Obama | Save Your Rights

Jul 29

Obama’s Multiple Layers of Protection Includes A Corrupt Press

Posted in Media - Far Left Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments

Jul 28

Andrew Klavan’s Witty and Insightful “Happy Days of Summer” – A Political Assessment

Andrew Klavan Happy Days of Summer


			
			Posted in Congress Economy Obama Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post

	
		
							
			 28
			Without Government Action, Massive Increase of Our Taxes is Imminent Including Expiring Bush Tax Cuts
			
			Philosophically, the government already claims an excessive and an ever increasing amount of our hard earned money through multifarious taxes that are not limited to income taxes. Their profligate spending is partially fueled by our representatives’ knowledge that there can and will be more money collected and more ways to obtain it from us.
This must be stopped! Enough of our spendthrift, profligate government. Much more of this money should remain with us rather than be wasted on pork or pet projects that allow these government officials to have their name plastered on some building or institution, or to be transferred to those who are irresponsible and lazy but feel that it is their right to share in the American dream. (You know these individuals: they use food stamps to buy liquor and cigarettes and their money to buy iPods, iPhones, $200 sneakers, cell phones, tattoos and gold onlays for their teeth while having numerous children by countless and nameless partners.)
We must use all means possible to let our representatives know that we want the Bush tax “cuts” to remain in effect. If they are allowed to expire, the government will be taking billions of additional dollars more from us each year – which is on top of Obama’s new taxes for healthcare.
Remember Nov. 2nd.
The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Investors Business Daily    07/21/2010

Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.
Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.
But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.
Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay.
The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.
But the damage doesn't stop there.
The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.
Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000.
Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.
Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.
But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:
The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans, says ATR, "will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)."
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. "This provision of ObamaCare," according to ATR, "increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%."
Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018.
Beginning in 2019 it falls to $2.8 billion and stays there. And who pays the new drug tax? Patients, in the form of higher prices.
Economic Substance Doctrine. ATR reports that "The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks 'economic substance.'"
A third and final (for now) wave, says ATR, consists of the alternative minimum tax's widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:
• The Tax Policy Center, no right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.
• "Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or 'depreciate') equipment purchases up to $250,000," says ATR. "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be 'depreciated.'"
• According to ATR, there are "literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place," plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss, "but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs."
• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won't be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.
Then there's the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the tax the administration initially said wasn't a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions by wealthier Americans.
Not all Americans may fully realize what's in store come Jan. 1. But they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections, and members of Congress might take note of our latest IBD/TIPP Poll (summarized above).
Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn't. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.
The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats' oft-heard assertion that Bush merely provided "tax breaks for the wealthy." Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them, and the cuts helped the nation recover from a recession and the worst stock-market crash since 1929.
Maybe, just maybe, Americans remember that — and will not forget come Nov. 2.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541131/201007211841/The-Tax-Tsunami-On-The-Horizon.aspx
			
			Posted in George W. Bush Government spending Obama ObamaCare Tax Taxes Wealth redistribution with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 26
			Obama’s Narcissistic View of the Price to Pay In Order To Advance His Agenda
			
			
Even with his own Party, it is all about Obama. He will throw Democrats under the bus in order to enact his legislation and ideologies.

Obama is a clear and present danger to most!
			
			Posted in Democrat Ideology Narcissism Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 26
			Former Congressman Tom Tancredo Calls For Obama’s Impeachment
			
			We have been calling for impeachment of Obama for a long time for myriad reasons. He presents an unprecedented existential threat to the welfare and survival of America as we have known it in the past – founded on principles of liberty, freedom, equality, justice and individuality and with a non-intrusive government.
In fact, the primary motivation and impetus for the creation of this website was the realization of the threats and risks to a free America that Obama presented combined with a far-left radical Democrat juggernaut in the Senate and House of Representatives. Information needs to be disseminated so we can all be informed and aware of what is transpiring and act accordingly. As we have just recently learned regarding the media collusion in the Journolist scandal, such information has been egregiously manipulated, controlled and even suppressed to support a far-left agenda (and candidate in Obama). The “main stream” media has become a de facto political wing and propaganda source for the Democratic Party and hence, the functioning government.
This is an incredibly dangerous situation for us American citizens and for the survival of our Democracy.
In the following trenchant, thorough and convincing editorial written by Tom Tancredo, who was a five term member of Congress, he calls for the impeachment of Obama. He concisely sums up the immense danger that Obama presents to our country by stating that:
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
If we can vote in enough Republicans to take over the House and Senate in November, then we will have what it takes to impeach Obama's - though we may also need to coax our elected officials to pursue this course of action.
The case for impeachment

Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration

Tom Tancredo    July 22, 2010
Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."
I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.
For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.
Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."
Mr. Obama's paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.
Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.
Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.
Mr. Obama's actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.
Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.
There is no higher duty of the federal government and our elected representatives than to protect our nation from invasion. Multiple reports and testimony before Congress by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials have stated that a porous border with Mexico is "a path" terrorists will use if they can. Some would-be terrorists, including at least one associated with Hezbollah, already have. Recent reports of contacts between Hezbollah and Mexican drug cartels make it all but certain that terrorists intent on destroying us will come across our southwestern border. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the administration to do everything in its power to keep Americans safe. Our safety is not a bargaining chip for another amnesty - or for any other political objective whatsoever.
Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office - which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion - requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama.
Tom Tancredo is a former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and five-term member of Congress from Colorado. He serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment/
			
			Posted in Constitution Freedom Ideology Impeach Liberal Media - Far Left Obama Tom Tancredo with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 26
			Early Signs Appear Positive For Arizona in the Lawsuit Filed By the Obama Administration
			
			The early signs from the judicial hearings on Arizona’s immigration law that is being challenged by the Obama Administration are auspicious for the state. Comments made by the judge who had been appointed by Bill Clinton appear to challenge the basis of the federal government’s case.
The citizens of Arizona (and in the rest of the country as well) are hoping that this portends a quick and favorable outcome to the Obama Administration’s politically motivated lawsuit.
Arizona should ultimately sue Obama for legal costs and for the accumulated costs that illegal immigrants have burdened Arizona with.
We all need to stand behind Arizona in its defense of the citizens not only of the state but also of the rest of the country. Write Governor Brewer letters of support and encouragement. You can also make an online donation to the cause that will ultimately help all of us. 


Hearing on Arizona immigration law begins

Jerry Markon    Washington Post     July 23, 2010
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.
"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.
As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.
"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom. Brewer, whose fierce criticism of the federal lawsuit has helped her popularity at home, watched silently from the front row, drawing a "Good afternoon, Governor" from the judge.
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."
The law, which Brewer signed in April, empowers police to question people they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants and to send them to federal authorities for possible deportation. President Obama has strongly condemned the law, and the Justice Department filed suit July 6, setting up an unusual clash between the federal government and a state over who should enforce the nation's immigration laws.
Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.
Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don't have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law "in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way."
"It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does," Kneedler said, citing as his main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption."
Based on the Constitution's supremacy clause, it says federal law trumps state statutes. Because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the government's lawsuit argues, the Arizona law must be struck down.
Bolton questioned key parts of that argument, especially relating to a section of the law that appears to require immigration-status checks if police stop someone for another law enforcement purpose and suspect the person is an illegal immigrant.
Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.
"There really is no flexibility," Kneedler said.
He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said.
Bouma ridiculed the foreign policy concerns.
"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."
Bolton is hearing six other lawsuits filed against the Arizona law. A former Arizona state court judge, she was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, but legal observers say she is hard to pigeonhole ideologically.
Outside the gleaming glass-and-white iron courthouse, named for former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an angry subtext reflected the divide over how to handle the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.
Opponents of the Arizona law clasped hands, prayed and held signs condemning it.
"The law is racist. The police are harassing us because of our brown skin," said Marta Calderon, who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign saying "Stop SB1070," as the immigration law is known.
Nearby, Brandy Baron waved an American flag and expressed her support for the law and her "disgust" at efforts to overturn it.
"I am amazed that the Justice Department would have the nerve to sue us for trying to get laws that are already on the books enforced," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548_2.html?sid=ST2010072106582
			
			Posted in Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Illegal Immigration Obama with 1 Comment
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 24
			Obama Has Turned The Clock Back On Race Relations
			
			The following trenchant editorial by the pre-eminent philosopher/ columnist/ economist Thomas Sowell bluntly states his assessment of Obama’s racial stance: there is nothing post-racial about him. This should come as no surprise to those who have followed his positions and commentary on racial issues during his Presidency.
For those who have researched his past, you would have discovered a very racist and arrogant individual who feels comfortable associating with and reveres some of the most anti-White, intolerant, anti-American blacks who fervently subscribe to Black Nationalism philosophies. The names are quite familiar: Rev. Jeremiah Wright (20 years listening to incendiary speeches), Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Van Jones – to name but a few.
Those Obama voters who were unaware of his past and his associations were most probably deceived by his dissembling rhetoric. They expected someone who would transcend race and relegate racial issues to the past. Instead what they got was someone who is among the most racially polarizing Presidents this country has ever had. Compounding the Obama problem is that his deceptions are not limited to racial issues - they are ubiquitous and myriad in all areas.
Sowell concisely sums up Obama’s influence on race by stating that:
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
 

Nothing Post-Racial About Barack Obama

Thomas Sowell   07/20/2010
Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race card fraud is an even bigger problem.
Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.
No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons — and it worked.

This year's target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.
All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.
When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable — indeed, unbelievable — that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.

The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.
This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race card fraud is especially painful to see.
Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.
Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.
Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.
Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.
On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does. As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.
You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer — Ring Lardner, I believe — once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."
You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody — even the members of Congress — to know what was in those bills.
Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.
Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.
A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. The Supreme Court not only took the case, but also ruled in favor of the firefighters.
Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting he didn't know the facts, to say a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/540936/201007201820/Nothing-Post-Racial-About-Barack-Obama.aspx
			
			Posted in Black nationalism Obama Racism Thomas Sowell with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 23
			Obama and Unemployment Insurance
			
			
			
			Posted in Economy Obama Political Cartoon Unemployment with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 23
			Liberal Journalists and News Media Colluded Through Online Forum “Journolist” To Facilitate Obama’s Election
			
			An online forum called Journolist has been used by hundreds of liberal journalists to collude in “news” presentation in order to advance the liberal agenda. More specifically and egregiously, it was a communications portal that served to facilitate a coordinated approach in getting Obama elected by controlling the news. This involved discussing what stories to cover and with what angle and what stories to suppress.
The prime victim of their journalistic malfeasance was Sarah Palin whom they attacked with a vengeance. Conversely, they intentionally quashed stories on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s associations with his racist church and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
The Daily Caller uncovered some of the media that were involved including Time, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Baltimore Sun, Salon, Guardian, the Washington Independent and the New Republic and big individual names such as Joe Klein of the Times.
Media bias is an understatement of the malfeasance that was perpetrated here.
The following three articles further elucidate and scrutinize this abject journalistic malpractice:
JournoList ‘Sick Puppies’ Planned Attacks on Sarah Palin
When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
			
			Posted in Liberal Media - Far Left Obama with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 21
			Breitbart Convincingly Shows The Hollow Racist Charges and the Racism of the NAACP
			
			Breitbart put his money where his mouth was to prove the baseless charges of racism that the NAACP leveled against the Tea Party. This seems to be their modus operandi: charge its opponents with racism in order to try to discredit them and obtain political points and maintain their "power" and "importance". Their innumerable trumped up accusations predictably initiate desired sympathetic responses from the far left media that continue to perpetuate their myths and support their relevance.
Not unexpectedly, Michelle Obama was recently involved in what appears to be an orchestrated attempt to discredit the Tea Parties by many demagogic racist black organizations and individuals.  

			
			Posted in Michelle Obama Racism Reverse Racism Tea Parties Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 19
			The Arrogance, Corruption and Illegalities of the Obama Administration
			
			
			
			Posted in Arrogance Constitution Corruption Obama Political Cartoon Racism with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 19
			Obama’s Website Featured The New Black Panther Party: Birds of a Feather
			
			The following explosive video exposes and explores the issue of Obama’s Presidential campaign allowing a prominent presence on his web site of the New Black Panthers Party. This was not an accidental coincidence or oversight by the Obama team which ran a very precise and carefully orchestrated campaign. You don’t publicize or honor a person or a group to such an extent if you strongly disagree with them or find them repugnant. This was the featuring of a group that is ideologically similar to Obama.
And we have seen what that ideology is over the last 18 months. Viciously and vehemently:
Anti-American. 
Anti-White.
Anti-Capitalism.
Anti-Establishment.
Anti-Semitic. Anti-Christian.
But strongly narcissistic, hedonistic, pro-Islamic and racist (as in black nationalism as in Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Van Jones, et al.)
This is what is occupying the White House at present ... and why he needs to be removed. 

			
			Posted in Black nationalism Ideology New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
		
	
		
							
			Jul 18
			Ineptitude? Imbecility? Ideology? Or All Three?
			
			
			
			Posted in Ideology Incompetence Islam Obama Political Cartoon Terrorism with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 17
			One of the Few Businesses Thriving Under Obama’s Ineptitude
			
			
			
			Posted in Economy Obama Political Cartoon Recession with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 16
			Just Telling It Like It Is
			
			The Dept. of Justice, which should be protecting the rights of all Americans and the Constitutionally enumerated equality of all (Fourteenth Amendment), apparently is not fulfilling its mandate. Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, a racist bias has suffused the agency. Their ideology is that some people - blacks in particular and Democratically voting Hispanics - are "more equal" than others, specifically Whites. Some of this also stems from Obama's 20 years attending the vitriolic, racist rants of Rev. Wright in church where he preached black nationalism and supremacy. (Then again, Obama "claimed" to have heard nothing controversial. And Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" or "have sex with that woman".)
This sanctioned and enforced racism of blacks over whites is something that all Americans need to be aware of and react and respond to aggressively. If not, our rights will continue to progressively erode and we will find ourselves in a racially very hostile country that may be balkanized.

			
			Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Black nationalism Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Ideology New Black Panther Party Obama Political Cartoon Racism Reverse Racism with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 16
			Don’t Think It Can’t Happen Here: Russia, Cuba and … the U.S.?
			
			Even a more than 230 year history of democracy in America and a Constitution that champions individual freedom and rights while proscribing those of a federal government won’t prevent the hijacking or transformation of our government into an oppressive one. Unfortunately, we are witnessing and experiencing this firsthand now.
Start with a corrupt and ideologically perverted cabal of well connected individuals, add an adulating and negligent far-left press, influential and implacable liberals and idealists, a benighted populating that is more concerned with hedonistic pursuits than education and politics and you have the perfect storm for such an occurrence. Of course, it helps when the offending politicians have full and functionally unopposable powers in the legislative branch.
Most recently, this has occurred in Russia and Cuba. Let’s forcefully thwart it here before it is too late!
Castro, Obama and the Rule of Law 

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown     7/10/2010
This week we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960s. His family was more fortunate than most as they were able to bring a suitcase and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.
Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide, while celebrating the birth of our beloved America on the Fourth of July.
We began with a simple discussion about our country and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington.
But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train.
"You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist."
We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."
The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, "You mean just like Barack Obama?"
He responded, "Yes, just like Barack Obama."
He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."
"I remember my uncle saying after it started, 'Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries, he will never come and take our family hardware store.' But that is exactly what happened, Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us.
And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own, it is now our property also, and you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house because others are moving in with you."

The lesson learned from this discussion is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office they can take totally unexpected turns.
If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society would be evaporating just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960s.
But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrongdoing by the U.S. Department of Justice because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets without due process by the government.
Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled by the Attorney General. The U.S. borders are overrun with crime and illegal activity and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers while the innocent are killed and overrun. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration entrusted with enforcing the law.
Without the rule of law the U.S. Constitution is a sham. Without the rule of law our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book, a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally must come together and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law end now. And yes, it can happen here.
http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/07/09/castro,_obama_and_the_rule_of_law/page/full
			
			Posted in Communism Constitution Corruption Legal rights Liberal Media - Far Left Obama with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 15
			Racist New Black Panther Party Praised Bin Laden. Did The Obama Administration Also Know This When They Dropped Charges?
			
			The video below which recorded in 2002 captures the leader of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz, praising Osama Bin Laden “not bowing down” to America. In it he states:
“Let’s talk about this brother, because he’s a bold man… Usama Bin Laden, Mr. Bin Laden. Gotta give him his respect. He’s not bowing down. He’s not cutting [?] the tap dance… Mr. Bin Laden standing up. There’s a man born in Saudi Arabia bringing reform, Mr. Bin Laden. But you’re not supposed to say these things about him. I thought we had free speech.”
Shabazz is one of the men that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration mysteriously and inexplicably dropped charges against in the blatant case (which the government already won) of voter intimidation during the Presidential elections. We would like to know if they were also aware of his strong support of Bin Laden. It would not surprise us and would clearly make the Administration's actions even more egregious.
			
			Posted in Anti-American Attorney General Eric Holder New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 14
			Defining Recession, Depression and Recovery
			
			
			
			Posted in Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 14
			Obama’s Unprecedented Arrogance and Racism
			
			In the following editorial, David Limbaugh details the unprecedented level of arrogance and condescension spewing from members of the Obama Administration. Their demeanor is one of a ruling elite in an autocracy rather than of a representative government serving at the pleasure of the public.
Then add to this unabashed racism of black on white and unequal justice and what results is a noxious mixture that will be destructive to our country.
Unprecedented Arrogance 

David Limbaugh  7/2/2010
The Obama administration grows more arrogant, cavalier and fundamentally dishonest every day. Just in the past few days, we've seen a number of troubling examples. Frankly, sometimes it's hard to keep up.
In a speech in Wisconsin, Obama was bragging about how wonderful the terrible economy is. You'll recall that during both of President George W. Bush's terms, Democrats, including Obama, castigated him for destroying the economy, despite the existence of empirically verifiable robust growth during some seven of those eight years.
Now that Obama has been in office for a year and a half and his economy is failing by all objective measures, he and his Democrats demand, once again, that we ignore the empirical evidence in front of our faces and bow down to them in reverent gratitude for ensuring that things are not worse than they are.
Everyone knows Obama promised -- he was hardly tentative about his prediction -- that if the nation followed him over the cliff with his harebrained "stimulus" scheme, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. When unemployment soared above 10 percent, he insisted we be patient to allow his plan to work. Now that it stubbornly remains in the high 9s, he tells us that if he hadn't implemented his stimulus bill, the economy would be much worse (12 or 13 or 15 percent), so we not only are forbidden from criticizing him for this disaster but also must genuflect because only three of the four wheels of the economy are teetering over the edge of the cliff.
He said, "There may be some roads that not only were repaired but also were ... linked up to create a new industrial park that would facilitate long-term economic development beyond this immediate crisis."
Can you imagine the reaction of the liberal media had a Republican president uttered such gibberish? There "may be some roads"? How's that for a non-statement? That were linked up to a new industrial park to facilitate long-term growth? How about some facts here, Mr. Intellectual? Then again, how can you blame him for citing nebulous "facts" and failed economic theory when neither the real facts nor the economic evidence substantiates his claims.
He also said that every economist who's looked at it has said that the recovery did its job. Would someone please get this man a link to The Heritage Foundation's website or any other credible conservative think tank or economist? Time and time again, Heritage scholars have not only argued but also demonstrated why Obama's economic policies don't work in theory and haven't worked in practice. As noted many times before, they have not helped avert a crisis, but have exacerbated already bleak conditions. Sure, all economists agree with him, just as all Americans agree with his socialistic policies.
Moving on, in the past few days, we've also heard from former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who has confirmed -- from the belly of the beast -- our worst suspicions about Obama and Eric Holder's Justice Department's dismissing a slam-dunk case for voter intimidation against New Black Panther Party members for racial reasons. This is an egregious trampling on the rule of law, an outrage that would subject any Republican president to charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, a scandal of the first order for which this administration isn't even bothering to develop "plausible deniability."
Next, we read about Obama's reaction to Sen. Lamar Alexander's reasonable suggestion that any energy discussion between the president and a "bipartisan" group of senators should include a focus on the oil spill and BP. Obama said, "That's just your talking point," and flat-out refused to discuss the subject. Is he king or what?
Finally, we've also witnessed this week another outburst from that paragon of smugness, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, whom I criticized earlier for mocking members of the press corps for their legitimate questions in lieu of attempting to answer them in good faith.
This time, this little smarmy nerd-thug mocked Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona for claiming Obama told him in a private meeting he would not secure our borders because it would disincentivize Republicans from supporting his effort to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" (read: amnesty). Gibbs accused Kyl of changing his story and basically arguing with himself on the matter, even though Kyl has not retreated an iota from the only relevant assertion: that Obama made the statement in question. Watch the video in which Gibbs clearly intends to create the false impression Kyl had vacillated on his charge  and tell me with a straight face we're not dealing with an entirely unprecedented level of arrogance in this White House.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2010/07/02/unprecedented_arrogance/page/full
			
			Posted in Arrogance Attorney General Eric Holder Obama Racism Reverse Racism with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 13
			Mexico’s Deceit On Illegal Immigration
			
			
And Mexico is joining in the lawsuit against Arizona - thanks to the encouragement from Obama and Congressional Democrats!
			
			Posted in Arizona Congress Democrat Illegal Immigration Mexico Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 13
			Arizona’s New Immigration Law Is Becoming A Prototype For Other States
			
			Arizona’s new immigration law S.B. 1070, which has been relentlessly attacked by many liberals and the news media yet is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, is also serving as the prototype for immigration legislation in several other states as discussed below. Americans are sick and tired of the problems associated with illegal immigration: increased crime and violence, massive unreimbursed costs such as for healthcare, education, welfare, and the judicial system which are presently being paid by us through our tax dollars, burdens on our schools and even what is becoming a ubiquitous finding: bilingual signs and communications.
Despite this, the Obama Administration is fighting this law under the pretense that it necessarily requires “profiling”.  This is not the true reason, however, as the legislation is essentially a replica of the federal law that adds controls to mitigate the “risk” of profiling. (Of course, liberals want to label “profiling” a racist action when in fact profiling represents the most logical, efficient and prudent way to detect what one is looking for which in this situation, are illegal aliens.)
Among the real reasons that Obama is against the law is for political purposes. He wants more of the Hispanic vote. As we have noted in previous posts, the fact that he would intentionally keep the border unsecured which also affords terrorists the ability to sneak into this country, is inexcusable, irresponsible, contemptuous and actions of what could be termed an anti-President.
Let’s reiterate. Obama resolutely refuses to secure our borders for personal political reasons which consequently places America in much greater jeopardy for future terrorism by allowing terrorist to infiltrate undetected into our country. This also financially burdens all 50 states (or in his mind, 57 states) and their citizens who have to bear all the attendant costs associated with these illegals which is estimated to be around $113 billion per year.
And one more thing. Ideology and narcissism aside, the Obama Administration and some liberal groups state that the cost of deporting the entire illegal alien population would be prohibitively expensive – estimated to be $285 billion over 5 years. The cost for them staying here during these 5 years is $565 billion ($113 billion per year times 5 years).
Interesting! We could actually save $280 billion over these five years if these illegal immigrants were sent back where they came from. That is $56 billion per year in net savings which would then jump to more than $113 billion per year after these first 5 years.
No wonder the federal government is against this: it would save us money instead of being a money losing proposition which the Democrats feel more comfortable with!
Arizona Immigration Law Emerges as Model for Other States

July 7, 2010
Arizona’s immigration law, considered controversial by some and under legal assault by the Obama administration, is fast emerging as a popular model in other states where illegal immigration is a hot-button issue.
And while protests against the law have drawn thousands to marches across the country, polls have consistently showed a majority of Americans favor the get-tough approach against illegal immigration.
At least three other states could pass similar legislation next year, and in many others, like Florida, GOP candidates are filming campaign ads and pushing debates favoring the law.
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have each taken steps against illegal immigration, and politicians in the three states are advocating further measures when their legislatures reconvene early next year, according to The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least 14 other states drew up bills that permit police officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the county illegally – the core issue of the Arizona law.
But it’s an open question in many of those states whether these bills would make it past sitting governors, many of whom are Democrats. In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, political factors improve the chances that state legislatures could follow Arizona's lead when they convene in 2011, according to the Post.
Oklahoma was actually the first state, not Arizona, to adopt legislation that was the toughest ever against undocumented immigrants. That happened in 2007. The measure made it a felony to knowingly provide transport or shelter to an illegal immigrant, and blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses and tuition.
The lawmaker responsible for the measure, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill, has said he wants to go even further with another bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.
Terrill cited the arrest of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member last week as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law had been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma, according to the Post.
In South Carolina, GOP Gov. Mark Sanford touted a comprehensive set of new measures against illegal immigration as the strictest yet when he signed it into law in 2008. The measure forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers.
Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers want to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure had been signed.
"We had a bill that was introduced this year that was very similar to the final version of the Arizona legislation. It was too late for us to move on it, but I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January," Republican state Sen. Larry Martin told the Post.
"As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that," he said.
In Utah, pro-immigrant advocates fear that new legislation clamping down on illegal immigration is inevitable next year. Several lawmakers there are advocating a crackdown, according to the Post.
On paper, Arizona's controversial new immigration law is not that different from the federal version. But the key difference is this: Arizona wants every illegal immigrant caught and deported. The federal government says treating all 11 million of the nation's illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system.
In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona law, the Justice Department says its policy is to focus on dangerous immigrants: gang members, drug traffickers, threats to national security. Law-abiding immigrants without documentation would largely be left alone.
Homeland Security officials say the government cannot possibly find, arrest and deport everyone who is here illegally. And trying to do so would also upset a balance crafted by Congress that takes into account humanitarian interests and foreign relations.
But proponents of the Arizona solution insist that's no reason not to try. And they say the state's toughest-in-the-nation law is a reasonable way to start.
"If it's really the case that they don't have enough resources to enforce the laws that Congress has passed, it would seem it's incumbent on them to go back to Congress and ask for more resources," said Steven Camarota, research director at the center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter enforcement of immigration laws. "But since they don't do that, it sort of undermines the argument."
Arizona's new law is nearly identical to federal immigration law. At issue is how it is enforced. The federal government says the state law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Arizona counters that the federal government is not doing its job, which forces state officials to step in.
State lawmakers argue that the federal government already enlists local authorities to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. The new law, they say, just extends that to police patrols.
The federal government says the law goes too far by making it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requiring police to question the immigration status of anyone they encounter who is believed to be undocumented.
The furor over the Arizona law is overblown, Camarota said Wednesday. It does not envision mass deportations or roundups, just a slow but steady pressure on illegal immigrants to leave Arizona — either for their home countries or for another state.
The number of illegal immigrants in the country fell for the first time this decade in 2007, and dropped another 800,000 between 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the recession and increased enforcement efforts.
As of January 2009, an estimated 10.8 million people were in the country illegally, 1 million less than the 2007 peak, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Deportations have been increasing, climbing from 185,944 in 2007 to 387,790 last year.
Many critics argue the federal government cannot selectively enforce immigration law, but it's common for law enforcement at all levels to prioritize. Small-time pot dealers do not receive the same level of investigation or prosecution as big-time heroin traffickers. The government has also tolerated medical marijuana in 14 states.
But Arizona's law has brought selective enforcement — and the differences that exist even among police agencies — into clearer focus.
Those differences are stark, even in the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says in an affidavit supporting the federal suit that he will probably have to move detectives focused on violent crime to street patrol because regular officers will be busy enforcing Arizona's new law.
But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been at the forefront of the effort to empower local authorities to enforce immigration laws, routinely assigns deputies to crime sweeps where they target illegal immigrants.
The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona's lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.
A March study by the liberal Center for American Progress estimated that deporting the entire illegal immigration population and securing the borders would cost $285 billion over five years.
In the government lawsuit, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection declared they will be forced to shift resources from major cases to minor ones if the law goes into effect as scheduled on July 29.
Five other lawsuits, filed by immigrant-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and individuals, are already before a federal judge in Phoenix. The federal challenge filed Tuesday is expected to be transferred to the same judge, who has hearings set for next week on requests to block the law from taking effect.
The federal lawsuit focuses on a core constitutional concern — balancing power between the states and the federal government. More specifically, the issue centers on the long-running "pre-emption" legal argument that says federal law trumps state law.
The government sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that do not belong in a federal legal challenge.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this story.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Immigration-Enforcement-Lawsuit/2010/07/07/id/364048
			
			Posted in Arizona Democrat Illegal Immigration Liberal Mexico Obama Security with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 12
			Quite A Contrast of Individuals and Attitudes
			
			What a contrast of individuals, attitudes and ideologies.
Kennedy was a constructive, motivating optimist.

Obama is a can't do, stifling narcissist.
Kennedy was a winner.

Obama a loser.
Kennedy thought of our country as a great virtuous world leader.

Obama sees us as arrogant, meddling and middling.
Kennedy saw us as Americans.

Obama sees Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, etc.
Kennedy left a legacy in his brief three year period.

Obama has created a nightmare in an even shorter time.
The overwhelming majority of Americans mourned Kennedy.

It won't happen with Obama!

			
			Posted in Incompetence Leadership Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 12
			Illegal Immigration Costs Estimated to be $113 Billion Per Year
			
			The estimated costs of illegal immigration to the American people annually is $113 billion per year - not chump change. This burden is borne unwillingly by the taxpayer and by definition could be considered to be indentured servitude or slavery. Simply put, we are forced to work to benefit the welfare of someone else, without choice.
Why should we be mandated to pay the costs of individuals who are not citizens here, have broken the law, increased the crime rate, have a deleterious effect on the education of our citizens and then have the audacity to call us racist and intolerant?
In many states, the cost of services for them exceeds the budget shortfall. That is, get rid of these costs and these states will be able close their budget deficits, be more fiscally sound and maybe even reduce the tax rate.
Obama and Congressional Democrats have abdicated their responsibility to resolve this problem in order to gain maximal political benefit (from voters of the Hispanic community). They need to be voted out of office this coming November.
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

Ed Barnes   FoxNews.com    July 06, 2010
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.
FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.
Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.
The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.
FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”
The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.
The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.
Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.


"The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.
The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.
But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.
“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."
He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”
Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/
			
			Posted in Congress Democrat Illegal Immigration Mexico Obama Taxes with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 11
			The Rise and Fall of America in 40 Years
			
			Obama's instructions that NASA transform itself into essentially a pro-Islam social service and jettison its celestial exploration plans fulfills yet another one of his goals in the systematic destruction of our country from within. The space agency will spend its allocated money on exalting the Islamic scientific contributions(?) rather than researching and building the next generation shuttles and planning expeditions back to the Moon and maybe to Mars.
Meanwhile, China is continuing its aggressive research and planned space missions. Maybe if Obama bows down low enough, they may allow him to attend the rocket launch for their mission to the Moon.

			
			Posted in Anti-American Ideology Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 11
			Massive Mosque Planned Adjacent to Ground Zero Must Not be Constructed
			
			In an act of temerity, a Muslim group has plans for the construction of a 15 story Mosque and Islamic cultural center within 600 feet of Ground Zero. Such centers generally are breeding grounds for terrorists and hateful rhetoric and indoctrination against the West and non-Muslim. To build such a facility near the sacred place where more than 3000 Americans were killed and in such grandiose scale is abhorrent and an affront to decency ... and they know it. The fact that such a powerful iconic structure could be built so close to the site of the attacks of 9/11 can be interpreted in the Muslim community to be a sign of their victory over the West and our weakness and lack of resolve.
Most sensible people can grasp the intended impact and statement that the Muslims are seeking to make with this facility in the Ground Zero area and vehemently oppose it. Unbelievably, it is either firmly supported or at last not opposed by NY Mayor Bloomberg and the Obama Administration.
Banned By CBS: Ad Opposing Ground Zero Mosque 

			
			Posted in Islam Obama Terrorism Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 9
			Obama and Holder Just Can’t Detect Black Mediated Racism Involving The New Black Panthers Because They Are Also Unmitigated Racists
			
			The following video captures the racist vitriol of one of the individuals charged in the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case that occurred in Philadelphia during the Presidential elections. He lost the case that the Bush Administration had originally filed but then the Obama Administration dismissed all charges without explanation.
We know why, of course: blatant, noxious racism against Whites which is an integral part of the Obama constitution (see: News Alert: Obama Administration Including Dept. of Justice Encourage and Support Racist Unequal Justice of Black Over White – “Payback Time” and read the Manchurian President).
If this had been the KKK or a white supremacy group, you can be most assured that this case would have been prosecuted to the fullest and you would have read about it ad infinitum in the news media.

			
			Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Ideology New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 8
			Our Dire Straits…
			
			This is an incisive political parody using the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing”. It correctly notes that we are too busy with mindless superficialities of life and hedonism to notice or even attempt to protest or oppose the government's increasing control and restrictions over our lives regarding freedoms, rights and choices and confiscation of our wealth.
Ironically and appropriately, the group’s name is descriptive of the present conditions in our country.
Money for Nothing

			
			Posted in Government Control Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Obama Parable Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 8
			Comparing Theodore Roosevelt’s Philosophy On Immigrants To Obama’s: Constructive and Sensible Versus Divisive and Ruinous
			
			The immigration debate today is... well not really a debate. In both actions as well as verbally (to Sen. John Kyle of Arizona), Obama has recklessly and corruptly indicated the he will make sure that the United States continues to have open, unsecured borders until an agreement can be reached in a comprehensive reform that includes full amnesty for illegals.
Furthermore, his comments promote divisiveness among the states, specifically encouraging verbal and economic attacks on Arizona which is trying to protect itself from being overrun by the violence of the Mexican drug cartel and gangs and the deluge of destitute illegal aliens who are creating a budgetary crisis  due to the billions of dollars a year that they cost the state.
Obama is the anti-President, one who seeks to divide and destroy rather than unite and protect. Such is the bedrock of his radical anti-American philosophy.
If you questions this assessment, just scrutinize his destructive, freedom restricting, financially reckless, disdainful actions and inactions over his first 18 months in office. To gain further insight, we also suggest that you read the recent bestseller, the Manchurian President by Aaron Klein.
Contrast this to the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt on immigrants from over 100 years ago. Below are some of his thoughts on Immigrants and being an American:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes herein good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

From 1907
"Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but

that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go

back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he

should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in

this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American

standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an

industrial asset."
"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him

up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may

well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his

showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us

in raising the level of our common American citizenship."

Roosevelt strongly called for assimilation of these immigrants so they would become equal "Americans". This would be best served with the need for them to learn to speak English which would allow them to advance and become productive citizens. This is a constructive, positive approach.
What does Obama encourage? Essentially a balkanized America where illegal immigrants are granted rights, privileges, and services and allowed to maintain their primary allegiance to their homeland - and with nothing expected in return. Except, of course, their votes as Democrats. A destructive, financially ruinous, welfare dependency approach.
			
			Posted in Arizona Illegal Immigration Obama Security with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 7
			Leadership Not In Obama’s DNA
			
			

Obama is not focusing on the important issues because he doesn't know how to. It is not in his DNA.
He may be a great though radical community organizer but he is an incompetent, indecisive and dismissive President. 
			
			Posted in Incompetence Obama Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
		
	
		
							
			 7
			The Gulf Oil Crisis Exemplifies Obama’s Failed Leadership
			
			The following time-line video produced by RightChange.com delineates from the beginning of the oil spill, Obama’s unalloyed ineptitude, narcissism, hedonism, dismissive attitude and absence of any leadership capabilities. 
Clearly, we need a change in our government starting in November by voting out the Democrats and regaining control of a government “of the people, for the people and by the people.”
If we fail in this endeavor, we will lose our country!

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

			
			Posted in Gulf BP Oil Spill Incompetence Leadership Obama Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
		
	
		
							
			Jul 6
			Unequal Protection Policy of the Obama Administration
			
			
As has been manifestly evident by numerous examples, the Obama Administration is intent on pursuing a legal position of minority rights trump those of Whites. A lawyer involved in the prosecution of the New Black Panthers in the voter intimidation case exposed this philosophy endemic in the Dept. of Justice (read: News Alert: Obama Administration Including Dept. of Justice Encourage and Support Racist Unequal Justice of Black Over White – “Payback Time”).
Such a policy is reprehensible and needs to be extirpated. So should it's chief proponents: Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder
			
			Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Ideology Obama Political Cartoon Racism Reverse Racism with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 5
			It’s a Good Start…
			
			
			
			Posted in Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 5
			Miracle of Medicine?
			
			Modern Wonders of Medicine?:
A Japanese doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we took the kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."
A German doctor said, "That's nothing, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."
A British doctor said, "In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half of a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."
A Chicago doctor, not to be outdone said, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brains out of Chicago, put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work."
			
			Posted in Doctors Obama with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 5
			Massachusetts Failed Healthcare Reform Plan Is A Microcosm of What to Expect With Obamacare
			
			For those who continue to support Obamacare and believe the fallacious claims regarding its benefits including substantial cost saving, maintenance of quality, easy availability of care with no rationing, we have a reality check for you: examine the Massachusetts “experiment” in healthcare. It is an unmitigated failure on the premier and expected fronts – cost, quality and availability.
The Massachusetts healthcare system should portend what America can expect when such a plan is implemented nationally. Well, actually worse as it would be run by the Federal Government.
Costs Soaring After Bay State Health Change 

Sally C. Pipes  06/30/2010
Anyone wanting a preview of Obama-Care need just focus on Massachusetts, the state that provided the blueprint for Obama's plan. It makes a great case for making haste in repealing ObamaCare.
In Massachusetts, health care prices are out of control, emergency rooms are overcrowded, the government is at war with itself and private insurers are running in the red, refusing to enter critical markets on the government's unrealistic terms.
The party line now is that the Bay State's reform was not about cost control but rather expanding access to care. The program's backers claim that the price spiral they find themselves in was expected, anticipated, even if they didn't actually have a plan for it.
That's a revisionist's tale. In early 2006, the plan's backers — led by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney — adamantly asserted that his plan would in fact control costs, provide universal coverage and improve the quality of care. (If this sounds familiar, it's because Obama's team borrowed the marketing scripts.)
Disinterested outsiders predicted that both prices and total costs would most likely increase under the government-dominated system, since massive new demand, reimbursed at the lowest prices, would be forced on a fixed supply. They were shouted down by insiders vested in getting the reform passed.
Guess who was right?
Two data points are harbingers of collapse. First, an academic study "The Effect of Massachusetts' Health Reform on Employer-Sponsored Insurance Premiums" by professors John F. Cogan, R. Glenn Hubbard and Daniel Kessler, confirmed the prediction.
Massachusetts' reform not only did not decrease prices and spending, as promised, but prices are increasing at rates greater than national trend lines and greater than rates in the Bay State prior to reform.
Three years prior to reform, insurance premiums for employers were increasing 3.7% more slowly in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country.  Today, the opposite is true.  Prices in Massachusetts are increasing 5.7% more than in other states. In Boston, prices for employer-provided family plans are increasing 8.2% faster than in other large metropolitan areas.
"Because the plan's main components are the same as those of the new health reform law," the study's authors note, "the effects of the plan provide a window onto the country's future."
Post-reform, prices are up, more people have insurance, and more people are headed to the emergency room.  If this sounds odd, it should. Among former Gov. Romney's favorite arguments for reform was that it would shift dollars from inefficient emergency room care to the more efficient venue of the primary care doctor.
The Obama administration passed its reform on the backs of health insurers — couching the reform as health insurance reform rather than the actual remaking of health care delivery.
In this election year, Gov. Deval Patrick's administration has torn this page from Obama's playbook. He demanded the right to approve insurance prices in February and then had his bureaucrats deny necessary increases in April. Prior to reform, rates had to be actuarially sound. Post-reform, it's more important that they be politically sound.
Those in his own bureaucracy charged with making sure that insurers can pay their bills called this a "train wreck" and put three insurers under solvency watch. The Patrick administration stood resolute in its election-year pandering. "It's unacceptable for consumers to be treated this way and it will not be tolerated," thundered Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner Patrick Murphy, in April.
Last week, the administration's own hearing officers sided with the first insurance company whose case made it through the process. The increased rates, it determined, were fair and necessary.
The Patrick administration's political folks, like Romney's before, will not be swayed by inconvenient facts. Insurance commissioner Murphy "strongly disagrees" with his own hearing officers' ruling.
Is it any wonder then that the state's bureaucracy responsible for managing its health care cannot entice any of the state's major insurance carriers to offer plans to small businesses?  Carriers representing 90% of the state's insurance market share are refusing to offer plans to small business through the state's Connector.
"Given the rate cap that the administration has imposed on the health plans, none of them is in a position to enter into any new endeavors with the state at this time," explains Eric Linzer, a spokesperson for the industry association.  State officials have responded by sending letters to insurance carriers threatening legal action.
Get ready to wait, America — unless ObamaCare is repealed and reversed.
• Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. Her next book, "The Truth About ObamaCare" (Regnery Publishing), will be released in August.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539035/201006301859/Costs-Soaring-After-Bay-State-Health-Change.aspx
			
			Posted in Healthcare Reform ObamaCare Rationing with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 3
			Obama Doesn’t Grasp The Pain Associated With High Unemployment Rate
			
			Obama surely "feels" the pain of all Americans, especially the unemployed. In a somewhat dismissive way to the public and also patting himself on the back for what he perceives as his effective policies, he notes that the unemployment rate is at least not "12, 13 or 15 percent".
Obama, just admit that your policies are not working and that you decided to change course to lower taxes and less government spending. 

			
			Posted in Obama Unemployment Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 3
			McChrystal and Obama: Leadership and Afghanistan
			
			
			
			Posted in Afghanistan Leadership Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 3
			Why Obama Couldn’t Meet With BP’s CEO for 58 Days After Oil Spill
			
			

			
			Posted in Gulf BP Oil Spill Incompetence Obama Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
		
	
		
							
			Jul 2
			A Disarming President Is Disastrous
			
			Millions of misguided voters found Obama to be quite articulate and disarming before the Presidential elections. Who knew that these “skills” would be applied in a widespread manner such as in arms negotiations and national defense? In case you missed it, Obama is effectively unilaterally disarming the United States and exposing us to a future apocalypse by mandating reductions, removal and/or cancellations of defensive and offensive weaponry.
Such actions are suicidal, indefensible and irresponsible. As discussed in the following article, Obama’s thorough disarming of our country will make us infinitely more vulnerable not just to Russia or China but also to North Korea, Iran, small belligerent nations and terrorists groups.
In our opinion, if Obama sets these actions in motion, Congress with public pressure should investigate the possibility of grounds for impeachment.
Dropping The Shield

Investors Business Daily 06/30/2010
National Security: The administration is ready to sign a treaty stripping us of our ability to defend ourselves against enemy nuclear missiles, including Iran's and North Korea's. In space, no one can hear you surrender.
On Monday, the ground-based Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, part of the U.S. missile defense shield, successfully shot down a ballistic missile launched from a ship's deck off Kauai, Hawaii. The test simulated an Iranian SCUD launched from the deck of a ship off the U.S. coast, which, if armed with a nuke, could devastate the American heartland.
The simulated Scud was launched from the deck of the decommissioned 603-foot amphibious assault ship Tripoli. U.S. Army soldiers of the 6th Air Defense Artillery Brigade from Fort Bliss, Texas, successfully intercepted it with a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor.
Missile defense, the dream of President Reagan, is a successful reality. With a layered system of ground-based, long-range interceptors, the sea-based Aegis system and theater systems such as the Patriot and THAAD, we can defend against — rather than just avenge — a ballistic missile attack.
Yet our disarmer in chief, President Obama, stands ready to strip us naked before our enemies by signing a treaty designed to demilitarize space. Since interceptors such as THAAD are designed to hit their targets on the edge of space and can be modified to kill satellites, such a treaty would effectively ban their use.
Almost simultaneously on Monday, the Obama administration unveiled a new space policy that reverses the Bush administration policy of unrestricted access to and operations in space. The Bush policy, released in August 2006, said it "rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space." We had a right to defend ourselves.
That right will be surrendered unilaterally by a new space policy under which the U.S. will "consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies."
Such fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and this administration does not have a good track record of enhancing the national security of the United States. For example, it has cut the number of ground-based interceptors planned for Alaska and Hawaii, both within range of North Korea's Taepodong-2.
It has also betrayed our Polish and Czech allies by scrapping plans for a similar system in Europe. And it has scrapped tested and ready systems like the Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), a modified Boeing 747-F that can be deployed anywhere in the world, loitering off an enemy's coast to destroy its missiles in their vulnerable boost phase. And it's reusable.
These "proposals and concepts" could come soon in the form of the PAROS (prevention of arms race in space) treaty. Like the nuclear freeze once proposed at the height of the Cold War, these Munich clones are designed not to prevent war, but to disarm America.
Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, among others, would like to see us unilaterally give up our ability to render their huge investments in nuclear missiles irrelevant.
A simple Iranian Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high above the U.S. It would wreak near total devastation on America's technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure. The ship could then be scuttled, taking the identity of the attacker with it.
If a hostile power detonated a nuclear weapon high over the U.S., generating an electro-magnetic pulse that would fry virtually every circuit and electronic device in the country, America and its economy could be sent back a century or more.
Iran has practiced launching and detonating Scuds in midflight from ships in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack.
Surrendering missile defense through such a treaty amounts to more unilateral disarmament in the face of dangerous and hostile enemies. The president wants us to rally around a white flag.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539037/201006301859/Dropping-The-Shield.aspx
			
			Posted in Ideology Impeach Incompetence Nuclear weapons Obama Security with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jul 1
			America’s Present Government: A Kleptocracy
			
			
			
			Posted in Corruption Democrat Government Control Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi Obama with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 1
			Severe Additional Environmental Impact In Gulf Related to Obama’s Negligence and Incompetence
			
			
			
			Posted in Incompetence Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jun 30
			And Just When You Thought That Things Couldn’t Get Worse…
			
			
			
			Posted in Cap and Trade Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 30
			Obama Administration Negotiating For and From A Position of Weakness
			
			The United States is headed by among its most inept, internationally scorned, ridiculed and disrespected Presidents ever (Jimmy Carter, an Obama advisor, is the competition for this “honor”). He is universally seen as a feckless amateur without leadership skills and a zero intimidation factor.
The anti-Reagan.
Add this to his far-felt pacifist beliefs and throw in a far left political appointee with little practical experience and the physiognomy of a school board member to serve as an arms negotiator with the ruthless Russians under Putin … and this spells a disaster in the making.
A sheep negotiating with wolves.
We are not safe while Obama remains our President!
The consequences of his ineptitude, lack of leadership and common sense, his destructive pacifism and quixotic ideologies are real existential threats to our country.
Missing Defense

Investors Business Daily   06/18/2010
Undersecretary of state for international security and arms control Ellen Tauscher


National Security: There seems to be only one thing White House arms negotiators want more than a reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons — a reduction in U.S. missile defenses to protect us from such weapons.
The Washington Times' Bill Gertz reports that U.S. diplomats are secretly negotiating with Russia to link nuclear arms reduction to limits on our anti-missile defenses.
As Gertz points out, "Pro-arms-control officials within the administration dislike missile defenses, viewing them as an impediment to offensive arms agreements."
Ellen Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, has been talking to Moscow's deputy foreign minister, Sergei Rybakov, and that in and of itself should generate fears.
Tauscher's qualifications for her current job amount to little beyond her experience as a Democratic Party fundraiser and seven terms as a San Francisco congresswoman with a reputation, according to the media at least, as a centrist, but a voting record that shows her to be an unalloyed liberal.
Tauscher let it be known when she left the House for the State Department last year that her priority was to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.
If that requires giving away the store on missile defense, it's worth it in the worldview of an administration that was sure an extended hand would lead Iran to end its nuclear program.
Deputy Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiator Frank Rose less than a month ago said at a London conference that the Obama administration was seeking a deal on missile defense "cooperation" via the Tauscher-Rybakov negotiations.
As quoted by Gertz, Rose said, "The door to tangible, mutually beneficial missile defense cooperation with the United States, and potentially with NATO, is wide open."
President Obama has already abandoned the Czechs and the Poles on missile defense against Russian aggression under the rule of former KGB operative Vladimir Putin.
Are we now going to leave ourselves defenseless too?
It's worth remembering the crucial role that a commitment to missile defense played in the demise of the Soviet empire.
Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky noted that President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, and the realization that Moscow didn't have the resources to compete with it, made Mikhail Gorbachev's advisers "finally accept demands for internal reform."
As British historian Andrew Roberts notes in his "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900," Reagan himself would call strategic missile defense "the single most important reason, on the United States' side, for the historic breakthroughs that were to occur" in the years before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Yet the Obama administration's attitude is like that of the liberal internationalists of the 1980s, described by Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in his autobiography: "The idea that any country might try to defend itself against the nuclear weapons of another country was not only revolutionary, it was sacrilegious."
As Roberts notes, detentists at the time "alternately (and contradictorily) denounced" missile defense "as expensively unworkable and strategically destabilizing."
The decades since have proved that missile defense is fantastically workable. The only thing that will stop free people from defending themselves against nuclear missiles is leaders deluded by notions of utopianism and appeasement.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537902/201006181904/Missing-Defense.aspx
			
			Posted in Foreign Policy Ideology Incompetence Leadership Nuclear weapons Obama Russia Security with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jun 29
			Obama’s Ineptness, Lack of Leadership and Radical Ideologies Have Exacerbated Crises
			
			
			
			Posted in Arizona Ideology Illegal Immigration Incompetence Leadership Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jun 28
			Beaches of Pensacola, Florida Now Saturated With Oil
			
			Thanks to Obama's dereliction of duty, lack of leadership, boundless incompetence and priorities placed elsewhere (on HIMSELF), pristine and white sand beaches on the Gulf coast are becoming saturated with oil and unusable.
Remember these photos in November at election time! 







			
			Posted in Gulf BP Oil Spill Incompetence Leadership Obama with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 28
			Obama’s Nonpareil Arrogance and Narcissism
			
			
			
			Posted in Arrogance Narcissism Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 28
			News Alert: Obama Administration Including Dept. of Justice Encourage and Support Racist Unequal Justice of Black Over White – “Payback Time”
			
			We have always vehemently felt that the dismissal by the Obama Administration of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of their racist, double-standard ideology and not because of lack of evidence. The U.S. had all but won the case yet when it was dismissed, black Attorney General Eric Holder stonewalled all who sought an explanation for the action.
Finally, we now have an answer provided by an attorney within the Justice Dept. who was directly involved in the case. This attorney, J. Christian Adams, has provided explicit inside information on this particular case as well as the mindset and ideologies of those within the Justice Dept. What he reveals in an excoriating expose is precisely what we expected and what is at the ideological core of Obama and his Administration: anti-White racism and a double-standard of ignoring minority perpetrated acts of lawlessness while prosecuting those where Whites were the violators.
This should come as no surprise to those who have investigated or paid close attention to even parts of Obama’s past. His 20 years in the Black Nationalist, anti-White, anti-American Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago which was led by Rev. Wright and honored and revered the despicably racist, anti-Semitic and anti-American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farakkhan. (See video as refresher). His associations with many other black racists over much of his life (check the category Reverse Racism for more).
The endemic (reverse) racism in the government fostered, facilitated and condoned by Obama and his appointees MUST NOT BE TOLERATED! 
We must widely expose, condemn and attack this corrupt and illegal attitude and behavior which starts at the top: Obama
OBAMA MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!!
Inside the Black Panther case Anger, ignorance and lies

By J. Christian Adams  June 25, 2010
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers.
After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.
Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.
Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.
Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.
J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month. He blogs at electionlawcenter.com.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/inside-the-black-panther-case-anger-ignorance-and-/?page=1
			
			Posted in Anti-American Attorney General Eric Holder Black nationalism Corruption Ideology Legal rights New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism with 3 Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jun 27
			November Can’t Come Soon Enough
			
			
			
			Posted in Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 27
			Obama Continues To Lie And Try To Thwart Arizona’s Ability to Protect Itself and the Rest of the Country
			
			The Obama Administration egregiously lied to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer regarding the federal government’s assistance on illegal immigration. Instead, through a Hillary Clinton information leak while in South America, it was revealed that he would instead sue Arizona regarding its new illegal immigration law.
Both the impending action and the way this was exposed are  despicable!
Compounding the corrupt and destructive and obstructive behavior of Obama, he told Arizona Senator Kyl that he had no intention whatsoever of securing the border until a comprehensive immigration solution was passed.
That’s right. He is subjecting Arizona as well as the rest of the country to invasion by violent Mexican drug gangs and members of the drug cartel, countless illegal aliens as well as Islamic terrorists from around the world.
And this is all for political reasons to serve his purposes.
This is not the action of a President of the United States. This is the action of an anti-President. A mole. Someone who does not care about the welfare of this country and who would rather see it harmed or destroyed.
Obama has stated this in his own words in a variety of ways. His actions over the last year and a half comport with this pernicious desire.
Obama Must Be Removed From Office!
Support Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in her battle to protect the state of Arizona as well as the rest of the United States against the malignant actions of Obama and his administration.

			
			Posted in Anti-American Arizona Illegal Immigration Impeach Obama Security Terrorism Videos with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			Jun 26
			Obama’s Narcissism Trumps Political Prudence
			
			One of the first moves that Obama made when becoming President was to remove a bust of Winston Churchill and send it back to Great Britain.  This unwarranted act was politically imprudent and irresponsible and was interpreted as such by one of our greatest longtime allies. It should have also served as a portent for all as to the radical direction that Obama would take and ideology that he subscribes to.
We are seeing all this unfolding as our allies are peeling off and our enemies are becoming more brazen. (See Obama's International Reputation is Deservedly  Abysmal.)
Obama White House loved the magazine cover of him walking on water

Andrew Malcolm   June 21, 2010

Ever since the Obama White House got rid of that British colonial era bust of Sir Winston Churchill on-loan from Great Britain, they've been on the lookout for new less offensive art.
Now we learn, thanks to Howard Kurtz on CNN, that Obama adviser David Axelrod made a call to the editor of the New Yorker magazine requesting a copy of the Feb. 1 cover of the magazine showing No. 44 walking on water. (No, not the newly-resurfaced Gulf of Mexico.)
The only stipulation: The cover art had to be autographed by artist Barry Blitt.
Here's the exchange between Kurtz and magazine editor David Remnick on "Reliable Sources":
REMNICK: Well, they wanted a signed version of the cover. And, you know, there were other covers maybe they didn't like as well. But I think they got over it. In fact, they got over it a lot faster than some other people.
KURTZ: What did Axelrod's office tell you about Obama's personal reaction?
REMNICK: I think Axelrod and Obama were laughing hysterically over this cover. And the fact to their credit, within a matter of weeks, that they reversed the really sinking trend that they were experiencing, and they passed health care. And the White House certainly reversed its downward trend pretty quickly after that cover. I'm not saying the cover was anywhere near responsible for it.
KURTZ: Well, it's a good thing you didn't have him sinking all the way into the water after Scott Brown's victory.
We'll add below one of the other Obama covers that Remnick alludes to, referencing Obama's alleged Muslim ties from the 2008 campaign.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/obama-new-yorker-walk-on-water.html
			
			Posted in Ideology Narcissism Obama with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
							
			 26
			More Intolerable Obama Lies To Impose His Ideology
			
			
			
			Posted in Arrogance Obama Political Cartoon with No Comments
			
			More: 
			 Print This Post
			
		
				
		« Older Entries

Categories

Archives

Twitter

Tags

Links

Comments