Monthly Archives: April 2012

When Reality Is Inconvenient Skew It !

Posted on by

One of my favorite bloggers is da tech guy at datechguyblog.com. He posted a story today about recent polls touted by the Washington Post about the election in November and how voters feel about various issues. His story is based on a story posted at Hot Air by Ed Morrissey.

The secret to getting any poll to confirm anything you want confirmed is in determining who you ask the questions. The recent Washington Post/ABC poll is the poster child for this technique.

Datechguy points out:

In a poll that is only 23% republican

  • Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney draw 42% and 44% respectively nearly double the GOP sample
  • The president draws no better than 52%.

In a poll only 23% republican and with a 11 point Democratic advantage:

  • the president can only manage a 3 pt advantage on jobs.

In a poll with only 23% republicans Obama can only manage

  • A 55% rating on Woman’s issues
  • A 53% rating on international affairs
  • and a 55% rating on being “inspiring

In a poll with only 23% republicans the president can’t crack 50% on:

  • Protecting the middle class
  • Understanding people’s problems,
  • Dealing with Healthcare
  • Supporting small business
  • Handling terrorism
  • Taxes

In a poll only 23% republican Romney holds an advantage over Obama on the issues of:

  • Energy Policy
  • Handling the Economy

and holds a double digit lead on dealing with the deficit.

America cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. He has polarized the country along economic and racial lines, he has spent money like there was no tomorrow both personally and publicly, and he has politicized all the areas of the government he could in the time he has been in office. We need to clean house–get rid of all the political hacks in high places and replace them with people who love America. President Obama does not seem to understand the whole concept of loving America–he is too busy getting even for those things he considered the wrongs of the past. When he stated that the Buffett Rule tax was not about raising money, but about fairness, he told us all we needed to know.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pay Attention–Your Freedom Is At Risk

Posted on by

The Justice Department is now going after individual citizens who disagree with their political policies. A recent case, the Judge ruled correctly, but the fact that the case was brought is chilling. It is easy to see from the actions of the President and the Justice Department that both are strong supporters of abortion. Although the heathcare directive that religious organizations provide contraception services (and abortion services) violates the First Amendment rights of these organizations, the Obama Administration has strongly supported the directive. The Executive Order stating that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions has turned out to be worthless when viewed against the procedures set up in Obamacare.

The pro-abortion attitude is now reflected in an attack on a pro-life citizen acting within her rights. On Friday the Daily Caller posted a story about the court case against Mary “Susan” Pine, a pro-life sidewalk counselor. Holder v. Pine charged Ms. Pine with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act.

The article reports:

You won’t hear it from the mainstream media, but the Justice Department has just faced an embarrassing smack down on the highest profile of these cases. It has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

The case itself was interesting. The article reports some of the Judge’s statement:
 
Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”
 
At least the Judge acted on the evidence and not the politics.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

A Preemptive Strike On The Supreme Court

Posted on by

The Hill is reporting today that the Obama Administration has diverted roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The article reports:

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

It is very interesting to me that the money is being provided ‘outside the normal appropriations process.’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obamacare is under discussion at the Supreme Court. It is interesting to me that this donation to the IRS could not wait under the Supreme Court handed down its decision. Maybe I am becoming overly cynical in my old age, but I have the feeling that Obamacare is going to be implemented regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

The article further reports:

The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”

HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.

HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.

We are in serious danger of having our Constitution become a worthless piece of paper.

Meanwhile, this is a YouTube audio I have added for your consideration. It is a portion of the Michael Savage radio program. I would like to dismiss it as over the top, but there is enough plausible information in it to prevent me from doing that. Please listen and draw your own conclusions.

 

I am sincerely worried about the future of America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Problem With Spin Is That It Doesn’t Work When There Is Actual Evidence

Posted on by

I posted an article this morning about Jame O’keefe’s video showing how easy voter fraud is in Washington, D. C.  This is the link to the video at YouTube showing exactly what happened (or scroll down two articles and watch it there). Please watch until the end to hear what the person assumed to be impersonating Eric Holder says as he goes to get his identification. It’s brilliant! Anyway, enough of that.

Breitbart.com posted an article today giving the response of the Justice Department to the video.

The article reports:

Desperate to prove that voter ID should not be presented in order to obtain a ballot, the DOJ fired back at O’Keefe and Project Veritas today, with a DOJ official telling tried-and-true media ally Talking Points Memo, “It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”

Don’t the manufactured examples show how easily the real voter fraud occurs?

Please follow the link to the Breitbart.com story and read the entire article. Also read the comments–they are also very interesting.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes Politicians Do Things That Are So Arrogant It’s Almost Funny

Posted on by
The State House in Boston

The State House in Boston (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On Thursday the Boston Herald reported that a six-member conference committee of lawmakers in Massachusetts charged with creating a bill to boost government performance, accountability and transparency and increase oversight of spending have decided to hold their meetings in private.

Representative Peter Kocot (D-Northampton) stated:

“Holding open meetings, during which negotiators would discuss differences and seek common ground on bills overhauling government administration and finance laws, might inhibit frank negotiations.

“If you look at the rules of committees, the joint rules, conference committees are not included in those rules. Conference committees operate under a separate set of rules and typically it’s been very common practice in the Legislature to close conference committees so that the members of the conference committee can have a frank and open discussion of the merits of the bills.”

Good grief!

Massachusetts is a one-party state. If you would like more transparency and more honesty in the Massachusetts government, you need to make it a two-party state. Even if you don’t agree with one of the parties, having two parties in government tends to make government more accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need Voter Identification Laws Before November

Posted on by

Sometimes voter fraud is so poorly done it’s amazing anyone gets away with it. Recently James O’Keefe pulled off one of his sting operations in Washington, D. C., that should have been a total failure. Unfortunately, it wasn’t.

National Review Online reports today that last Tuesday in the Washington, D. C., primary election, James O’Keefe was given a ballot after misleading the person at the ballot box to believe that he was Eric Holder.

The video of this and various other related incidents can be found at YouTube:

 

The article at National Review points out that James O’Keefe never actually committed fraud because he never specifically claimed to be Eric Holder. If you watch the video of the incident carefully, you can see how carefully worded his statements were. When I posted this article on Monday morning, only 39 people had seen the video. If Americans want an honest election in November, that number needs to increase exponentially.

There will be a response from the Justice Department to this video. I suspect that the first thing they will try to do is charge James O’Keefe with some sort of illegal activity for making his point about voter fraud. Next, they will continue to proclaim that voter fraud does not exist, even though the video shows that it does. They will NOT have an honest discussion of voter fraud and the need for strong voter identification laws.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Love The Irony Of This

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power LIne posted a story yesterday that I love. A reporter for PJTV went undercover to the Washington offices of the people who are protesting voter identification laws. I couldn’t figure out how to embed the video, but here is the link, PJTV. The video illustrates that the groups who are protesting photo identification requirements for voters all require photo identification to get past the receptionist. I love irony.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Had To Go To Pravda To Get This Story

Posted on by

I am not kidding. I found the link to this information at Pravda (Russian for ‘truth”). I wonder why they are posting the story, considering that President Obama is their friend, but on the other hand, the current Russian government is not known for its pro-American feelings. How would the Russians feel about President Joe Biden? That is just a scary thought.

Anyway, the Tea Party Tribune (who knew they had a publication?) posted a memo by nine state Attorneys General listing the ways the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.

This is the list of violations:

  • FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • PPACA: Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities
  • EPA: Florida Water; EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria pre-empted Florida standards; U.S. District Judge upheld the state’s site-specific alternative criteria for streams and rivers
  • EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas
  • EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate
  • DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number
  • DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law
  • DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ
  • Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)
  • EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church
  • DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain
    1. DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will.  Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

My question is simple, “Where is the media on this?” Why did I have to go to Pravda to find the link? The current administration needs to be reminded legally in a big way what the U.S. Constitution says about the government’s power in America. If the media won’t do that, the people need to do it in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Anyone Actually Believe This ?

Posted on by

 

Shamrock Texas Tornado

Shamrock Texas Tornado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Real Clear Politics reported yesterday on a statement made by Senator Dick Durbin earlier this week.

The Senator stated:

“It’s your money or your life. We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.”

This statement was made in response to the recent tornadoes in Texas. There are a few problems with the statement. I don’t think any American politician supports pollution–I just don’t.

I might be a good idea to remember that hurricanes and tornadoes have been with us for a long time. Out of curiosity I looked up the Rhode Island hurricane of 1938 (I couldn’t remember the year). In reading the article, I found a reference to the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. In 1939, Hollywood produced “The Wizard of Oz.” Obviously, someone familiar with tornadoes wrote the script. In the 1930’s America did not have the highways and power generating plants that it has now, and weather was still happening. Imagine. Again, I support clean air, but I don’t like being threatened.

This is simply another attempt to convince the American people that the government needs to take more of their money.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unfortunate, But Necessary

Posted on by

Newsbusters is reporting tonight that the producer who created the altered recording of George Zimmerman’s 911 call has been fired. The network is refusing to name the producer, but has fired him.

The article reports:

The editing of the segment was initially noticed by NewsBusters, an arm of the Media Research Center, a conservative media monitoring group. On March 31, NBC told The Washington Post that it would investigate. […]

The people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act.

I have no way of knowing whether the editing was done on purpose or whether it was accidental. I do know that it painted Mr. Zimmerman as a racist when there was no actual evidence to support that charge. Because of the way the tape was edited, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other professional racial complainers got involved in something that was totally the result of editing a tape in a way that was thoroughly misleading. Thank God for the fact that NewsBusters caught on to what was done and spoke up.

This story is another example of why we need the Internet. All media needs to be held accountable (even the Internet). Generally it is the Internet that holds the mainstream media accountable, but I am sure there are examples of the reverse.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Facts Given Are True, But There Is More To The Story

Posted on by

The Nashville Business Journal posted a story yesterday about the economic aspects of buying a hybrid car. There are a few hybrid cars that are an economical choice after two years–Toyota’s Prius ($23,537), Lincoln’s MKZ ($33,887) and Volkswagen’s diesel-powered Jetta TDI ($25,242). There are a few that take considerably longer–the Nissan’s all-electric Leaf ($28,421) takes nine years for its owner to break even and the Chevy Volt takes 26.6 years.

All of that is true, but there is another aspect of this. President Obama’s energy department has always had the goal of making gasoline prices high–it was stated before President Obama was elected that he had no problem with high gas prices–he just wanted those prices to be reached gradually. As the price of gasoline passes four dollars a gallon on its way to five dollars a gallon, you have to wonder what the magic price per gallon is that will make these cars economical for the average buyer. What would the price of gasoline have to be in order to justify the amount government money invested in the Chevy Volt? Would that justify the crony capitalism involved?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Posted on by

The American (the online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute) posted an article yesterday by Marc Theissen about some recent actions by President Obama regarding the Supreme Court.

The article reported some events this week in a Boston, Massachusetts, court:

On Wednesday, oral arguments took place over another law passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Indeed, both cases feature the same lawyer — former solicitor general Paul Clement — who delivered the argument against Obamacare before the Supreme Court last week and in defense of DOMA before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit this week.

Why is Clement, and not the Justice Department, defending this law in federal court? Because the Obama administration announced last year that it had decided that it would no longer defend DOMA in court. Quite the opposite, the Justice Department is actively urging district courts around the country to … you guessed it … overturn this law.

The irony here is that DOMA was passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” In the House the vote was 342-67, and in the Senate the vote was 85-14. That actually is a strong majority.

Last year in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder stated:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

So the President and the Attorney General have decided only to uphold those laws that they happen to agree with.

Has anyone in this administration read the U. S. Constitution?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Patriotic Songs Become Offensive We Need To Pay Attention

Posted on by

This is the YouTube video of the Lee Greenwood song “God Bless The USA.”

 

Why am I posting it? Because a school not too many miles from where I live has banned its message. Today’s Washington Post is reporting that students at Stall Brook Elementary in Bellingham, Massachusetts, were taught the song with the words “we love the USA.” Some parents objected to the change of lyrics and the school has cancelled plans for the children to sing songs at an upcoming school presentation.

Songs such as “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” have been sung in American schools since the fifties and sixties (and probably before that, but I wasn’t around before that!). The message in those songs is no different than the message in the Lee Greenwood song. Have we forgotten who we are?

UPDATE:

The Washington Post is reporting tonight (Thursday night) that the school has changed its mind and the students will be able to sing the song with the correct words.

The article reports:

After parents protested, the school said students wouldn’t sing anything during the April 12 assembly. But Superintendent Edward Fleury said Thursday that students could sing “God Bless the USA” with its original chorus.

Fleury says the school believes the word “God” is acceptable in patriotic songs and no disrespect was intended.

I’m glad God is acceptable in patriotic songs since He is mentioned so frequently in the founding documents of America. Thank you to all the parents who cared enough to get involved. We need more of you.  

Enhanced by Zemanta

A President Who Chose To Ignore A Ruling By The Supreme Court

Posted on by
The American Thinker reminds us today that there has been only one President in American history who ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court. What happened after that was not good.

In 1830, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democrat Party, signed the “Indian Removal Act of 1830.”  The Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole Indians (known as the “Five Civilized Tribes”) had prospered, and President Jackson had ordered the Army to relocate them. The Supreme Court intervened, and in 1831 SCOTUS ruled on behalf of the Cherokee Nation in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. President Jackson ignored the order.

The article reports what happened next:

…the deaths of thousands of Cherokees followed.  The ruination of their businesses, culture, and theft of their lands was the outcome.  Those lands were ostensibly given to whites, while the Cherokees and the four other tribes were forcibly marched west to uncharted territory and left to die. 

Mr. Jackson was succeeded by another Democrat, Martin VanBuren, who had been Jackson’s Secretary of State.  He followed in his predecessor’s footsteps and made sure that the slaughter and theft of land, businesses, and pride continued long after Mr. Jackson got the ball rolling.  

Part of the problem was that gold had been discovered on the Cherokee land in Georgia. Greed was the obvious motive. This was one of the darkest moments in American history. The Supreme Court was right ot oppose what was happening.

I believe that the Supreme Court will be correct in opposing Obamacare. They will prevent the death of many Americans by refusing to ruin one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Propaganda Campaign Begins

Posted on by

On Tuesday the Center for Security Policy posted a story about the propaganda campaign the Muslim Brotherhood is waging in America to sway public opinion so that we will continue to send money to countries like Egypt which they have taken over.

Yahoo News reported yesterday that members of the Muslim Brotherhood met with low-level National Security Council staff at the White House.

What is this about? It’s about keeping the flow of money going to the people who want to take away our freedom.

The article at the Center for Security Policy reminds us of some basic facts about the Muslim Brotherhood:

 Of course, they’d like to keep the U.S. largesse flowing for as long as possible and once U.S. citizens begin to glom onto the Brotherhood’s anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Israel sharia agenda, that might not be so easy. The Muslim Brotherhood motto doesn’t come across so well once people know what’s in it:

 Allah is our objective, Muhammad is our Prophet, the Quran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.

They might start thinking about what the Muslim Brotherhood logo, means, too: the Arabic word at the bottom of the circle is waidu, meaning “prepare,” and comes from the first word of Qur’anic verse 8:60, which tells Muslims to “Make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.”   

Someone might ask the Christians in Egypt what they think of the new government. Egypt has already driven out the Jews, now they are working on the Christians.

The article at the Center for Security Policy reports:

A Muslim Brotherhood perception management team is coming to Washington, D.C. Georgetown University’s Saudi-funded Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understandingand its Director, John Esposito, will host a delegation of Egyptian members of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party for “a discussion” on April 4, 2012

Then, the group will join fellow Brotherhood-affiliates from Jordan, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia the next day at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for a program to be moderated by Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and a senior associate in the Middle East Program at Carnegie.

 Professor John Esposito founded the Georgetown Center that now bears the name of the Saudi royal prince whose $20 million dollar endowment in 2005 bought a devoted pro-Islamic program at this Catholic university in the nation’s capital. Professor Nathan Brown, another apologist for sharia Islam, testified for the defense in the first Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, in which he attempted to whitewash the obligatory Islamic annual zakat tax, a portion of which according to sharia (Islamic law) must go to jihad.

Let’s look at this for a minute. The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is Saudi funded. You know, the Saudi Arabia that bans Bibles and Christian churches from its country. The Saudi Arabia that gave us the 911 terrorists. The Saudi Arabia that is know to be the home of one of the most virulent forms of Islam. These are the people talking about ‘Muslim-Christian Understanding.’ America needs to wake up to what is happening here. The difference between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is method–not goal. Both are dedicated to the idea of a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. Al Qaeda wants to do it through violence, the Muslim Brotherhood wants to destroy America through subversion of its government. That means the end of the U.S. Constitution. We can pay attention now or we can wonder later what happened to our freedom.

 

 

     

Enhanced by Zemanta

I’m Really Not Making This Up !

Posted on by
1999-2004 Ford Mustang photographed in Washing...

1999-2004 Ford Mustang photographed in Washington, D.C., USA. Category:Ford Mustang IV (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A group called Strategic Vision posted a story last week reporting research they did regarding which members of which political parties purchase which cars.

These are the results:

Democrats:

1. Honda Civic Hybrid
2. Volvo C30
3. Nissan Leaf
4. Acura TSX Wagon
5. Ford Fiesta sedan

Republicans:

1. Ford Mustang Convertible
2. Audi A8
3. Mercedes GL
4. Ford Expedition
5. Ford F-­‐150

I laughed when I read this–I drive a Ford Mustang Convertible. An article at Power Line, which reported the results of the study, concluded:

All of this adds up to one more illustration of the fact that it is a heck of a lot more fun to be a Republican than a Democrat.

I agree.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fighting The Lies

Posted on by

The statement made by the President in the Rose Garden earlier this week that “he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”” was an amazing statement. President Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago. Didn’t he read the Constitution? Well, the Fifth Circuit Court wants to know…

CBS News reports:

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

 The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

 Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, suggesting it wasn’t clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Laws mean things, and evidently this Judge wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page in terms of what the law says.

The article further reports:

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president’s comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws “have troubled a number of people” and that the suggestion “is not a small matter.”

 The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss “judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation.”

 “I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48 hours from now — a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president,” Smith said. “What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?”

Frankly, if I were Judge Smith, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the report. However, there is a point to this. Because many Americans do not understand either the Constitution or the roles of the three branches of government, President Obama may actually succeed in his ‘intimidate the Supreme Court to prevent Obamacare from being overturned’ campaign. This is a dangerous time for America. We need to make sure we understand how our government is supposed to work and protect its ability to work correctly. It’s time for all of us to be aware that the government serves at the will of the people–it is not in place to control us and tell us what to think.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Inventing Terms To Circumvent The Law

Posted on by

On Monday, Judicial Watch reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that’s a U.S. citizen. What the @#$# is an “unlawful presence waiver?”

The new procedure is wrapped up in legal terms, but basically it means that illegals would not be required to return to their home countries and wait in line to enter the country legally.

There are a few things I would like to mention here. What part of illegal does the DHS not understand? The other thing I need to point out is the dirty little secret regarding making illegals legal and putting them into the work force.

In the 1960’s, money from the Social Security Taxes was raided and put in with other tax money and spent in the general fund. There has not been a separate Social Security tax ‘lockbox’ for at least forty-five years–the money was used to pay for President Johnson’s expanding social programs. Until the baby boomers began to retire, that was not a problem as there were so many boomers that the Social Security taxes they paid kept the program solvent. Well, that was then, this is now. Our population is aging and the boomers started retiring a few years ago. Because of the impact abortion has had on the growth of population (since 1973–almost thirty years ago), there are not enough workers in the workforce to pay Social Security for the boomers. If there is a sudden increase of workers paying into Social Security (such as illegals suddenly becoming legal and paying Social Security Taxes), the demise of Social Security could be kicked down the road until the President is out of office and most of the present Congress is no longer in office. That way, no unpopular steps need be taken to fix the program and federal spending in general might not have to be cut.

Illegals are illegal. It’s a rather basic concept. It may not be practical to send all illegals home, but we should begin to deport those who break our laws and we should secure our borders. The porous southern border is a security risk. Having no idea who is in the country because we have no idea who has entered the country is a recipe for disaster. Do we think for one minute that those who wish us harm who have set up terrorist camps in South and Central America are not taking advantage of our porous southern border?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Somehow Most Of The American Press Missed This

Posted on by

Yesterday Investors.com posted a story about Tuesday’s “Three Amigos” summit with President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Things, unfortunately, did not go well. Our political President has been so busy focusing on his re-election, he seems to be neglecting some other things that are rather important.

The article reports:

Energy has become a searing rift between the U.S. and Canada and threatens to leave the U.S. without its top energy supplier.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama’s de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada is preparing to sell its oil to China.

Until now, NAFTA had shielded the U.S. from having to pay global prices for Canadian oil. That’s about to change.

Prepare for even higher prices at the gas pump as this takes effect.

The article reports the reporting of the summit in the Mexican press:

Excelsior of Mexico City reported that President Felipe Calderon bitterly brought up Operation Fast and Furious, a U.S. government operation that permitted Mexican drug cartels to smuggle thousands of weapons into drug-war-torn Mexico. This blunder has wrought mayhem on Mexico and cost thousands of lives.

There is also the fact that America is blocking the entry of both Mexico and Canada into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The article at Investors.com concludes:

In short, the summit was a diplomatic disaster for the U.S. and its relations with its neighbors north and south.

It should have been the easiest, most no-brainer diplomatic task Obama faces.

Instead, it underscored the Obama administration’s indifference to anything more than its own political interests.

It’s a shame the American media didn’t tell us. Instead we had to learn of it in the foreign press.

As Americans, we used to be able to depend on the basic media to provide us with news about the events of the day. It is becoming more and more obvious that Americans are going to have to do their own research on the Internet and other places if they are to be informed voters.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thuggery From The White House

Posted on by

President Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago. Chicago politically is an ugly city, and the President needs to learn some manners now that he is in the White House. His remarks about the Supreme Court yesterday were inappropriate and uncalled for.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story on the President’s remarks. The President stated:

[…] I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

[…] for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly-constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

We need to remember that there are other ways to ensure that people have access to health insurance–a government takeover is not the only option. We also need to remember that overturning a bad law is not judicial activism.

The President also stated that Obamacare was passed by a strong majority. That is a lie. It was passed by a parliamentary trick because they did not have the votes to send it back to the Senate after reconciliation. The election of Scott Brown was a glaring example of how unpopular the legislation was. The popularity of a law has nothing to do with whether or not it is constitutional, but we do live in a representative republic where the laws are expected to reflect the desires of the governed.

The question in Obamacare is whether or not the government can force you to buy something you may not want to buy. If that principle stands, it is the end of our freedom as we know it. In passing Obamacare, Congress overstepped its bounds. It is now up to the Supreme Court to put things back in order.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Up Is Down And Down Is Up

Posted on by

This is the radio interview of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the choice of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to serve as Chairman during the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. The interview was done by a Los Angeles radio interviewer who works in Los Angeles and has seen the Mayor’s record up close and personal.

 

We need more interviews like this. Let’s hear more about the actual records of the people put forward by both political parties and less about the silly stuff.