of the Islamic holy books, directly tells its followers that they can never change or modify or "modernize" any of the teachings within the idea-collection. It is perfect as it is. It is a capital sin to try to change it. This idea ensures the preservation of the whole collection.

These first three ideas are pretty standard for several successful religions. But now it gets interesting...

4. Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it. This may be one of the most ingenious ideas in the whole collection. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers — as a religious duty — to create a government that follows its own system of law.

Islam has a system of law, called Shari'a, and all Muslims are obligated to continually strive to make their government — wherever they are — follow it. Because of some of the other ideas added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the idea-collection has significant consequences.

Many people are under the impression that the goal of Islam is to convert everyone to Islam. This is not so. The prime directive of Islam is to bring all people on earth under the rule of Islamic law.

5. Permission to spread the religion by war. This is another successful innovation. Although some other religions have spread themselves using force, they had very little justification from their own religious doctrines to do so.

Not so with Islam. Expanding by conquest is very much accepted and encouraged by the idea-collection. Islamic teachings present it this way: The non-Muslims need to be saved from the sin of following laws other than Allah's. If they won't voluntarily change their laws to Shari'a, then it is a Muslim's duty to insist. The world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah.

Mohammad's own experience showed the example — an example, says the Qur'an, that every Muslim should follow. At first, Mohammad tried to spread Islam by peaceful means. After thirteen years he'd gained 150 converts.

But then he changed tactics and started using caravan raids, warfare, executions, ransoming captives, and assassination, and within ten years he converted tens of thousands. After he died, his followers used the same tactics and converted millions. And by now it is one and a half billion.

The use of warfare combines synergistically and powerfully with the instruction to create an Islamic state. So Islam spread quickly as their armies got bigger. They conquered and set up Islamic states, most of which have lasted to this day, and the laws within an Islamic state make Islam very difficult to dislodge. The laws also make it very advantageous to convert to Islam.

This is one of the most effective methods ever invented for getting an idea-collection followed by huge numbers of people. It's a method of control and indoctrination similar to those used successfully in communist and totalitarian states. But as you'll discover below, Islam makes unique use of the power of the law to enforce complete conversion to the religion.

Islam started under unique conditions. All other major religions were started within an already-existing state. Islam is an historical exception to this rule.

Any organized government will, of course, put a stop to violent uprisings of a rebellious political group — especially one that wants to wage war and apply its own system of law. Christianity arose within the Roman Empire, for example. If Christianity had been a militant or political uprising, Rome would probably have killed or imprisoned the followers. Probably many military or political religions did start up then, but we've never heard of them. They couldn't get off the ground.

But Islam arose in Arabia when there was no central ruling power. The whole area was comprised of individual tribes. Under those circumstances, conversion by war and the use of force was possible.

6. Lands must be conquered. Lands that Islam has lost must be reconquered (Spain and Israel, for example). The Islamic empire must continually expand. Contraction is bad; expansion is good. So if a land was once Islamic and now it is not, that's contraction, and must be remedied.

According to Islamic teachings, the earth is Allah's. If there are parts of the earth not following Islamic law, it is the duty of the faithful to gain control of that land and establish Shari'a. It is a sin to let it be.

7. The idea-collection provides new soldiers by allowing polygamy. According to Sharia law, a Muslim man can marry up to four wives, and he can have sex with as many slave girls as he wishes.

The Qur'an especially encourages men to marry widows. This is an important idea to add if you are going to be losing a lot of soldiers in war. You need some way of replenishing your army. Otherwise the idea-collection could die out from a lack of offspring.

8. It is a punishable offense to criticize Islam. You can see why this one is a good supporting idea for the collection. It helps suppress any ideas that would reduce the authority of Islamic ideas. This idea is in the Quran, and Mohammad set a fierce example of punishing people who criticized him or Islam.

9. You can't leave Islam once you're in. This is an interesting one. It is actually illegal in Islamic states to convert out of Islam. This is a critical part of Shari'a law. Someone who has rejected Islam who was once a Muslim is an "apostate." This is a crime and a sin, and the punishment for it is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter).

Obviously, you can see why this idea has been included in the collection, but this one has actually caused Islam a problem because those who are following Islam to the letter consider more "moderate" Muslims (those who want to ignore or alter the more violent passages of the Qur'an) to be apostates. Since the punishment for apostates is death, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting modernizing Muslims all over the world, and keeping many rebellious, modernizing Muslims from speaking up for fear of death.

Every time a group of Muslims decides that maybe Islam should be updated for the 21st century and maybe women should have some rights and maybe the government should be more democratic, the devout Muslims call them apostates and try to kill them.

In this and in many other ways, Islam protects its own fidelity (in other words, the original idea-collection cannot be altered).
c
Another idea in Shari'a law says it's against the law for anyone to try to convert a Muslim to another religion.

10. Islam must be your first allegiance. You are a Muslim first, before any allegiance you give to your family, your tribe, or your country.

This does two things: It causes a unity of people across borders which allows the group to grow bigger than any other entity. In other words, the "Nation of Islam" can grow bigger than any country, no matter how large (which gives the group a massive numerical advantage).

11. Dying while fighting for Islam is the ONLY way to guarantee a man's entrance into Paradise. This belief creates fearless, enthusiastic warriors, especially given the Qur'an's vivid descriptions of the sensuous delights of Paradise.

A Muslim man has a chance of getting to Paradise if he is a good Muslim, but it is not guaranteed. However, if he dies while fighting for Islam, he is guaranteed to get in, and that's the only thing he can do to guarantee it.

12. You must read the Qur'an in Arabic. This unites believers by language, and language has a very powerful unifying influence. For added incentive to learn Arabic, another basic Islamic principle says you can't go to Paradise unless you pray in Arabic.

So Muslims all over the world share a language. This makes it easier to coordinate far-reaching campaigns of protest, political pressure, and war.

13. You must pray five times a day. This is one of the five "pillars" — that is, one of the five central practices — of Islam. Within an Islamic state, this practice is enforced by law. Every Muslim must pray five times a day. The practice helps Islam dominate a Muslim's life, filling his daily rhythm with Islam.

It would be impossible to forget anything you deliberately do so often. Five times a day, every day, a Muslim must bow down and pray to Allah.

Research has shown that the more effort a person expends for a cause, the more he is likely to believe in it and value it. So this is a good way to eventually make believers out of people who became Muslims through coercion.

Islam completely takes over every aspect of Muslims' lives. Not only are they required to pray five times a day, they have to go through a washing ritual beforehand. Islam dictates the laws, and the laws cover many public and private behaviors. In an Islamic state, it is impossible to be a casual Muslim.

14. The prayers involve moving together in time. When Muslims pray, they all face the same direction, they bow down, get on their hands and knees, and put their face on the mat, all in unison, and then rise back up. Again and again.

When people move together in time, whether dancing or marching or praying, it creates a physical and emotional bond between them. That's why all military training involves close-order drill (marching in unison), even though it has been a long time since military groups have actually marched into combat. There is no longer a need for the skill, but military training retained the practice because it is so effective at creating a strong feeling of unity between soldiers.

The same is true of any physical movements people make in unison. So the method of prayer in Islam helps Muslims feel unified with each other.

15. A woman is in a thoroughly subordinate position. This idea really helps support other ideas in the collection. If women had too much influence, they'd try to curb the warring. Women in general don't like to send their husbands and sons off to war. But if women have no say in the matter, then the rest of the ideas can express themselves without interference. By subordinating women, the idea-collection prevents their effective vote against war, violence, and conquest.

The rules and laws within Islam that keep women subordinate are numerous. For example, she is not allowed to leave her house unless she is accompanied by a male relative. Under Islamic law, a woman is forbidden to be a head of state or a judge. She can only inherit half of what a man can inherit. In court, her testimony is only worth half of a man's. She is not allowed to choose where she will live or who she will marry. She is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim or divorce her husband. He, however, can divorce her with a wave of his hand. And according to Shari'a, he can (and should) beat her if she disobeys him.

All of these ideas keep her subordinate, which helps keep the war machine going unimpeded by domestic rebellion.

16. The only way a woman can guarantee her passage into Paradise is if her husband is happy with her when she dies. When I read about this one, I thought, "Mohammad, you are a crafty one."

This idea obviously helps with the subjugation of women. It gives her a strong incentive to subordinate her wishes to her husband's, because while she might have a chance to get into Paradise if she's a good Muslim, the only way she can guarantee she will go to Paradise (and avoid eternal suffering in hell) is to make sure her husband is happy with her when she dies.

17. Allah gives Himself permission to edit his own work. This is an interesting one. It says in the Qur'an that if a passage written later contradicts an earlier passage, then the later one is the better one. The Qur'an was written in sections (each section is one of Mohammad's revelations, known as a sura or chapter) over a period of 23 years. The circumstances of Mohammad's life and his religion changed quite a bit over those 23 years.

One of the ideas in the Qur'an is "this is the word of Allah." People had already memorized his earlier revelations, and it would seem a little strange for the all-knowing, infinitely wise Allah to change something He had already said. But with this idea that later revelations abrogated or overwrote earlier revelations when they contradicted, the newer ideas could be accepted. Allah could edit His work.
As I pointed out earlier, in his first 13 years of peacefully preaching, Mohammad only managed to win 150 followers. But as a military leader and violent conqueror, he was able to subjugate all of Arabia to Islamic law in less than 10 years. The peaceful ways were slow. Conversion by conquering and establishing Shari'a was faster and more efficient.

The bad news for non-Muslims is that the later, violent, intolerant verses abrogate the earlier peaceful, more tolerant passages.

18. The Qur'an uses the carrot and stick to reinforce behavior. Throughout the book are vivid descriptions of hell, where sinners and non-Muslims have to drink boiling, stinking water, are thrown face down into a raging fire, and have to be there for eternity, suffering endless torments in agony.

There are also vivid descriptions of Paradise. In Paradise, believers wear green silk robes and recline on plush couches. Trees shade them, fruit dangles nearby. Believers have tasty food and refreshing drinks served to them in silver goblets.

But to have a chance of reaching Paradise, they must be devout Muslims. To guarantee it, they must die in jihad (for men) or make sure their husbands are always happy with them (for women).

19. Islam provides a huge and inspiring goal. Leaders of countries, companies, and religions have all discovered that you can get the most motivation and enthusiasm from your followers if you provide them with an expansive vision — an enormous goal. In the Islamic idea-collection, the goal calls for a continuous effort to expand the domain of Islamic law until the entire world is subjugated to it.

Many religions have the goal of converting others to the faith, but Islam has a method available nobody else has: To expand by seizing and converting governments to Shari'a, or using the method of gaining one small, incremental concession or accomodation after another until Sharia law is being followed.

Once the whole world is following Islamic law, peace will reign. That's why even terrorists can say with complete sincerity, "Islam is a religion of peace."

The Qur'an says it's better if non-believers accept Islam and become Muslims without force. But if they refuse, then you must do what you can to at least get them to live by the laws of Allah.

So Muslims have been given quite a mission: To create a one-world government. An Islamic world. World peace. It is an enormous and inspiring and motivating goal, and creates a strong unity of purpose.

20. Non-Muslims must pay a large tax. Once a country is following Sharia law, non-Muslims are given the choice between becoming Muslim or becoming a dhimmi. Dhimmis are allowed to practice their non-Muslim religion if they pay the jizya (a tax). If they convert to Islam, they no longer have to pay the jizya. This obviously creates a practical incentive to convert.

This is ingenious. The tax takes money away from non-Muslims and their competing religions and gives that money to support Islam. The income from these taxes (usually a 25% income tax) helped fund the Islamic conquests during the first two major jihads. They conquered vast lands, most of them already filled with Christians and Jews, many of whom did not convert at first, and their jizya poured huge sums of money into the Islamic war machine.

Eventually, the numbers of Christians and Jews in those countries dwindled down as they converted or escaped (or in some cases, were massacred), until now, in most Islamic countries, Jews and Christians are very small minorities.

The tax-the-non-Muslims idea helps the Islamic idea-collection make more copies of itself by suppressing competing religions and financially supporting Islam.

Several ideas within Shari'a law extend this effect. For example, non-Muslims are not allowed to build any new houses of worship. They're not even allowed to repair already-existing churches or synagogues. This puts the houses of worship of any competing religion in a state of permanent decline.

Also, non-Islamic prayers cannot be spoken within earshot of a Muslim — again, preventing Muslims from being infected by a competing religion. No public displays of any symbols of another faith may be shown either.

All of this prevents the spread of any competing ideas, and makes competing religions die out over time. That's why today there are so many "Muslim countries." Almost every other country in the world is made up of different religions, but because of these principles, Islam tends to displace all other beliefs and cultures wherever it becomes established.

21. A Muslim is forbidden to make friends with a non-Muslim. A Muslim is allowed to pretend to be a friend, but in his heart he must never actually be a friend to a non-Muslim. This is one of the best protections Islam has against Muslims leaving the faith because conversions a new religion are usually made because a friend introduced it. Being forbidden to make friends with non-Muslims helps prevent that from happening. (See Quran quotes about this.)

22. The Qur'an counsels the use of deceit when dealing with non-Muslims. Mohammad instructed one of his followers to lie if he had to (in order to assassinate one of Mohammad's enemies). This set a precedent, and the principle was clear: If it helps Islam, it's okay to deceive non-Muslims.

This principle has served Islamic goals very well through history. And it serves those goals today. On the DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, you can watch real-life examples of Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press, and saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later.

Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war, and throughout history generals have used it. Islamic teachings consider Islam to be in a permanent state of war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari'a law (read more about that here). All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are "enemies." So deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable because deceiving an enemy in a state of war is totally acceptable. It is encouraged if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.

And so we have the strange phenomenon covered by Steven Emerson in Terrorists Among Us, where organizations in America were ostensibly raising money for orphans, but really giving the money to terrorists. They deceived good-hearted Western non-Muslims into giving money to organizations that were actively killing Western non-Muslims.

As it says in the Qur'an, "War is deceit." This idea gives Islam a tremendous advantage over idea-collections that encourage indiscriminate truthfulness.

23. Islam must always be defended. This idea is a primary linchpin that gives justification for war with almost anybody, as you'll see in the idea below. After the enemy is defeated, of course, Muslims must establish an Islamic state.

24. Islamic writings teach the use of pretext to initiate hostilities. The Qur'an devotes a lot of time complaining about people who did not support Mohammad when he first started his religion, with Allah often condemning them to torment in hell in the hereafter.

Mohammad was somewhat pushy and insistent with his religion, and when others felt intruded upon and protested, Mohammad took that to mean they were trying to stop Allah's holy prophet from bringing the revealed word of Allah to the world, so he was justified to fight them and destroy them as Allah's enemies. This is a demonstration of the principle of pretext.

Non-Muslims of the world need urgently to become aware of this principle. Of all the ideas in the Islamic collection, this is the most dangerous to the West because it removes1 our natural self-preserving defenses. The use of pretext tends to make the West defenseless against Islamic encroachments. And it tends to make the West confused about how to respond to violent Muslim reactions.

The use of pretext means you need only the barest excuse to begin hostilities. It means actually looking for an excuse, and even trying to provoke others into striking the first blow ("starting" the hostilities).

If the only way to get to Paradise is dying while fighting for Islam, you need hostilities. And if it is your holy duty to make all governments use Shari'a law, you need to conquer non-Islamic governments. But you don't really want to look like the aggressor. Appearances count. All throughout the Qur'an, Mohammad tries to justify his aggression as defending Islam.

The Qur'an repeats over seventy times that followers of Islam should use Mohammad as a model and imitate him. So Muslims the world over try to find or create grievances, so they can recruit new warriors, so they can get a holy war started, so they can fight and die in Allah's cause.

And because of the rise of multiculturalism (respect for all other cultures) in the West, the use of pretext is very effective against people who are unfamiliar with Islam. Many Westerners are concerned that al Qaeda is angry at the West for having troops in Saudi Arabia, for example. That's merely a pretext. They want all non-Muslims out of the Middle East. Then they say they will cease hostilities. It is a ridiculous and impossible goal, so they are justified in permanent war against the West to "defend" Islam.

It's surprising that so many Westerners accept this particular pretext because it flies in the face of a fundamental Western principle: Equality. What Osama bin Laden is saying is, "infidels are so undeserving, their very presence somewhere in Arabia defiles the entire country." Wow. What does that say about the non-Muslims?

Why doesn't this kind of racism or prejudice or infidelphobia (or whatever you want to call it) outrage more Westerners? Instead, many think we ought to pull out of the Middle East so we stop offending these poor Muslims.

The principle of pretext means you try to provoke a hostile reaction and then use the hostile reaction as a reason to escalate hostilities. It's the same method schoolyard bullies have used for thousands of years.

25. The explicit use of double standards. Islam has one standard for Muslims, and a different standard for non-Muslims, which always gives the advantage to Muslims and within a Muslim country, it provides incentives to convert.

For example, Islam must be spread by its believers, wherever they are. But when others try to spread their religions, Muslims are supposed to see it as an aggression against Islam — an act of aggression that must be "defended." Islam must always be defended.

As another example, when Islam is defamed in any way, Muslims should violently defend it. Even in a cartoon. But Muslims can and should defame Jews and Christians in Muslim newspapers and television, and they should defame any infidel or enemy, as they defame the U.S. today.

Here's another example: The Islamic supremacists of Saudi Arabia are pouring money into building mosques all over the free world. But according to Shari'a law, which is the law in Saudi Arabia, no non-Muslim religious structures are allowed to be built.

Yet Muslims all over the world protest loudly and violently when anyone in Europe or America resists the building of more mosques in their countries.

Islamic supremacists don't see the irony in it. They don't feel strange having such an obvious double standard.

They are, after all, Allah's followers and everyone else is deluded. Fairness and equality with such unworthy infidels would seem very out of place. A double standard seems completely appropriate from that perspective.

The double standard principle is a key part of the idea-collection, and it has been a great advantage in the spread of Islam (and the suppression of competing religions).

26. It is forbidden to kill a Muslim (except for a just cause). It is not forbidden to kill a non-Muslim. This causes a bond between Muslims, fear in non-Muslims, and motivation to become Muslim. This is also another example of an explicit Islamic double standard.

27. If Muslims drift away from Mohammed's teachings, Allah will end the world. That makes converting others and promoting Islam a matter of survival. It also motivates Muslims to prevent each other from losing faith.

WHAT SHOULD we do with this information about Islam? That's a good question. For some, the solution is to hate Muslims, but that doesn't make any sense. Most Muslims had no choice in their religion, and many of them don't know as much about their own religion as you now do.

I think the best thing any of us can do is to simply help other non-Muslims learn about Islam.
Because Islam is so successful, its teachings are becoming more and more influencial on the world stage, and some of its built-in aggressiveness should be curbed. But the only way it can be curbed is if enough people know about it. The way we understand Islam will determine what policies we collectively endorse or reject about it.

So first, learn more about it. And then share what you know with others. And let them know what they can do about it too. To learn more, I suggest you first read the Qur'an. This is the version I recommend.
If you'd like to do something more, start here: What Can You Do About It?

Bringing Shirley Sherrod’s Past Into the Light

2010-08-06T22:12:00.004-06:00

Click Here for Article

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

August 6, 2010

Shirley Sherrod - Made Infamous from the NAACP Video Controversy and Andrew Breitbart

Over the last 2 weeks I have been doing research into the Shirley Sherrod controversy which you can read about here... More to dig into, especially her affiliations, so stay tuned on that front. I guarantee you have not heard the whole story from the mainstream media.

Oh, what a tangled web Sherrod has woven for herself. Selectively cherry picking recounts of her so-called civil rights work in the 60s and 70s. Painting herself as a victim while smearing Fox News and Glenn Beck, who I might add, oddly enough was the FIRST one to come to her defense. Definitely would not want her anywhere behind me in a fight.

Lost in the NAACP controversy and Sherrod's claim to be a 'reformed racist,' is the story of her time at New Communities Inc. During her time in her role there, it would seem there are those that claim she held an ostensibly elitist and anti-black-labor viewpoint. Along with her cohorts at NCI, Sherrod underpaid, mistreated and fired black laborers, many of which were under 16 years of age. She did so in those very same fields of southwest Georgia that her ancestors labored under the yoke of slavery.

Ron Wilkins at CounterPunch tells a decidedly different story of Sherrod's deeds back in the 1970s. He is a former organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and worked with Sherrod at NCI during that time. According to Wilkins, Sherrod's history is rife with abuse towards black laborers and underage workers. From CounterPunch:

If confession is good for the soul, then Mrs. Sherrod took a first step toward her redemption by admitting the error of her ways in her earlier attitudes toward poor white farmers. Mrs. Sherrod says she began to see poverty as more central than race. So, should indigent black child farm laborers warrant less reflection by Mrs. Sherrod? What lessons does she have to share from her tenure as management when she had power over her own people working under deplorable conditions at the same New Communities

Inc.(NCI) identified in the current issue? Shirley Sherrod could have included this chapter of her history in the same confession speech. Justice and integrity require at least as much accountability from Mrs. Sherrod to the poor black farm workers of NCI as to the white farmers she came to befriend. This lack of full disclosure of the whole truth is a “sin of omission” that trivializes the suffering of poor black farm workers and exacerbates the offenses of NCI.

Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc.'s store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000 acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse.

Eventually, loan discrimination and relentless creditors did take down New Communities Inc. in 1985. But NCI's, and Sherrod's, unfair labor practices and incompetent leadership were equally, if not more so, to blame for the company's failure.

Zombie has written a magnificent piece detailing these events. Here is a list from the article at Pajamas Media of items that Wilkins has accused Sherrod of being guilty of - and I believe him:

Combined, the new 2010 allegations and the original 1974 allegations accuse Shirley and Charles Sherrod of:

• Paying farm workers as little as 67¢ per hour, far below minimum wage for the era.

• Employing underage children to perform hard labor.

• Compelling their employees to work in unsafe conditions, including getting sprayed with pesticides.

• Firing any workers who acted as whistleblowers.

• Forcing employees to work overtime in the fields at night with practically no advance notice.

• Having a capricious payscale under which employees doing the exact same jobs were paid different amounts according to the whims of the managers.

• Being unwilling to address the abuse even after it was raised by union representatives.

• Seriously mismanaging the farm to such an extent that it went bankrupt.

Sherrod cries foul to the government concerning their treatment of black farmers, all the way to the bank I might add. But she never once addressed the fact that said treatment was undeniably under her management and by her own hand.

United Farm Workers’ newspaper El Malcriado on September 28, 1974, also weighed in against Sherrod:

All of this while accusing Andrew Breitbart of wanting Blacks to get “stuck back in the times of slavery.” He only showed excerpts that were given him and I contend that Sherrod is still a racist despite the lipstick she has slapped on Pigford.

The Sherrods' New Communities farm received $13 million from the USDA to compensate for the loss of their land as part of the “Pigford v. Glickman” settlement. Shirley and Charles Sherrod personally received $300,000 for “pain and suffering.” Now Pigford II is in the works to rip off America even more.

Much, much more can be found in Zombie's Piece: Slave-labor conditions at Sherrods’ farm?

Shirley, you've really done your family proud by promoting slavery of your fellow African Americans while displaying traitorous elitism and monstrous graft. Well done...

GELLER: Borderline Obama - National security is not the president's interest.

2010-08-05T11:37:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

by Pamela Geller
August 4, 2010

As a federal judge gutted Arizona's new immigration law on July 29, the Obama State Department announced that it was "encouraged" by signs that the Arab League would support, or at least not directly impede, direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Not surprisingly, media seemed not to notice or care how the two things were related. But they are.

One of the most overlooked aspects of the question of immigration is its connection to national security. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, mentioned that connection on Sean Hannity's Fox News program, but it received very little notice thereafter. Even Arizona's Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, who wrote the Arizona immigration bill, SB 1070, hasn't spoken of its role in protecting the nation. Yet there is a silver bullet linking the Islamic terror threat with the porous border of Arizona that deserves our immediate attention.

With fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border, and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen.

My colleague and coauthor, Robert Spencer, has spoken with people who live along the Arizona border who for years have been finding Korans and Islamic prayer rugs on their property, left by illegal invaders. It is well documented in the Department of Homeland Security's 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Studies, from the Office of Immigration Statistics: Federal law enforcement agencies detained 791,568 deportable aliens in fiscal year 2008, and 5,506 of them were from 14 "special-interest countries" - i.e., nations full of jihadists such as Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

Informants are telling us that those numbers continue to swell. But where are these people? What Americans - Arizonans in particular - are not being told is what Immigration Customs Enforcement does with individuals who were detained after illegally entering Arizona from a "special-interest country."

Here is what we do know:

Whenever Arizona law enforcement officials contact Homeland Security about a suspected OTM (Other Than Mexican) they have detained, federal authorities swoop down, cart off the illegal entrant, and tell local officials nothing more about the case. OTMs have utilized sophisticated human smuggling networks to enter the United States from as many as 157 countries around the world - including Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco and Egypt.

All this is happening against the backdrop of President Obama's refusal to admit that the global jihad even exists. John Brennan, his counterterrorism adviser, even denies that jihad is a motive for jihadists. Mr. Obama has publicly excoriated Israel, demanded that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed, called for civilian trials of terrorists and embraced Palestinian statehood even if it jeopardizes Israel's security.
Mr. Obama's stance is consistent: As I show in my book, "The Post-American Presidency," he is a socialist internationalist who wants to subordinate America to international law. Why should he care about securing the borders? And in Arizona and all along the border, the beneficiaries of his policies will be Islamic jihadists - the same people he is encouraging, enabling and backing in their jihad against Israel.

Regarding both Arizona and Israel, with a consistency that can only come from deeply held conviction, Barack Obama is damaging national security and endangering the future of our nation.

Domestically, Mr. Obama is contemptuous of capitalism and rugged individualism, and with his socialist programs has gone to war against the American economy. Internationally, he is not only inveterately hostile to Israel, but he has turned a blind eye to Iran's genocidal intentions and nuclear program, and generally appears intent on turning America's historical enemies into friends and friends into enemies.

Unpoliced borders. Friendships with and outreach to tyrants and autocrats. Mr. Obama's dream seems to be to turn America into something like the Indonesia of his youth or the Pakistan he visited as a college student. At best, it would be just another country, unexceptional in any way. At worst, it would be a Third World nation, lagging far behind other global economic and cultural leaders.

Throughout his life and his political career, Mr. Obama has been consistent - right up to and into his presidency. And today, his policies in Arizona and Israel - not connected or related to each other by any analyst on the scene - are two separate manifestations of the same anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-jihad core convictions that have guided his actions and associations since the beginning of his political career and even before.

It is all a result of how he was brought up, of what shaped his mind and heart. It is all a result of what drives him. And what drives him is not American. He said it himself: "I was a little Jakarta street kid" who found the Islamic call to prayer to be "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
Now the little Jakarta street kid has grown up. And America hangs in the balance.

Pamela Geller, with Robert Spencer, is the author of "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America" (Threshold Editions, 2010). She is editor of the website www.AtlasShrugs.com.

I Want Your Money!

2010-08-05T08:22:00.002-06:00

Click here for Webpage of Video

Justice Brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies

2010-08-05T07:50:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

August 4, 2010
Ann Coulter

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're eight and a half months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it sneaked in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves – many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians – because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898).

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve (yes, the Clement L. Bouve – the one you've heard so much about over the years). Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge – just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement – who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

Justice Brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're eight and a half months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it sneaked in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves – many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

Experience Coulter's wit and wisdom up close and personal as she headlines WND's Taking America Back national conference this fall!

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians – because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898).

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve (yes, the Clement L. Bouve – the one you've heard so much about over the years). Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge – just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement – who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases and

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000.

Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."

In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.

Fed Judge Finds Calif. Prop. 8 Unconstitutional

2010-08-04T17:07:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

August 4, 2010

A federal lawsuit was filed in May 2009 challenging Proposition 8, the California referendum which amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Prop. 8 previously was upheld by the California Supreme Court.

The federal lawsuit, Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al, was filed by noted Republican attorney Ted Olson, and noted Democratic attorney David Boies. Olson and Boies were on opposite sides of the landmark Bush v. Gore lawsuit which resolved the Florida electoral dispute in the 2000 election.

The lawsuit sought an injunction against implementation of Proposition 8 under federal law, including alleged violations of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. At the time of the suit, many gay marriage advocates criticized the tactic, fearing that a loss at the federal level would damage ongoing state efforts.

Today, Chief Judge Vaugh Walker of the Northern District of California issued his ruling in the case holding that Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Here is the Judge's conclusion:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Throughout the opinion, the Judge goes into great detail regarding trial testimony and justifications for Prop. 8. The Judge then holds, in essence, that the justifications are irrational and have no legitimate societal basis.
The Judge even designated a section of the opinion "Credibility Determinations." Many commentators think the Judge was trying to insulate the opinion from appeal since appeals courts do not normally overturn credibility determinations, since only the trial judge observed the witness.

In this case, the Judge seems to be trying too hard to insulate the opinion, and I doubt that on such a momentus finding of a new constitutional right for same sex marriage that an appeals court, much less the U.S. Supreme Court, will care much about the credibility of witnesses as a basis for a legal ruling.
Everyone expects this case to end up on the U.S. Supreme Court, which should test what Elena Kagan meant when she said, under oath, that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

Update: The trial court has granted a stay of entry of judgment until the motion for a stay pending appeal can be decided. The plaintiffs must respond by August 6. So for at least a couple of days, the effect of the ruling is on hold.

As to the political end of this, the decision will be seen as another example of overreaching by a liberal judiciary which throws out laws it doesn't like politically (Arizona) and invents rights it likes. I'll quote Ace:

Oh, PS, Judge Walker--

Thanks for the extra 7% turnout in

November!!!

Hugs and kisses,

Ace

Mad Maxine’s minority fat-cat bankers

2010-08-04T16:56:00.003-06:00

Click Here for Article

by Michelle Malkin
August 4, 2010

My column today hits again on Maxine Waters’ brewing ethics scandal. Her supporters are ratcheting up the victim-card rhetoric. She appeared on the race-hustling Reverend Al Sharpton’s radio show yesterday to stoke the fires and re-cast the ethics probe as an attempt to squelch advocacy on behalf of all black businesses. Another guest bemoaned the House Ethics panel’s “racial profiling” of Congressional Black Caucus members. Even liberal WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus is tired of the House “culture of entitlement.” And the culture of corruption.

More on the case from Politico here.

In related minority bank bailout news, here’s a follow-up on the Shorebank bailout (background here). Yesterday, Chicago Breaking News reported on the bank’s deepening financial hole: “ShoreBank’s capital deficiency worsened in the second quarter, according to newly submitted financial results to regulators, and the Chicago-based lender now needs to raise at least $190 million just to meet targets set out in March by state and U.S. banking regulators. The South Side bank has arranged a capital infusion of about $150 million from Wall Street investment firms, big banks, insurance companies and philanthropic groups. It’s hoping that private investment will then make it eligible for about $75 million in bailout funds from the U.S. Treasury Department…About a quarter of its loans continue to be seriously delinquent. ShoreBank declined to comment.”

Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters of California is notorious for her high-decibel rants against corporate executives and career exploitation of identity politics. Class warfare and racial division are her two-decade-long stock and trade. She would normally be first in line (and in front of the cameras) to lambaste the very kind of Porsche-driving, luxury beach house-partying bank officials who begged her for a government handout. If they were white, that is.

But the minority fat cats who lobbied her during the fall 2008 financial meltdown represented the black-owned OneUnited Bank. They were her longtime friends, donors, and fund-raisers. Her husband was an investor in one of the banks that merged into One United. He later served on the company’s board of directors. Both Woman of the People Waters and her hubby have owned six-figure sums of OneUnited stock at various times over the last six years. Mr. Waters remained a OneUnited stockholder at the time Waters went to bat for the company. However, that indelible conflict-of-interest odor didn’t stop Waters from intervening to arrange a high-powered meeting between OneUnited and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and 20 of his minions, who engineered a special federal rescue of the teetering company behind closed doors.

The taxpayer price tag of this textbook case of cronyism of color? $12 million in TARP bank bailout cash.

On Monday night, the House Ethics Committee filed three charges against Waters for using her influence to gain special favors for a woefully mismanaged financial institution run by politically correct suits living high on the hog. In a nutshell: OneUnited, a “minority depository institution,” was seeking a stealth government bailout after squandering nearly $52 million of its bank capital on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock. After the federal bailout of those troubled financial behemoths, OneUnited’s securities in the government-sponsored enterprises plunged to a value estimated at less than $5 million. OneUnited initially demanded $41 million from the feds in exchange for unloading the junk stock. Truth be told, the bank was already in dire straits before the feds put Fannie/Freddie into receivership. Regulators criticized its unsound lending practices and lavish executive benefits (including fancy sports cars and a $6.4 million Santa Monica, Calif., beach house).

Only through Rep. Waters’ direct intervention was OneUnited Bank able to secure an emergency meeting with Paulson and Treasury, according to the ethics probe. The Treasury Department said so itself. At the confab, Waters’ pals purported to represent the 130-member “National Bankers Association.” But records obtained by congressional investigators show that OneUnited Bank’s legal counsel, vice president and president (the latter two are married to each other) spearheaded the meeting, directed its agenda, and drafted the talking points/briefing material for Rep. Waters at her request — so that she could “speak intelligently” about their demands.

On the Reverend Al Sharpton’s national radio show on Tuesday afternoon, Waters played the persecuted champion of Urban America to perfection. She claimed the meeting was arranged on behalf of all black banks in the country. Sympathizers are now framing the matter as a threat to “advocacy for black businesses” and whispering loudly about a “racial profiling” campaign against Waters, her embattled colleague Rep. Charlie Rangel, and other ethically-challenged members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

But congressional investigators concluded that “OneUnited’s exclusive representation at the meeting” was the “cause for concern,” not Waters’ noble-sounding social justice agenda. Stonewalling by OneUnited top officials Robert Cooper and Kevin Cohee exacerbated the Office of Congressional Ethics’ concern. As did fellow Democrat Rep. Barney Frank’s ignored warning to Waters to “stay out of” the matter.

In her defense, Rep. Waters pooh-poohs the OneUnited Bank rescue as a pittance compared to the rest of the monstrous TARP bailout. She’d have a teensy more credibility on the fiscal responsibility front if she had opposed TARP from the start, instead of playing an instrumental role in throwing the Congressional Black Caucus’s full support behind it.

As is usually the case in Washington, these alleged violations dwarf the wheeling and dealing Rep. Waters has continued to broker as an entrenched incumbent and senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. The so-called financial “reform” bill law she helped shepherd is stuffed with color-coded-based mandates and favoritism. From “We Shall Overcome” to “Get Mine:” Ah, racial progress.

More Unaccountable Obama Czars

2010-07-30T21:07:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

by Phyllis Schlafly
July 30, 2010

Barack Obama has appointed another Czar from Chicago: the new Food Czar Sam Kass. Officially, he is labeled Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives, but he's joining the list of more than 35 Czars given broad and unaccountable power over our lives, habits and spending.

Everybody laughed when Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) asked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan if it would be constitutional for Congress to order Americans "to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day." Kagan declined to give a straightforward answer, maybe because she knew that exactly that type of dictatorial mandate is coming soon, in both Obamacare and a ukase issued by the new Food Czar.
Far scarier is Obama's appointment of his new Health Czar, Donald Berwick, to be the top administrator over Medicare and Medicaid. The life-and-death powers he will exercise, the huge sums of taxpayers' money he will direct, and the dishonest way Obama evaded the Senate's constitutional right to interrogate and reject him, make this the most shocking of all Obama's appointments.
Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to redistribute the wealth. We didn't realize what else Obama planned to redistribute.
Czar Berwick is on record as saying, "Excellent health care is by definition redistributional." He used this favorite Obama term in the context of praising Britain's socialized medicine system as "a global treasure" and "I love it."
Coincidentally with the announcement of Berwick's appointment, Britain's major newspaper The Sunday Telegraph uncovered widespread cuts in British health care that were adopted in secret and buried in obscure appendices and lengthy policy documents. These include restrictions on common operations such as hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery, the closure of many nursing homes for the elderly, and a reduction in hospital beds and staff.
Berwick admits that redistributing health care means rationing health care, which is why he has been called a one-man Death Panel. Last year he admitted in an interview, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
Note the imperial "we." That's the way czars talk.
Like a typical arrogant totalitarian socialist, Berwick assumes that smart bureaucrats should make life-and-death decisions and spend the money belonging to those they disdain as dumb, ordinary citizens. Berwick said, "I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do."
Berwick even promises he will train young doctors and nurses to understand "the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy." To eliminate individual health-care choices, Berwick's bureaucracy will have a budget that is larger than the Defense Department and is 4 percent of our GDP.
Berwick's paper trail of "baggage" is why Obama gave him a recess appointment. He wanted to avoid the Senate's advice-and-consent power altogether and keep Berwick's damaging statements out of the news.
The term czar has come to mean a presidential crony appointee who was never vetted by the Senate and who exercises sweeping regulatory authority without congressional oversight. But let's not lose sight of the vastly increased regulations issued by established agencies.

Obamacare's 2000-plus pages created about 160 new agencies and boards with regulatory power. The Department of Health and Human Services just published 864 pages of regulations to govern electronic medical records.
President Obama just signed the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Its implementation will require at least 243 new regulations by 11 federal agencies, several of which do not yet exist.
Obama's Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, brags that under his leadership, the Department of Energy (DOE) has "accelerated the pace" of regulation and "placed new resources and emphasis behind the enforcement" of new regulations which "increase the stringency" of "minimum conservation standards" for all sorts of home appliances. Look out! The energy police are invading our homes.
In April, DOE issued a new rule that gas fireplace logs cannot use more than 9,000 BTUs per hour, which is about one-tenth of what current gas logs require. This new rule will wipe out the gas fireplace industry, and the gas log in my home would become illegal.
In May, DOE effectively banned showerheads with multiple nozzles by ruling that all nozzles combined will be permitted to deliver no more than an anemic 2.5 gallons per minute. This rule will destroy upscale showers and hand-held sprays used by the disabled and elderly, like the one I use.
Obama wasn't kidding when he promised to "fundamentally transform the United States." He has figured out how to bypass Congress and rule us by czars and a tsunami of regulations.

Obama's Terror Pal Rashid Khalidi Calls for Funding for Next Jihad War Convoy Flotilla, "Audacity of Hope"

2010-07-27T21:50:00.000-06:00

Click Here for Article

“Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, reportedly has signed an appeal for funds to outfit a ship–to be named The Audacity of Hope–that will challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza in September or October. Khalidi and his wife (who also signed the appeal) became friends and occasional dinner companions of Barack Obama when Khalidi was on the faculty of the University of Chicago. Khalidi also contributed to the education of Obama on issues relating to the Middle East. Just before Khalidi moved to Columbia, at a dinner honoring Khalidi, Obama saluted the rabidly anti-Israel professor for “offer[ing] constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.”
Obama and Rashid Khalidi go way back. Obama babysat Khalidi's kids, Khalidi did a fund-raiser for Obama in 2001, and Obama sat on the board of the Woods Foundation with terrorist Bill Ayers and gave Khalidi 40,000 and 30,000 grants respectively:
For those of you unfamiliar with Rhashid Khalidi. Go here.
     •Professor of Middle East Studies at Columbia University
     •Former PLO operative
     •Has justified as legitimate Palestinian “resistance” that results in death of armed Israelis
     •Rejects the possibility of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (from Atlas, March 2008)

Obama attended a dinner for Khalid. The LA Times has the tape. Now more than ever, under FIOA, the LA Times must release the tape of Obama speaking and toasting Rashid Khalidi.Here is an account from a journalist who saw the tape:
Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
OBAMA, KHALIDI AND THE ART OF BEHEADING DANCE - Atlas Shrugs
Here is an excerpt on Khalid from my book which launched today: Buy it , there's more.
Rashid Khalidi
In 2005, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi taught a fifteen-week course on Middle Eastern politics at Columbia’s Middle East Institute. The New York Sun reported that the Saudis “funneled tens of thousands of dollars” into the institute’s programs. However, New York City’s schools chancellor, Joel Klein removed Khalidi from the program after it came to light that Khalidi had justified jihad terror attacks against Israeli civilians: “Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever does it. But resistance to occupation is legitimate in international law.” Martin Kramer, a trenchant critic of the anti-Israel and pro-jihad bias that prevails in American academia, explained: “If you’re a Saudi, it’s very convenient for Rashid Khalidi to claim that the source of America’s problems in the region is not their special relationship with Saudi Arabia, but their special relationship with Israel. All he has to do is say it’s Palestine, stupid.”
That wasn’t all. Reports indicate that Khalidi was a director of WAFA, the official press agency of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in Beirut from 1976 to 1982. According to journalist Aaron Klein, “Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed worked on behalf of WAFA. Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991.” What’s more, “during documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an ‘apartheid system in creation’ and a destructive ‘racist’ state. He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to ‘Israeli aggression.’ He dedicated his 1986 book, ‘Under Siege,’ to ‘those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.’ Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.”
In 2001 and 2002, the fiercely anti-Israeli Arab American Action Network (AAAN), headed by Khalidi’s wife Mona, received $110,000 in grants from the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization. One of the members of the Woods Fund board of directors at that time was Barack Obama, Khalidi’s former colleague back in the 1990s, when they both taught at the University of Chicago. Like Ayers, Khalidi also took a financial interest in Obama’s political career: in 2000, he held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful run for a seat in the House of Representatives. In October 2008, the Los Angeles Times obtained a video of a 2003 AAAN dinner attended by Obama, Ayers, Dohrn, and Khalidi. The Times refused to release the video, leading to angry accusations of journalistic bias from the McCain campaign, since it was widely rumored that the video showed Obama making or at very least assenting to anti-Israel statements.
One thing that the Times did reveal that Obama spoke warmly at the banquet about his numerous conversations with Rashid and Mona Khalidi, saying that they had served for him as “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation – a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but on the big stage of “this entire world.”
Times reporter Peter Wallsten noted that “the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say. Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.” One of those was the 2003 AAAN dinner, at which “a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, ‘then you will never see a day of peace.’” Another speaker compared the “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” – to whom Obama as president has been notoriously hostile – to Osama bin Laden. Obama is not recorded as having contradicted these remarks, although he did, according to Wallsten, adopt “a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground.”
In any case, whatever was said on this notorious video, no smoking-gun videotape was really necessary to establish Obama’s close ties to haters of Israel. The evidence was already there in abundance.

Shirley Sherrod's Disappearing Act: Not So Fast - The Background You Haven't Seen

2010-07-24T10:19:00.001-06:00

Click Here for Article

By: Tom Blumer
Special to The Examiner
07/20/10 1:52 PM EDT

My oh my, that happened quickly. Perhaps too quickly.

Until yesterday, Shirley Sherrod was Georgia Director of Rural Development for the USDA. Earlier in the day at Big Government, Andrew Breitbart put up a video that exposed Ms. Sherrod as someone all too willing to discriminate based on race.

Within hours of the video's release, USDA Director Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation, and in the process issued an exceptionally strong condemnation ("We are appalled by her actions ... Her actions were shameful ... she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man").

The NAACP, at whose Freedom Fund Banquet Sherrod spoke of her discriminatory posture, and at which the audience seemed to indicate approval of her outlook, followed a short time later, virtually echoing Vilsack.

So I guess we're supposed to forget about Shirley Sherrod from this point forward.

Not just yet. Luckily, she's not going away quietly, and is complaining about Fox News and the Tea Party causing her dismissal. Keep it up, ma’am, because you and the USDA both deserve further scrutiny.

Ms. Sherrod's previous background, the circumstances surrounding her hiring, and the USDA's agenda may all play a part in explaining her sudden departure from the agency. These matters have not received much scrutiny to this point.

An announcement of Ms. Sherrod's July 2009 appointment to her USDA position at ruraldevelopment.org gives off quite a few clues:

RDLN Graduate and Board Vice Chair Shirley Sherrod was appointed Georgia Director for Rural Development by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on July 25. Only days earlier, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families (see below) has won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers law suit Pigford vs Vilsack.

What?

The news that follows at the link, which appears to pre-date the announcement of Ms. Sherrod's appointment, provides further details:

Minority Farm Settlement

Justice Achieved - Congratulations to Shirley and Charles Sherrod!

We have wonderful news regarding the case of New Communities, Inc., the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960's. At the time, with holdings of almost 6,000 acres, this was the largest tract of black-owned land in the country.

... Over the years, USDA refused to provide loans for farming or irrigation and would not allow New Communities to restructure its loans. Gradually, the group had to fight just to hold on to the land and finally had to wind down operations.

... The cash (settlement) award acknowledges racial discrimination on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the years 1981-85. ... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

The Pigford matter goes back a long way, and to say the least has a checkered history, as this May 27, 2010 item at Agri-Pulse demonstrates (bolds are mine):

As part of a April 14, 1999 class action case settlement, commonly known as the Pigford case, U.S. taxpayers have already provided over $1 billion in cash, non-credit awards and debt relief to almost 16,000 black farmers who claimed that they were discriminated against by USDA officials as they “farmed or attempted to farm.” In addition, USDA’s Farm Service Agency spent over $166 million on salaries and expenses on this case from 1999-2009, according to agency records.

Members of Congress may approve another $1.15 billion this week to settle cases from what some estimate may be an additional 80,000 African-Americans who have also claimed to have been discriminated against by USDA staff....

Settling this case is clearly a priority for the White House and USDA. Secretary Vilsack described the funding agreement reached between the Administration and advocates for black farmers early this year as “an important milestone in putting these discriminatory claims behind us for good and in achieving finality for this group of farmers with longstanding grievances."

However, confronted with the skyrocketing federal deficit, more officials are taking a critical look at the billion dollars spent thus far and wondering when these discrimination cases will ever end. Already, the number of people who have been paid and are still seeking payment will likely exceed the 26,785 black farmers who were considered to even be operating back in 1997, according to USDA. That’s the year the case initially began as Pigford v. (then Agriculture Secretary) Glickman and sources predicted that, at most, 3,000 might qualify.

At least one source who is extremely familiar with the issue and who asked to remain anonymous because of potential retribution, says there are a number of legitimate cases who have long been denied their payments and will benefit from the additional funding. But many more appear to have been solicited in an attempt to “game” the Pigford system.

Here are just a few questions about Ms. Sherrod that deserve answers:

•Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?

•How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?

•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?

•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are a few bigger-picture questions:

•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?

•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?

•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

The media and the blogosphere shouldn't be so quick to forget about Shirley Sherrod.

This Background May Give You Insight into the Whole Shirley Sherrod Story - Her Background

2010-07-24T09:51:00.002-06:00

Click Here for Article

July 21, 2010

Forty Acres & a Mule -- Sherrod Style?

Rosslyn Smith

Shirley Sherrod's quick dismissal from the Obama administration may have had less to do with her comments on race before the NAACP than her long involvement in the aptly named Pigford case, a class action against the US government on behalf of black farmers alleging that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had discriminated against black farmers during the period from 1983 through 1997. According to Wikipedia:

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" US$50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called "Track A".[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence - the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages....

At the time the case was settled, it was estimated there would be in the area of 2,000 to 3,000 claims. As with most estimates involving government handouts that number was woefully short of the mark. Again, according to Wikipedia:

22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. US$995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009, including US$760 million disbursed as US$50,000 cash awards. Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.

Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement." A provision in the 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits

In other words, according to Agri-Pulse.com the number of total claims filed not only exceeded the original estimate by almost 40 to 50 times, it is close to four times the USDA's estimate of 26,785 total black owned farms in 1977! One reason for this is that the settlement applied to farmers and those who "attempted to farm" and did not receive assistance from the USDA. Getting the latest round of Pigford cases from the 2008 farm bill settled is said to be a high priority for the Obama administration.

So where does Sherrod come into this picture? In a special to the Washington Examiner, Tom Blumer explains that Sherrod and the group she formed along with family members and others, New Communities. Inc. received the largest single settlement under Pigford.

... New Communities is due to receive approximately $13 million ($8,247,560 for loss of land and $4,241,602 for loss of income; plus $150,000 each to Shirley and Charles for pain and suffering). There may also be an unspecified amount in forgiveness of debt. This is the largest award so far in the minority farmers law suit (Pigford vs Vilsack).

What makes this even more interesting to me is that Charles appears to be Charles Sherrod, who was a big player in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the early 1960s. The SNCC was the political womb that nurtured the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers before it faded away.

Blumer has some questions about this settlement and about Sherrod's rapid departure from the USDA

•Was Ms. Sherrod's USDA appointment an unspoken condition of her organization's settlement?

•How much "debt forgiveness" is involved in USDA's settlement with New Communities?

•Why were the Sherrods so deserving of a combined $300,000 in "pain and suffering" payments -- amounts that far exceed the average payout thus far to everyone else? ($1.15 billion divided by 16,000 is about $72,000)?

•Given that New Communities wound down its operations so long ago (it appears that this occurred sometime during the late 1980s), what is really being done with that $13 million in settlement money?

Here are a few bigger-picture questions:

•Did Shirley Sherrod resign so quickly because the circumstances of her hiring and the lawsuit settlement with her organization that preceded it might expose some unpleasant truths about her possible and possibly sanctioned conflicts of interest?

•Is USDA worried about the exposure of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in its handling of Pigford?

•Did USDA also dispatch Sherrod hastily because her continued presence, even for another day, might have gotten in the way of settling Pigford matters quickly?

I second his conclusion that the media and bloggers shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Shirley Sherrod.

Let me start by adding another question to the list. In her position at not for profit, Rural Development Leadership Network, a network of activists and community builder, was Sherrod involved in any way in encouraging people to submit fraudulent claims under Pigford? Did she put black people who owned rural land in touch with lawyers who would file the paperwork claiming attempts to farm had been prevented by the non cooperation of the local USDA?

I ask because there are a multitude of small parcels of non productive rural land all across the south, land unsuitable for mechanized agriculture that was once owned by subsistence farmers, black and white alike. Many of these parcels continue to be owned by family members who moved elsewhere out of sentimental reasons. The property taxes and other carrying costs are cheap and often ancestors are buried there in family plots. A drive on any country road in the South may turn up several carefully maintained postage stamp sized family cemeteries. As I read Blumer, I wondered how many of the owners claimed they had attempted to farm just such acreage to score a fast $50,000 from Uncle Sam?

Shirley Sherrod - the REST of the Story

2010-07-24T09:36:00.001-06:00

The NAACP possessed the entire video of Ms. Sherrod's speech from day one. Click here to view the article directly. I will post below:

July 20, 2010
12:16 pm

NAACP Plans To Investigate Its Own

Organization Agrees With Sherrod Resignation, Will Investigate 'Disturbing' Reactions Of Audience, NAACP Officials

By MARK RODRIGUEZ, WCBSTV.com Producer

Last Tuesday, the NAACP passed a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party movement. The organization's delegates called on Tea Party leaders to "repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches."

Tea Party members and supporters saw the resolution as a condemnation of the group itself, which calls for fiscal responsibility, restrictions on governmental power, and backs political candidates who claim the same.

The NAACP's action caught the attention of Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com, who said the controversy was "absolutely manufactured for political gain," in a summer "in which the economy is the number one issue affecting blacks and whites in this country. This country can ill afford the schism of race to be exploited the way [he is] based upon the false premise of the Tea Party being racist."
He also claimed to possess recorded evidence of racism from the NAACP.

On Monday, Breitbart posted a video of a speech by Shirley Sherrod, USDA Rural Development Georgia State Director, delivered at the NAACP's 20th Annual Freedom Fund Banquet. The video shows Sherrod speaking of racial considerations being a factor for how much help she would give.
Sherrod tendered her resignation Monday.

"The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing, but he had come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," Sherrod said.

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough," Sherrod said. "So that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him."

In the video, Sherrod also spoke of referring the white farmer to a white lawyer, thinking the latter would be more sympathetic because of race. "So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him."

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued the following statement Monday:
"Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that-- while generally rooted in African American communities-- fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

We thank those who brought this to our national office's attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.

Sherrod's behavior is even more intolerable in light of the US Department of Agriculture's well documented history of denying opportunities to African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races. Currently, justice for many of these farmers is being held up by Congress. We would hope all who share our outrage at Sherrod's statements would join us in pushing for these cases to be remedied.

Since NAACP had the whole tape, why would they release this article condemning Sherrod's speech, supporting the resignation?

Now, they have turned 180 degrees and posted a new statement on her resignation:

July 20, 2010
[no time listed]

(BALTIMORE, MD) - NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued the following statement today after a careful investigation into the presentation of former USDA Official Shirley Sherrod.

"The NAACP has a zero tolerance policy against racial discrimination, whether practiced by blacks, whites, or any other group.

The NAACP also has long championed and embraced transformation by people who have moved beyond racial bias. Most notably, we have done so for late Alabama Governor George Wallace and late US Senator Robert Byrd -- each a man who had associated with and supported white supremacists and their cause before embracing civil rights for all.

With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias [they had had the whole tape since March, 2010!].

Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans. I apologized to Ms. Sherrod, clearly a commited and selfless public servant, who had been unfairly maligned.

The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech. They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm.

Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more that 20 years before she went to work for USDA.

Finally, she was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption. In the full video, Ms.Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about “haves and have nots.” "It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people," says Sherrod in the speech. “We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn’t matter.”

This is a teachable moment, for activists and for journalists.

Most Americans agree that racism has no place in American Society. We also believe that civil and human rights have to be measured by a single yardstick.

The NAACP has demonstrated its commitment to live by that standard.

The Tea Party Federation took a step in that direction when it expelled the Tea Party Express over the weekend. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear from other leaders in the Tea Party movement like Dick Armey and Sarah Palin, who have been virtually silent on the “internal bigotry” issue.

Next time we are confronted by a racial controversy broken by Fox News or their allies in the Tea Party like Mr. Breitbart, we will consider the source and be more deliberate in responding. The tape of Ms. Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed [check out the tape below]. This just shows the lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition.

According to the USDA, Sherrod’s statements prompted her dismissal. While we understand why Secretary Vilsack believes this false controversy will impede her ability to function in the role, we urge him to reconsider.

Finally, we hope this incident will heighten Congress’s urgency in dealing with the well documented findings of discrimination toward black, Latino, Asian American and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races."

Click Here for Page with Video

Video: Watch the Shirley Sherrod Speech in Full

The video of Shirley Sherrod released by Andrew Brietbart's Big Government Blog on July 19 didn't tell the full story. It was selectively edited to cast her in a negative light. Here is the video, shot by the local NAACP unit that hosted Ms. Sherrod. Watch the video, and judge for yourself.

[If you don't want to see the whole video, look at remarks she made at 22:00 and forward, 24:00 and forward, and 35:00].

The two times indicated above are referenced in this July 22, 2010 article.

Shirley Sherrod: in charge of discrimination issues at the USDA? Seriously?

More quotes from Shirley Sherrod’s famous NAACP speech which you can watch in full here and make your own judgment. Do you want Shirley Sherrod in charge of the USDA outreach position that would deal with discrimination matters?

The people with money, the elites decided, hey, we need to do something here to divide them [the white and black servants] so that’s where they made black people servants for life. That’s when they put laws in place forbidding them to marry each other. That’s when they created the racism that we know of today.

They did it to keep us divided. And here we are over 400 years later and it is still working.

What we need to do is get that out of our heads. There is no difference between us.
The only difference is that the folks with money wanna stay in power and whether it is health care or something else they would do whatever they need to do to keep that power. It is always about money, Yo’al…

Somehow we got to make the other side of town to work with us. We’ve got to make our communities what they need to be and our young people, I am not picking on you, but you all got to step up to the plate. You are capable of being very, very smart people. You are capable of being all those doctors and lawyers. You are capable of running your own business.

This is one of the things in the position I am in, one of the things that really hurts; one of the programs that we have with the most money in it is for business and industry. And I am sitting up there and I am signing all forms… 6 million, 3 million, 2 million but who is it going to? Not one so far. We are approaching 80 million dollars since October 1, but not 1 dime to a black business.
Not one.

People from the other side of town?

The Obama 2008 Speech on Race gives us explanation to Shirley Sherrod’s remarks:

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.

That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings….

… But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

So the Department of Agriculture will hire the past – Shirley Sherrod – a woman deeply wounded from the darkest past of racism (her father was killed by a white man and the justice was never served for her and her dad) for outreach on discrimination matters.

The bright side is Shirley Sherrod believes in change. Unfortunately it is a kind of change that is about taking from one and giving to another as the government sees fit.

The most revealing information about Shirley Sherrod is on the next post, "40 Acres and a Mule - Sherrod Style?"

This may tie all of your questions together about this incident.